The attack to shut down Oregon suction dredging has begun

[Hefty1]

LC2125_DRAFT_2013_Regular_Session.pdf (62KB)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Desert Hermit]

rodoconnor, you're so right, I've known lots of folks that were hit over and over, only problem was their docs usually didn't check for valley fever until several attacks later, or like you said the young simply blow it off. The last I heard the cases have risen 500% in the last few years in the valley here.

On another note Rod, I went out prospecting yesterday, don't you just love it when you're standing at the top of one of the mountains out here and a fighter jet buzzes just a hundred feet over you? Man oh man, that will sure wake a person up,

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[rodoconnor]

They fly through the valleys trying to hide from the radar at Edwards. Pretty cool when you can see the pilot waving at you

 

[Fullpan]

The flocks of doves, heading to water, are not as dramatic, but nice to see them wooshing by you.

 

[ncclaymaker]

In the world of politics, the American people are given "hot buttons" to push - they feel soooo goood while pushing these worthless things. While the political "leaders" screw us all... we get the buttons to push, they get the cash. Follow the money guys... watch what is tied to this bill. They don't really care about some snail or a few salmon eggs getting shredded by a small dredge. They simply want to have the public lock onto a poorly defended target (us), while they continue to feed at the public trough. Trust me, get as p*ssed off as you like, let it pass... we are the poorly defended target.

 

[3029heavy]

Salmon eggs? You mean the ones that are forced to be laid in the stream by hatchery fish when the hatchery closes it's gates cuz their quota was reached? This further *******izing of our fish stocks is purely political. Hatcheries set artificially low quotas just to maintain endangered status for these stocks. Many hatcheries on the upper Columbia don't even clip the adipose fins on their fish, then open fisheries for retention of fin clipped hatchery fish only! What a joke!
And as for dredgers, we create spawning beds. We do not shred eggs! Dredging season in Washington state is set to ensure that dredging doesn't occur during active spawning cycles on our streams.

 

[3029heavy]

Every Oct I see thousands of fish clogging the hatchery intake streams trying to find a way thru the closed gates. I'll post more pix this Oct of that phenomenon. These are just a couple ripe coho locked out and forced to spawn in river

 

[ncclaymaker]

Hey - I'm not trying to be flippant, even though it may come across as such. I'm just a pragmatist. Personally, I couldn't give a damn about some salmon eggs, some snail or whatever. I do know this... follow the money every time. Someone's going to get paid off through a "loop hole" or "exemption" to whatever law is past. They always do.

 

[jog]

Anyone with a DEQ 700 PM dredge permit for Oregon should think about what they will do in regards to the $150,00 surcharge that DEQ is trying to impose on you. If your permit was purchased before SB 838 was passed into law you should not have to pay this fee. "Stand up for what's right".
Quote" I should say again, the State legislature maybe has passed the law requiring the surcharge, but it is unenforceable on those that have already paid/bought the permit for this year prior to the passing of SB 838. What is important to know is when did you buy the permit and when did the Bill pass. It is because of constitution on expost facto laws that is the reason for savings provisions in many of the laws passed by Congress or the States'.

Neither the legislature, nor DEQ can enforce the surcharge on anyone after they have already sold the permit. It can only be required on those who buy the permit after the date the law went into effect. Either we force them to obey the supreme law of the land or you live as subjugated. Of cource that decision is up to the individual!

I for one will not be partisipating in this scam.

 

[jog]

Anyone with a DEQ 700 PM dredge permit for Oregon should think about what they will do in regards to the $150,00 surcharge that DEQ is trying to impose on you. If your permit was purchased before SB 838 was passed into law you should not have to pay this fee. "Stand up for what's right". Quote" I should say again, the State legislature maybe has passed the law requiring the surcharge, but it is unenforceable on those that have already paid/bought the permit for this year prior to the passing of SB 838. What is important to know is when did you buy the permit and when did the Bill pass. It is because of constitution on expost facto laws that is the reason for savings provisions in many of the laws passed by Congress or the States'. Neither the legislature, nor DEQ can enforce the surcharge on anyone after they have already sold the permit. It can only be required on those who buy the permit after the date the law went into effect. Either we force them to obey the supreme law of the land or you live as subjugated. Of cource that decision is up to the individual! I for one will not be partisipating in this scam.

 

[Bejay]

Originally posted by United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 1998
The ordinance's de facto ban on mining on federal land acts as a clear obstacle to the accomplishment of the Congressional purposes and objectives embodied in the Mining Act. Congress has encouraged exploration and mining of valuable mineral deposits located on federal land and has granted certain rights to those who discover such minerals. Federal law also encourages the economical extraction and use of these minerals. The Lawrence County ordinance completely frustrates the accomplishment of these federally encouraged activities. A local government cannot prohibit a lawful use of the sovereign's land that the superior sovereign itself permits and encourages. To do so offends both the Property Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution. The ordinance is prohibitory, not regulatory, in its fundamental character. The district court correctly ruled that the ordinance was preempted. you can read all about it by studying the case "South Canyon South Dakota Placer Mining Ban Found to be Unconstituional".


