MOUNTAINEERING INSURANCE
Regarding the imminent return of mountaineering insurance, I currently have no further details on implementing rope/ice ax trips. However, I'm getting signals from National that our current M and E-rated leaders will NOT automatically be able to lead previously-banned trips. Some re-certification may be necessary. Acceptable trips may possibly have to be individually approved at a level outside the Chapter. We also must await clearer guidance on what "training" can be conducted "as part of an outing." It's clear that the "training" is intended to refresh previously-acquired skills-NOT to teach the inexperienced.
Eager as we are to get out the ropes/ice axes, surely we can all understand and appreciate the need for zero accident claims... A single claim can destroy everything. Accordingly, my guess now is that we can expect to start off with a relatively few carefully screened trips - certainly not a rush to the peaks. I expect to hear more details soon. - Bill Oliver
CONSERVATION NEWS
by Ron Jones
After 121 years, mining reform hits pay dirt on House floor.

After more than a century of attempts to overhaul the 1572 Mining Law, the overwhelming approval of mining reforms by the House last month marks a historic advance that has environmentalists celebrating.
"For the first time, Congress has moved to revise this creaky old law and protect public lands, public health and the public purse," said Kathryn Hohmann, Washington director of the Sierra Club's Public Lands Program. "After a century of free rein, mining corporations must pay their own way and clean up their mess."
By approving Rep. Nick Rahall's (D-W. Va.) strong mining reform bill by a 3-1 ratio, the House set the stage for a showdown with the Senate, which earlier passed an industry-backed measure that environmentalists called a "sham". Hohmann said the leadership vacuum on the Senate side - several Senate leaders charactenzed the bill authored by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) as nothing more than a "ticket to conference" - is an opportunity for House negotiators to push for the adoption of Rahall's provisions.
Rahall's bill would change the way miners have conducted operations on public lands for 120 years. For the first time, mining companies would have to pay royalties on hardrock minerals - such as platinum, gold and silver - extracted from public lands. A portion of the 8 percent royalty would be earmarked to defray the costs of cleaning up abandoned mines.
Craig's bill offers a 2 percent royalty but undercuts this by allowing mining companies to deduct exploration, production and other costs.
The House bill would also end the process of "patenting", which allows miners to gain title to public lands for as little as $2.50 per acre. The Craig bill would perpetuate this practice.
Environmentalists were disappointed by the weakening of one critical provision of the Rahall bill. Under the 1872 law, miners enjoy an almost inviolable "right to mine" on public lands. A House committee weakened Rahall's proposal by forcing land managers to show that the land would suffer "significant, permanent and irreparable" damage before it could be put off limits to mining. An amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D Ore.) to strengthen this provision won the support of 200 representatives but was defeated on the House Floor.
 
Page Index Prev Page 17 Next Issue Index