folks wake up, Fish not gold should be sued for misleading info

[2cmorau]

take a bit of time this week and write your reps, crunch time is soon to be here
my HO if everyone here took the time to write LATIMES, it may have a good outcome
maybe barking up the wrong tree


Fish Not Gold
some of what is being said
Myth: People opposed to suction dredge mining have an agenda.
Truth: Miners frequently complain that anybody opposed to them is against 'freedom' and 'liberty'. In fact, miners in Washington state have greater freedom than do fishermen, who in many streams are banned from fishing due to concern over ESA-listed species and habitat degradation. If a stream is too sensitive to allow fishing, then it's too sensitive to allow mining, even during so-called 'work windows'. The millions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent to restore fisheries are slowly being wasted through the cumulative negative impact of unrestricted mining..
Myth: Miners have a 'right' to mine because of the General Mining Act of 1872.
Truth: Mining is not a right, it's a privilege and it's one that's being systematically abused. The General Mining Act of 1872 was signed by president Ulysses S. Grant as a means to encourage development in the sparsely-settled west. Times have changed in the nearly century and a half since then as has our understanding of the adverse impacts of mining. The courts have determined that the 1872 Mining Act is not absolute and that it's provisions can be subordinated by environmental laws and regulations. For example, Washington state has opted to administer the Clean Water Act. Through that authority, it can and shall regulate hobby mining, modifying the provisions of the 1872 Mining Act with its own rules and regulations.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[pods]

Well, technically mining, as permitted by the mining act of 1872. is a privilege. Right come from God, the creator, or whatever you wish to call him and are inalienable. Being able to do something because the government passed a law is a privilege.
You have a right to do with your property what you wish if that does not impact another's property.
Of course, the entire thought of a government "owning" a property is a privilege itself, as government is the creation of man, not God.

 

[jog]

There are some areas of Oregon that have had there largest salmon runs in 40 + years, does enyone talk about that? NO!! It doesn't matter weather your a miner or a fisherman, what matters is that the Whack Job SOB Radical Enviro groups are lying about the facts and "TURNING EVERYONE AGAINST EACH OTHER" which is there "INTENT" so how about telling the truth and getting everyone organized and informed and stop the "FRICKEN BLAME GAME".

Just getting a little tired of how everything in this country is allways some elses fault. I know who's to blame, does anyone else? Ok, I'm done now.

 

[triple d]

They can blame the fish problem on miners. But until they get the blame in the right place. The problem isn"t going away. They should be blaming the factory"s and coal burning power plants.Here in New England the water is so steriel.Little or nothing will grow in it. A little dredgeing would do wonder"s for the streams in New England. Not so sure this is true in the West. But gold prospecting isn"t the problem with the fish. If anything gold prospecting will make the habitat better. Still can"t figure the science behind there thinking. Just my Two cents.

 

[DizzyDigger]

Most polite way I can phrase this is...

Whoever wrote that for "Fish Not Gold" is completely full
of

In my backyard runs the 2nd largest river in the State of
Washington, and as an avid Salmon and Steelhead fisherman
I too am very concerned about the huge reductions in the
populations of these fish. We have King, Coho, Sockeye, Pink
and Chum salmon runs (Pinks on odd years), and by far the
largest threat these fish face is from TRIBAL GILLNETTING.
The spawning fish are running into layer after layer of gill nets
run from one side of the river to the other..sometimes 5-10
of these nets over a stretch of just a couple miles of river.
They've pretty much wiped out the Chum salmon run, and
just as little as 5 years ago we used to be able to catch so
many off my beach your arms would wear out...now, you're
lucky if you can catch 2 or 3 the whole season.

Can't even guess at how many times I've been down the river
in driftboats or jet sleds, and I am THE ONLY prospector I've
ever seen working anywhere even close to the Skagit.

Steelhead especially like to "hang out" in small pockets just downriver
from rocks, boulders or other obstructions, and there is no shortage
whatsoever of these structures. Year after year we find these fish
behind the same structures, unless they have been moved by a major
flood.

Worried about the redds (eggs)? I've been told personally by more than
one State fish biologist that salmon and steelhead redds can handle
up to 50,000 CFS of water before they are damaged. As I write this
the river is at 34,000 CFS, and is very high from the recent heavy rains.
If you look at the actual numbers from the week....