If you pay particular attention to Oregons' current in-stream water rights 537.332 Definitions for ORS 537.332 to 537 you will read the following: "Establishment of an in-stream water right under the provisions of ORS 537.332 to 537.360 shall not take away or impair any permitted, certificated or decreed right to any waters or to the use of any waters vested prior to the date the instream water right is established pursuant to the provisions of ORS 537.332 to 537.360.
[1987 c.859 §3]"


Any individual who has knowledge of current Federal mining law knows that the "Miner" was Granted "decreed/exclusive rights" to the use of water on federal lands for the purpose of extracting valuable mineral resources per the current mining laws that are still upheld by the US Supreme Court.......... with all do considerations per The Mining Acts of the United States:


Bejay

 

[gold nuggets]

Not doubting what you have posted bejay, but if it is so, why do the courts
continue to rule on the side of the anti-mining concerns and not in favor of
the small scale miners? Why do bills such as SB838 get passed into law by
those that continue to circumnavigate Federally mandated laws? Pm me if the
answers get too involved as I would appreciate your understanding of the
laws. Thanks.......

 

[Bejay]

That is a really good question and I recently asked it often. My son in law is a high ranking major with the Utah Hwy Patrol/State Police. He deals with such things often. The state of Utah has recently passed two laws that conflict with Federal laws and even the constitution. When they effect the vast majority of the public they get challenged and overturned....... it has happened recently in Utah. If a police officer issues a citation that is found to be above and beyond the rule of law it eventually gets challenged.....if it affects a huge population of citizens.

I asked my son-in-law how it is that politicians pass such legislation? The answer he gave was because they can, and power brings forth such actions. We see it often on the news lately: The marijuana and illegal alien issues come to mind.

So states think they have power to pass laws....and they do. If a person is found in violation of a state law the state police can issue citations....and they do...[they must conduct their efforts in accordance with state law(s)]. So an individual ends up going before a state court judge. How must the individual plead? The person must admit to the violation of the state law; if in fact the individual was caught doing so. So the person is guilty of the violation.....pretty simple is it not? But the question then lies in the fact that the individual must prove that the state law is not valid...for one reason or the other....and states don't want to hear that their laws are wrong (politics). States know this, and their laws do in fact cause people to OBEY....until of course a challenge can be heard in a higher court that agrees to hear the case. Then it is again up to the individual to prepare a brief that gives merit to having the case heard.....(attorney....$$$$)

Unfortunately we often see the arguments presented in a brief falling short of the merit necessary to be heard in a higher court. Take the argument of using the "dredging ban" as a "Takings"; which, as I understand it, seeks monetary compensation for the inability of a miner to extract placer gold from a valid mineral claim. Two critical issues appear to halt such consideration to a higher court. 1st is the fact that most placer mining claims are not "proved up" (as if applying for patent) and therefore do not meet the criteria for a takings per court consideration. Second is the fact that a placer mining claim can be mined with other methods......so where is the actual taking? Then of course you have the miners "shooting themselves in the foot" and actually telling a state that they are not really miners but actually hobbyists doing it for recreation....a big ooopppsss! (As we see in Calif where the state sent out questionnaires asking the question of miners/dredgers/claim owners: who replied they did it for recreation!) In Oregon miners/dredgers have been obtaining recreational permits from the state for that particular mining method and now the state expands that contractual agreement to a limit and $$$$$.

Give a state power and agree to follow it and you get what you contractually agree to.....IMHO.

But the most important thing to consider is the "ARGUEMENT" before the court. Is it one that proceeds to win or one that proceeds to lose? States have a whole bag of tricks to keep it in the state court system.....and they know $$$$$ becomes the critical issue for any challenge. In the political arena money grows on trees. In the real world we have to bear the brunt of legal costs.

I am no attorney and these are just my observations. You can take them for what they are worth, but I have spent a lot of time trying to understand how all such issues have come to haunt the small scale miner....I am a dredger and have been for 35 years. I feel the pain.

I have dealt with two other major "anti" issues that simply dwarf the small scale mining "anti" issues and I have not seen a "major win" yet. But it is up to all of us in the mining community to become "activists" and fight back. Knowledge is a great tool, and tactics are very important....especially in legal challenges...IMHO

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

Here is a better answer as conveyed to me recently by a very knowledgeable individual.

"In every state the first Court of General Jurisdiction is the Court of Record. The name of these courts vary but their function is the same. Courts of General Jurisdiction can hear any case and form a record. Once a record is formed it then becomes the only record of that case.

Forming that record is very important because if you blow it and leave out facts or law or don't cause the court to form a proper record you blew your chance and are stuck with what you presented there - no do-overs for you. Others may come to the same court and present other facts or law on the same matter and form a different record. Those people may "win" when you "lost" because you didn't get the right facts and law "on the record".

