If Interested. California Court Upholds Dredge Ban

[ScubaDetector]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-court-decide-fight-over-073808836.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[kcm]

This makes the 4th post I've seen concerning this. Makes me want to puke!

...Thanks for the post SD.

 

[Hoser John]

Schizophrenia is the act of repeating a failed action in exactly the same way and expecting a different positive result. It was dead with the courts press release about a month ago. Onward to San Bernadino where Judge Ochoa will now issue his final ruling since this is out of the way. That giant sucking sound is over $3 million being flushed down the toilet into LAWYERS AND COURTS coffers. No surprises here to say the least unfortunately sic sic sic bloody stinkn' mess when every criminal,pervert and scum of the earth has more rights than a dredger......John

 

[darmentle]

Yea i saw this yesterday sucks, I dont dredge and i am not familiar with dredging, can you still high bank in ca?

 

[ClaimStake]

Yea i saw this yesterday sucks, I dont dredge and i am not familiar with dredging, can you still high bank in ca?

you can but you can't. I wouldn't risk it.

 

[The Dirt Pirate]

Can we even jump in the river in gold country anymore without having to worry about getting in trouble with the law? This country is slowly becoming a dictatorship. Sooner or later we will all be walking around with ID implants and being completely under the government's control until another civil war breaks out. That's just my theory.

 

[kcm]

Can we even jump in the river in gold country anymore without having to worry about getting in trouble with the law? This country is slowly becoming a dictatorship. Sooner or later we will all be walking around with ID implants and being completely under the government's control until another civil war breaks out. That's just my theory.

Before that would happen to me, I'd move back to the unbearable heat/humidity of Texas! ....Or maybe better yet, up to the Arctic! ...Of course, I don't think there's much of a chocolate supply way up there.

 

[Hoser John]

NO hibanking-look at California law post here and all rules/regs/insane $%^& is posted to FW AND Water Quality board insanity also as NO permit forms even formulated yet and NOW google Army Corp as even that permit was allowed to lapse to screw us even worse....John

 

[Clay Diggins]

There are no California laws prohibiting hibanking.

I wonder why so many "prospectors" try to make laws/regulations out to be worse than they are? Drama?

 

[jere64ca]

There are no California laws prohibiting hibanking.

SB 637 Sec. 2.
(e) It is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of vacuum or suction dredges.

(f) A permit issued by the department under this section shall not authorize an activity in violation of other applicable requirements, conditions, or prohibitions governing the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, including those adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board or a regional water quality control board. The department, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the regional water quality control boards shall make reasonable efforts to share information among the agencies regarding potential violations of requirements, conditions, or prohibitions governing the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment.

(g) For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals. This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

SB 637 pretty much screwed us with the definition of what a dredge is considered.

 

[Clay Diggins]

SB 637 Sec. 2.
(e) It is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of vacuum or suction dredges.

(f) A permit issued by the department under this section shall not authorize an activity in violation of other applicable requirements, conditions, or prohibitions governing the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, including those adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board or a regional water quality control board. The department, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the regional water quality control boards shall make reasonable efforts to share information among the agencies regarding potential violations of requirements, conditions, or prohibitions governing the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment.

(g) For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals. This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

SB 637 pretty much screwed us with the definition of what a dredge is considered.

Good thing you didn't go to law school jere64ca. You would have flunked out.

There are commas in that sentence. Try this:

the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals.

Not a word in there about highbanking, pumping water or powered sluices. The subject of the regulation, the definition and the law is suction dredging. Not farm irrigation, water treatment or pumping water for mining. The law and the regulation are very specific.

The rule of law is that existing laws are never repealed by implication. To ban highbanking or water pumping without specifically saying so in the law is impossible under the California State Constitution.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 3.
(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or
other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision
that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings
demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need
for protecting that interest.

The law is clear suction dredging without a permit is unlawful. Trying to read something else into that straightforward regulation of "suction dredge equipment" is chasing ghosts. There is no prohibition in law of highbanking.

Heavy Pans

 

[spaghettigold]

NO hibanking-look at California law post here and all rules/regs/insane $%^& is posted to FW AND Water Quality board insanity also as NO permit forms even formulated yet and NOW google Army Corp as even that permit was allowed to lapse to screw us even worse....John

they stole irretrievable dredging years of your life.
There must be a good grav.dre -spot where you are,atleast you get a good part of the feeling back

 

[jere64ca]

Good thing you didn't go to law school jere64ca. You would have flunked out.

oh no,,,, no law school for me! I sure like your version better than mine and will use it if encountered by Fish and Game.