USGS Current Conditions for USGS 12194000 SKAGIT RIVER NEAR CONCRETE, WA

....you can see that the river almost hit 50,000 CFS yesterday, and these
high-water events happen about twice a year, on average. Wife and I
stood in our kitchen looking out on the river yesterday, and there were
dozens of 50'-100' TREES, rootball and all, floating down the river from
the high water.

When I was out using the Cube on the Skagit last week I left a 3' tall
tailing pile from the trommel; went by there yesterday and the high water
had completely covered the entire area, and the tailing pile was now nothing
more than a few rocks in one spot...basically it was completely washed away.

Phil (aka: Knatnutz), my neighbor, is as much an expert on these fish
runs as anyone, and has lived on this river his entire life (he's got a
few years on me). I'll let him know about this thread, and hopefully he'll
share some of his experience, as well.

Dredging is not allowed in the Skagit, in any form, and is only allowed in
a few of the larger feeder creeks at very specific times of the year so
the fish runs are not disturbed in any way. We care about our fish up here,
and very few, if any, prospectors are going to come to this area for the gold.
Why? There just isn't much, and what is here is very small, flood gold.

Come to think of it, I have never seen a dredge of any kind operating on any
creek, stream or river in this valley. I've never run into another prospector
when I'm out prospecting myself, and I doubt that Phil has either.

In short, the people in that group are completely full of bullhockey, and they
couldn't make a case in court if they had to.

The Fish Not Gold site is run by is an elitist group of purist fly
fishermen, and if they had their way there would be -0- motor operated
boats on the river, and extreme restrictions on equipment used. They
desire the river to be fly-fishing only, and now, regardless of evidence
to the contrary, they're trying to use the dredging issue as a tool to achieve
their goals.

 

[rodoconnor]

DD I always have to wonder about the short-sightedness of fisherman [I too Love to fish],kayakers,etc. Do they really think that they are immune from the eventual attacks of the wackos ? They have an elitist, very selfish ,if not naive attitude We can all hang together or we can hang seperatly.

 

[cazisme]

My dad used to know a man in Sacramento who rented out a freezer warehouse like 300' X400'. It was rented to some Indians from the Klamath river. This was in the 1980s they would fill the place up with blocks of fish frozen in ice cubes 2 foot wide and 3-4 ft tall. Salmon,stealhead sturgeon. Whatever they would catch in their gillnets. They abandoned a bunch of fish in it and he had to clean it out it was sickening. Yep, it was really needed for subsistance for the Indians. No wonder their are no fish left anywhere.

 

[jog]

Fish, Not Gold | Wild Steelhead Coalition

Fish Not Gold | Facebook

 

[triple d]

What about the flyfishermen. When there wading in the streams. There stiring Up the gravels and sediment in the streams. Wading through the fish eggs. What makes them different. Im sure they will say there not doing any damage. Most all the prospecters. I know are just as responseable as they are. And do every thing possible to protect the streams and habitat.

 

[pods]

What about the flyfishermen. When there wading in the streams. There stiring Up the gravels and sediment in the streams. Wading through the fish eggs. What makes them different. Im sure they will say there not doing any damage. Most all the prospecters. I know are just as responseable as they are. And do every thing possible to protect the streams and habitat.

That is seen as "noble" whereas mining is seen as dirty.
Of course, I have never hooked a trout with my shovel.
And I wonder where the iron would come from for those delicate flies? Or even the petroleum for the line, leader and tippet.
The problem is that somehow flyfisherman and miners have been pitted against one another. Once mining is stopped, then you will see stories about how the stress of even catch and release fishing is detrimental to fish.
The people behind this want land locked up in pristine condition. No mining, fishing, hiking off of approved trails, the works. They have found that the easiest way to lock up these lands is to team up with government and deem it critical or some other such nonsense. It is going on all over the country, big and small.
Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy.

 

[Lanny in AB]

The main problem with the Fish, Not Gold article is that it uses sweeping generalizations. You know, "All dredgers do this" (like leave garbage all over the place; pollute the ecosystem by leaving human waste un-contained on the banks or gravel bars) or "All dredgers do that" (rip out every single structure in a stream; destroy fish eggs at will; distribute mercury and copper throughout the stream).