This happens a lot lately in Mining Law cases. Some organization comes along and presents facts and law to, oh let's say for example complain that the state took their property without compensation when they banned dredging ( just for example ). They present law that says a "taking" of their property must be compensated but fail to point out the fact that their property is of a character that legally must receive compensation for a taking (for instance perfected mining claims as opposed to simple unproven mining claims that are not eligible for compensation under takings laws ). Of course without the essential facts on the record to show the law they put on the record applies they lose their case . Since they didn't make a record that included facts and law to support their complaint no matter how many appeals they make to higher courts they are still stuck with the record they made in the Court of Record. Remember no do-overs when it comes to making a record.

Even though higher courts may hear an appeal to the verdict of a Court of General Jurisdiction those appeal courts are bound to only hear matters of facts and law established in the Court of First Instance - The Court of Record.

In my opinion a good case is one in which there are only the most important facts and law properly presented for the record. This gives the court less "wiggle room" on reaching a verdict and makes the issues involved clear to everyone. It makes for a short trial with no need for multiple delays for motions and hearings about procedure and jurisdiction. It also paves the way for other cases with different law and facts to be heard should a weak case "lose".

Unfortunately lawyers make their money by arguing. The more arguments and the more hearings the more money and the bigger the house and pool. You can't really blame them - everybody wants a nice lifestyle, straight teeth and a good college for their kids. It's the American dream come true. A successful lawyer in a good field may only be involved in three or four cases in their lives. Heck their are cases in Federal Courts that have drug on for more than 60 years. That's the jackpot for a lawyer. Clients with "deep pockets" and "complex" cases are the stuff of dreams for lawyers. It's only natural that lawyers would want to try to cover every possible angle in each case they work on. Better money, a guaranteed income and a better shot at getting something that will make their client feel they "won".

Sadly that system really doesn't help simple working people like miners. We naturally want a quick resolution on a single issue so we can get back to work doing what we do to make a living. Although we all want the professionals that help us with legal problems to make a decent living we really don't think we have the time or money to "get involved in the details". Well when the problem is as simple as a State Legislature breaking Federal Law to get more votes from greenies it really is time to take charge of the lawyers and insist they treat the case as the simple single issue it really is. Show the court the new law and show them the fact that such laws are banned when applied to federal lands. That simple. No BS no scheduling conferences no complaints of "takings" or depositions of the idiots that passed the law in the first place. We have a right to speedy justice and on a simple single question that has already been settled in many courts superior to the one hearing the case there is no reason to delay - just give us the order of the court to put an injunction on this illegal law.

Oh yeah...

In Oregon the Court of General Jurisdiction that forms the record of the case is any one of the 27 Circuit Courts. In other States the Court of General Jurisdiction may have other names like Superior Court or Justice Court. Each State has it's own court system structure and names.

Filing Fee ~$240 May be refundable.

Does that answer your question Bejay? " [end Quote]


Bejay

 

[jog]

At least now

---

​

Suction Dredging

One of my other priorities this session was banning suction dredging in Washington’s critical habitat areas. This mining technique uses gas-powered machines that vacuum up sediment, allowing miners to separate the gold and metals from the remaining gravel. Unfortunately, wild salmon and steelhead spawning grounds are also caught by the vacuum. I highly encourage you to read an article written by a 36th district constituent Dr. Kim McDonald, Cascadia Wild Lands,explaining the harmful process of suction dredging on our fish and streams. Oregon and California have placed a moratorium on suction dredging as they examine the harm being done to wild salmon and steelhead runs. Idaho has banned suction dredging in rivers and streams where wild fish runs are at risk. We’re the one remaining state in the Pacific Northwest’s lower 48 states that allows suction dredging and we do not monitor compliance with the minimal regulations on the books. We have received dozens of e-mails from people throughout Washington who support this bill. Even though it did not gain a hearing in its House committee, I will be carefully working this issue during interim in preparation for next session.

---

​

Thank you for taking the time to read this legislative update! I’ve been hearing from many of you about a wide variety of issues, and I greatly appreciate your advocacy. Please don’t hesitate to call my office at (360) 786-7860 or e-mail me at [email protected] if something’s on your mind. Your voice in Olympia, Gael Kim M. propaganda site below for Washington State legislature to stop placer mining. http://www.cascwild.org/the-suction-dredging-war-starts-in-washington-gentlemen-do-not-start-your-engines/

 

[frankly]

Are hand suction dredges still allowed?

 

[Hefty1]

Hey mods, you can unstick the last two from me. Thanks

 

[Hoser John]

WOW ALL GONE FROM OCT 14 TILL JAN 2ND-UNPRESIDENTED

 

[57chevy]

This sounds like more Agenda 21 crap from the UN. Which is illegal because the UN's charter forbids them to Interfere in the affairs of any country.

 

[dieselram94]

This sounds like more Agenda 21 crap from the UN. Which is illegal because the UN's charter forbids them to Interfere in the affairs of any country.

Lol, the very existence of the un is an interference in the affairs of all individual countries...


Sent from a empty soda can!