Adrian's letter regarding "head gear" and Ben's letter regarding
preservation of mine sites leave me feeling that some members of this
page are very naive in a very dangerous way.
As an ex-miner, I most certainly want to see mining sites preserved,
BUT---
1.     I have had too much experience with "rock" to ever consider it
solid and safe.
        In a working mine (where profits make it economical) drifts,
shafts, stopes, etc.
        are constantly being "barred" or "scaled" to make them "safe".
I would probably
        drive cavers to distraction by wanting to make sure that a place
was free of loose
        rock before entering it.  They would be angry with me when I
insisted that they
        should pay for any necessary rescue efforts if they got into
trouble.  They probably
        wouldn't understand my anger that they placed rescue personnel
in danger.  Work
        necessary to keep old mine sites "reasonably safe" will be so
expensive that it could
        only be done on a very few selected sites.  Without profits from
ore production it is
        unlikely that it will be possible to obtain sufficient funds for
even those few.
2.    Even kept up, these sites will contain numerous hazards for the
inexperienced.
        Additional funds will be needed to properly guard the sites
against entry by children
        and naive adults. Adrianne reports that there are still 100
standing "head gear" (In
        our area we call them "head frames").  Even if the "shafts"
(raises, winzes, or
        whatever) beneath them are inaccessible, the structures,
themselves, offer many
        hazards for the unwary.  Are the organizations in charge of them
posting 24-hour
        guards around them?  If not, are they prepared to face law-suits
because they are
        maintaining these hazards?  One can't blame mining companies and
governments for
        destroying  hazards that the general populous doesn't wish to
maintain properly.
3.    Governments have limited resources.  Would anyone advocate
spending money to
       preserve mine sites which should be spent on medicare, the
military, or any other
        NECESSARY program.  Those who wish to preserve these sites must
be prepared
        to pay the bills.  While I would love to contribute to such a
cause, my entire pension
        wouldn't pay for one guard.  I would be delighted to contribute
a couple of shifts
        per week working as a guard IF I LIVED CLOSE TO THE MINE SITE.
That
        would leave only 19 more shifts to be taken care of.  Perhaps,
if a few guards are
        attacked by hooligans, I will have second thoughts about that
offer.
4.    Peter made a very valid point when he pointed out that many of the
interested
        societies have played their own part in destroying material, or
at least, putting it out
        of the reach of archaeologists. Do these people really
understand what it is that they
        are trying to preserve?  When they attempt to introduce a
concept of the miner as
        some kind of hero, I find it most naive.  Mining is a mercenary
business and
        everyone engaged in it is a mercenary.  Men like my father
worked in mines from
        necessity; hating every minute they were underground.  Men like
myself may have
        enjoyed the work, but we were really interested in the pay.  We
worked harder than
        most people on the surface, and we worked in much more dangerous
and
        unpleasant places.  We believed that we were entitled to higher
pay than people in
        other occupations and we demanded it.   If we weren't being paid
higher pay, we
        would have worked elsewhwere.  We have no respect for people who

        go into dangerous places for simple excitement.  We had all the
excitement we
        needed without looking for it.  Our greatest respect went to
those who did their
        work even though they were afraid. We knew that we required the
sympathy of
        other people, when we struggled for better conditions, but we
weren't happy with
        those who wanted to shut all mines down.
5.    I have stated before on this page my conviction that museums
cartering to the
        general public are the only means of preserving mine sites and
mining history.
        This will most certainly require commercialism, and probably
some loss of historical
        accuracy.  In the Britannia Beach Mining Museum, all the
concentrating machinery
        has long since gone - probably to a working mine.  The people
meeting the public
        are primarily interested in selling souvenirs, etc. that will
make money for the
        society.  They really aren't interested in historical
correctness (the have mislabelled
        some of the shops I worked in and don't want to hear the
truth).  If, however, they
        are successful at what they are doing, they will ensure that at
least some structures
        are preserved (mislabelled or not!).




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%