Whenever I've dredged, we always had to follow very strict guidelines with a small time window to operate when the fish were not spawning! How were we killing eggs? We always removed piles of trash, mercury, lead, etc. from the river system.

Anytime anyone uses sweeping generalizations and presents them as "truth" they are far, far from the truth themselves. That's the first tip-off in the article, his blanket condemnations.

The next tip-off is that the article's author doesn't have an agenda (it's a myth, remember?). If there's no agenda, why is he writing the article with such passion? He is not a neutral party in any way whatsoever. Look at his many statements of accusation against dredgers supposedly backed up by science, and once again, his use of blanket generalities demonstrates his true purpose.

He has an agenda. He hates dredging.

Whether or not he has ever witnessed how flood water quickly reclaims dredge holes is a question. I also wonder if he has actually spent any time watching a dredging operation other than the one time he couldn't fish in the hole where a dredge was operating? He was ticked off about that, and that's what started all of his "research" on dredging. It appears he has pulled his "observations" from someone else's reports without verifying things on his own. He has an axe to grind, and he is choosing to read like-minded articles. That's just human nature, but it's not fair or balanced. Who has an agenda now?

A "peer reviewed article" that's reviewed by a group of peers that have the "same agenda" is no more valid than research done by individual scientists without an agenda, for if the individual scientists truly have no agenda and no bias, it's even more valid! For example, if five "peer" researchers that support the same agenda research a block of articles written by like-minded peers, what the heck do you think they're going to decide? I refer back to the Ranch article where the enviro-nutz admitted that lying, cheating, etc., etc., was fine in their pursuit of their cause, no matter who they destroyed along the way. What a fine cause indeed.

I fish. I love to fish. I follow the rules. I don't: exceed the catch limits; fish out of season; kill fish I'm supposed to release because of size limits or zero catch limits. But, there are fishermen that do, on a regular basis.

If you follow his bent line of logic in reference to bad dredgers, then all fishing should be banned because of bad fishermen.

He may just get his wish.

Sooner or later the enviro-nutz won't want anyone on the rivers for any reason, especially ones that "hurt" the fish with sharp hooks, and he will have only helped their cause and have himself to thank.

I'm all for respecting the environment because I want my sons to have an environment to enjoy, and I've always taught them to respect it, and not abuse it, for that very reason. But, I want them to be able to enjoy the environment by being able to be in it. I don't want them kept out of it by a bunch of extremists with an agenda they won't admit to.

All the best,

Lanny

 

[2cmorau]

The Chaffee law of 1866 and the placer law of 1870 were combined into the General Mining Act of 1872. The mining law of 1866 had given discoverers rights to stake mining claims to extract gold, silver, cinnabar (the principal ore of mercury) and copper. When Congress passed the General Mining Act of 1872, the wording was changed to "or other valuable deposits," giving greater scope to the law. The 1872 law was codified as 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-42[SUP][12][/SUP]
The 1872 act also granted extralateral rights to lode claims, and fixed the maximum size of lode claims as 1500 feet (457m) long and 600 feet (183m) wide.

The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. Nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.

 

[pods]

The Chaffee law of 1866 and the placer law of 1870 were combined into the General Mining Act of 1872. The mining law of 1866 had given discoverers rights to stake mining claims to extract gold, silver, cinnabar (the principal ore of mercury) and copper. When Congress passed the General Mining Act of 1872, the wording was changed to "or other valuable deposits," giving greater scope to the law. The 1872 law was codified as 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-42[SUP][12][/SUP]
The 1872 act also granted extralateral rights to lode claims, and fixed the maximum size of lode claims as 1500 feet (457m) long and 600 feet (183m) wide.

The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. Nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.

I understand the mining laws. I also understand that when the term "rights" was used it was used erroneously.
Government does not grant rights, it can merely recognize them. That is what our constitution does, it recognizes our rights, it does not grant them.
The government owned the land, and it granted something to those who would claim it. But it is not a right. A mere act of congress could remove that "right" supposedly granted by the government.
Just as the "right" to vote is not a right. It is a construct of the government.
It all comes down to the pollution of language and government granted "civil rights" (which are actually privileges) to 14th amendment citizens. It is a long rabbit hole to go down but the easy way to recognize a right is whether it exists outside of government. I have a right to life, liberty and property (and any other rights I claim). From that right stems my ability to protect it by any means that I deem necessary.
I do not have the right to take anything off another's property without permission, which is what the mining acts allows on government land.