 

[Hoser John]

READ THE LINK TO FW SITE AS ENGINES USED IN HIGHBANKING IN REGS WATER QUALITY. Playing ostrich and inserting your cranium up your ....don't make it right to send out folks to get HUGE fines whilst you play your I play by old school rules-Read, educate and old posted bs from laws matter no more in this state of total INSANITY-John

 

[Clay Diggins]

READ THE LINK TO FW SITE AS ENGINES USED IN HIGHBANKING IN REGS WATER QUALITY. Playing ostrich and inserting your cranium up your ....don't make it right to send out folks to get HUGE fines whilst you play your I play by old school rules-Read, educate and old posted bs from laws matter no more in this state of total INSANITY-John

I've read the link John. You still haven't provided a law, a regulation, a permit, a fine or a ticket resulting from that bit of nonsense on a website.

No person has ever been affected by the information you provided except those who follow your interpretation and actually believe that all mining is banned in California.

Continue to scare the greenhorns out of the gold fields and there will be more for the people who aren't afraid of their own shadow. Seen that game played for 40+ years now.

Heavy Pans

 

[ecmjamsit]

Anybody can write a legal opinion. That's what the judges do. The intent of the Mining Act was to allow people to create real wealth. A federal court order can overturn a state court ruling. Even if it is the Supreme Court of the state! The state needs to prove the damage to the environment. My opinion is that the state would prefer the majority to be on the welfare rolls. Easier to control the populace and steer public opinion. I'm sure a scientific study would show the benefits of dredging by removing the mercury, lead etc. from the water.
The only way to get back to dredging in California would be to get some support in the US Congress. A federal law is needed. Who do you think would be more amenable to dredging, Clinton or Trump? If you can get enough people to agree, you can get a federal law that is pro dredging. I have a placer mining claim here in Colorado and I'm sure if you get enough Californians to move here, they will ban it here too.

 

[QNCrazy]

Good thing you didn't go to law school jere64ca. You would have flunked out.

There are commas in that sentence. Try this:



Not a word in there about highbanking, pumping water or powered sluices. The subject of the regulation, the definition and the law is suction dredging. Not farm irrigation, water treatment or pumping water for mining. The law and the regulation are very specific.

The rule of law is that existing laws are never repealed by implication. To ban highbanking or water pumping without specifically saying so in the law is impossible under the California State Constitution.



The law is clear suction dredging without a permit is unlawful. Trying to read something else into that straightforward regulation of "suction dredge equipment" is chasing ghosts. There is no prohibition in law of highbanking.

Heavy Pans

Nailed It!!!!! You almost have to be an English major. People need to pay more attention to the puctuation and grammar, instead of focusing on specific words. I knew what you were trying to say Jere. Thanks for making it clear Clay.

 

[Hoser John]

Bill Text - SB-637 Suction dredge mining: permits.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

Go right to the source of our pain and NOT the cherry picked preconceived tiny post with bits and pieces of the rules/regs that fit their own wants. Let the sic sic sic truth keep you out of harms way-John

 

[chlsbrns]

I've read the link John. You still haven't provided a law, a regulation, a permit, a fine or a ticket resulting from that bit of nonsense on a website.

.

Heavy Pans

If you go to the link below and click the first link you will see that you can highbank after getting a permit that costs a minimum of $1,120.00 and apply for other permits that are good for only one location. Each new location requires the same permits all over again.

State Water Resources Control Board

Highbanking without the permits = fines up to $25,000.00 per day!

In other words highbanking isn't banned but no one in their right mind would pay the permit fees or highbank without the permits.

 

[rodoconnor]

Anybody can write a legal opinion. That's what the judges do. The intent of the Mining Act was to allow people to create real wealth. A federal court order can overturn a state court ruling. Even if it is the Supreme Court of the state! The state needs to prove the damage to the environment. My opinion is that the state would prefer the majority to be on the welfare rolls. Easier to control the populace and steer public opinion. I'm sure a scientific study would show the benefits of dredging by removing the mercury, lead etc. from the water.
The only way to get back to dredging in California would be to get some support in the US Congress. A federal law is needed. Who do you think would be more amenable to dredging, Clinton or Trump? If you can get enough people to agree, you can get a federal law that is pro dredging. I have a placer mining claim here in Colorado and I'm sure if you get enough Californians to move here, they will ban it here too.

There have been many scientific studies, since the 1950s, regarding suction dredging. They concur that dredging is BENEFICIAL to the environment. This case was never about science . Non-consumptive use of natural resources is the heartfelt belief of the closed minded wackos