Asolutely right. Mine sites are multi-faceted and in many ways unique in the
interest they hold for archaeologists, geologists, mineralogists, mining
historians, ecologists, undergound explorers, flytippers, etc. I wrote an
editorial about this in the Plymouth Mineral and Mining Club Journal back in
the early 1970's so there is nothing new in this, only perhaps an increasing
awarenesss of the need to balance conflicting uses where they begin to
damage the integrity of the site, threaten health and safety and disturb the
legitimate interests of other user groups.
Part of the problem seems to stem from a deep rooted popular perception that
abandoned mines by virtue of being abandoned do not belong to anyone and in
some cases it is indeed difficult to establish ownership of a mine,
particularly when the mineral rights are not owned by the surface landowner.
Mostly however surface owners are sufficiently concerned about their
liability for the safety of people entering onto their property nowadays, to
take a real interest in securing and regulating access to mine entrances on
their land, so the landowner is in pole postion to control and monitor use
of sites. In this respect a leaflet for landowners indicating the main
issues involved in managing an abandoned mine site would be of great
benefit. Perhaps a role for NAMHO - I seem to recall that they have produced
something like this for the users of mine sites already?
An increasing number of sites or mine buildings now have some form of
statutory protection - listing, SSSI, RIGS (County geology site) etc.
although it is by no means easy to discover which designation, if any may
relate to any particular site. There is also general legislation such as the
Wildlife and Countryside Act and legislation affecting bats, rare plants
etc.
Special interest groups all have different and often conflicting needs.
Geologists and mineralogists need to dig and expose new material whereas
archaeologists and ecologists require the least possible disturbance of a
site.This is a particular problem as the reason for a mine being there in
the first place is the nature of the mineralisation. It is a common
misconception that we know all there is to know about the nature of the
mineralisation at any abandoned mine, but for the majority of abandoned
mines no specimens of the ore have been systematically preserved for study
and thereis no complete mineralogical record. Even now the discovery of
unrecorded localities for rare minerals and indeed the discovery of minerals
new to Britain is not uncommon.
These conflicting user needs are increasingly being understood and
addressed. Designations such as world heritage sites recognise the need for
geological/ mineralogical collection and study, the Caldbeck Fells are
(controversially) regulated by a licencing scheme and English Nature held a
conference last year to discuss the issue. Meanwhile County Geodiversity
Action Plans are being prepared to further address the need for
understanding and management of geoscience sites.
In essence mine sites are important, fragile and difficult to manage. Given
mutual understanding the values and needs of different specialist user
groups can be respected and understood and their use of sites can continue
without unnecessary restriction within the presently evolving frameworks
mentioned above.
It does not do to over-react to the excesses of the inevitable minority who
will always cause problems for all disciplines and who damage the interests
of all who genuinely seek access to these sites to pursue their special
interests.
-----Original Message-----
From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
John Mason
Sent: 26 January 2005 02:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Virtuous Lady Mine, Devon
This is an old problem which generally raises some pretty over-the-top
reactions!
Mines are surrounded by too many single-issue pressure-groups all competing
for what they each deem to be a site's most important feature, be it bats,
archaeology, caving or minerals. Some mineral dealers have removed large
areas in the past, albeit nothing compared to what a new mining company may
have done in the past by reworking old stopes in a formerly abandoned
working!
If a site is deemed to be of major significance, for whatever reason, then
it demands protection. If not, it doesn't. Virtuous Lady mine is of great
mineralogical importance, although most of this lies in "old-time"
specimens which were removed by miners during its working and are now
housed in museums worldwide. Good job collecting wasn't banned back then or
museums would not have mineral collections and our knowledge of
mineralisation would not have progressed as it has. Given that
mineralisation is the reason why the mine was there in the first place, I
am not impressed when I hear such sweeping dismissal of mineralogists.
I agree however that certain individuals (NOT mineralogists!) have created
much damage over the years and hence bad publicity by trashing sites with
other features of importance in order to make a few quid on the side.
Unauthorised blasting is way out of order and something the police ought to
take more than a passing interest in.
I would have thought a word with English Nature's geological conservation
people would not go amiss. The site does not appear to have protected
status from the information I have to hand but the historical importance of
its minerals gives it significance in this field. Email me off-list if you
need a little assistance!
Cheers - John
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.836 / Virus Database: 569 - Release Date: 16/01/2005
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.836 / Virus Database: 569 - Release Date: 16/01/2005
|
