We Support The 1872 General Mining Law

Signatures 1365 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 28 › »

1. 151
   Name: Skipper Phagan on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 152
   Name: Joe "Ringer" Ringwelski on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 153
   Name: Anonymous on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 154
   Name: Ed Donze on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 155
   Name: Wayne Hale on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 156
   Name: Nolan Thornton on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 157
   Name: Paul Pogrant on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 158
   Name: Anonymous on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments: I fully support the mining law as it now stands. Please, I ask you to support the small miner and protect the law of 1872 and it's updates. I am a prospector and want to retain the right to continue this amazing outdoor activity. Thank you.

   Flag
9. 159
   Name: Harry Rhoades on Mar 2, 2008

   Comments: I agree with the above statement and add that we also need to be able to access these lands for prospecting purposes without interference from government agencies such as The Bureau of Land Managment and The U.S. Forestry Service or any other agency of any kind regardless of reason.

   Flag
10. 160
    Name: Bill on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 161
    Name: Anthony Pizzola on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments: The 1872 mining law needs to left untouched.

    Flag
12. 162
    Name: Stanford Parsons on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 163
    Name: Gail Dicamillo on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 164
    Name: John Samuels on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 165
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments: Vice President of The Ohio State Prospectors Assn. and small scale miner !!!

    Flag
16. 166
    Name: Larry M. Chase on Mar 2, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 167
    Name: Don Brown on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 168
    Name: Eathan Mertz on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 169
    Name: DAve Santini on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 170
    Name: Anna Jones on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 171
    Name: LARRY FLYNN on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 172
    Name: Thomas W Legerton on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 173
    Name: Daniel W King on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 174
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 175
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 176
    Name: Christy Morris on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 177
    Name: Jim Norman on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments: I missed this one please send me more e-mail alerts. Thank-you

    Flag
28. 178
    Name: BRENT RICHARDSON on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 179
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 180
    Name: Montine Blevins on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 181
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments: If any changes are to come , the only ones I would agree to is limiting very large commercial operations . Leave the independent small alone , as the original laws intended .

    Flag
32. 182
    Name: Traci Welchman on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 183
    Name: Kenneth Welchman on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 184
    Name: RickSegebrecht on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 185
    Name: Eugene Ciancanelli on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments: As a Professional Geologist registered in California and with over 45 years experience in exploration geology, I think it would be folly for Congress to change a law that has work well for 136 years. Our nation's access to reasonably priced mineral resources has been largely responsible for our prosperity. In the last 50 years we have gone from being largely self sufficient in mineral resources to a net importer on most mineral commodities. That change is largely due to increasing government restrictions on mineral resource development. The proposed changes to the 1872 mining law will further decrease our domestic mineral production, increase our foreign payments deficit, and shift mineral production to countries where environmentally responsible mining does not occur; thus further damaging our planet and economy. Our neighbor Canada is a mineral exporter with a strong Canadian dollar because that country practices sound mineral development policies coupled with prudent environmental protection policies.

    Flag
36. 186
    Name: Don Ross on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 187
    Name: Larry Wright on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments: Enough of our rights have already been eroded recently by the politics of terror. Please protect what is left of our American heritage and keep our mining law intact. Larry Wright

    Flag
38. 188
    Name: Herschel Reeves on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 189
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 190
    Name: Greg Schrontz on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 191
    Name: Larry LeCompte on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 192
    Name: Eric Jones on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments: The 1872 Mining Act should stand, as is.

    Flag
43. 193
    Name: Charlene E. Myers on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 194
    Name: Ray Wilkerson on Mar 3, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 195
    Name: Dain Blackburn on Mar 4, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 196
    Name: Donald DeLauder on Mar 4, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 197
    Name: Rickey on Mar 4, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 198
    Name: Michael Lamarche on Mar 4, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 199
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 4, 2008

    Comments: IAM is what the Big Dude prescribed in 1872! He is the unification of humankind, for once and for all. I come in peace, undecided to anyone, but to who knows "The Prospector and His Protege." -- Vernon Pick and Jack Langton

    Flag
50. 200
    Name: F.J. Forman on Mar 4, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 28 › »