 

[rodoconnor]

Pods, a correction. The government does not and never has owned the land. We the people own the land -a big difference. Although if you talk to a typical FS ranger he will insist that it is his forest in which you are trespassing

 

[goldenIrishman]

After reading that article last night I had to let it digest a bit before I added my two cents worth.

That guy is one crazy puppy for sure! If he thinks that having an ax to grind because he couldn't fish where he wanted to warrants this kind of attack against dredgers he's sadly mistaken.

Everyone has a right to use the forest in a responsible manner. Plain and simple. If he thinks that he is above being attacked by the hard core Agenda 21 people, I'm afraid he's in for a rude awakening. Once they get our brothers off the rivers for good, who do you think they're going to go after next? Between closing down public lands, regulating mining to death and calling it "protection of vital habitat" they're soon going to have things locked up so tight that our children will never know the forests and wild lands of our own country.

To me this is nothing short of domestic terrorism brought upon us by the greenies and our own government. Well in my mind this makes them enemies of the people of this country. I took an oath when I went into the Army to protect our people from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. Last time I checked, I have never been relieved of that oath. I really doubt that many (if any) of these greenies have served in the military. If they did it was most likely in some R.E.M.F. job in the rear with the gear. If they had been front line troops, they'd really understand the meaning of that oath we took and how important that oath is to many of us. Myself and many others are willing to stand up and protect the rights of EVERYONE. It doesn't matter if they're miners, fishermen, hikers, off roaders or daisy pickers. These are the peoples' lands, not the governments, not the greenies, and not the forest service rangers and should be shared by all in a responsible way. Our claim is in the middle of no-where, in a national forest and I am willing to share use of the land with all. We see hikers, mountain bikers, off roaders you name it out there and we don't have any problem with them crossing our claim as long as they don't mine without permission. If they were to ask, we wouldn't have any problem with them using the claim as long as we are there and they clean up after themselves. There's plenty of forest to go around.

 

[pods]

Pods, a correction. The government does not and never has owned the land. We the people own the land -a big difference. Although if you talk to a typical FS ranger he will insist that it is his forest in which you are trespassing

I know what you are saying, and in the spirit of the law you are correct. We the People have created this government, and have delegated the government to act as a caretaker of We the People for our "public" lands. Title is held by the United States of America though, a municipal corporation. I have looked at a lot of the lands around me, supposedly public lands, and it is titled to The United States of America (or corps of Engineers, State of NC).
As for rubber meets the road, it is vastly different. Out west there seems to be more liberty with the lands (I know those out west will not believe this), probably due to there being more of it. In the east, all our "public" lands are pretty much locked up and can only be accessed under strict guidelines and whims of bureaucrats. In the Uwharrie NF, you used to be able to pan and sluice or dredge. Then dredges went by by. Now the rules state no mechanical tools and it mentions hand dredges, shovels and sluices. I have heard that sluices and shovels are still allowed, but it clearly states they are not. Whims of bureaucrats.
Our "public" beaches were closed to our access in the latest government shutdown for example. Public lands also get locked up for critical habitat.
Don't get me started on Land Trusts or Public Private Partnerships.

 

[B H Prospector]

Well, technically mining, as permitted by the mining act of 1872. is a privilege. Right come from God, the creator, or whatever you wish to call him and are inalienable. Being able to do something because the government passed a law is a privilege. You have a right to do with your property what you wish if that does not impact another's property. Of course, the entire thought of a government "owning" a property is a privilege itself, as government is the creation of man, not God.

So if the government gives you privileges and God gives you rights, I must have missed something in the Bible, as I do not recall reading anywhere in the Bible that God gave women, former slaves, Native Americans the RIGHT to vote. I recall reading in the history books that our government gave them the right, not the privilege to vote. It has never been the privilege to do anything but a right given by law. The only time the word privilege is used is when they want to take something away from you. "It's a privilege not a right." Unless a minority is being prevented from doing something like the liberals are always accusing that they are being denied their RIGHT to vote. It can't be both ways folks. Either the government gives us law given rights or all laws that give us anything is a privilege. Which is it? I believe I have rights not privileges.

 

[pods]

So if the government gives you privileges and God gives you rights, I must have missed something in the Bible, as I do not recall reading anywhere in the Bible that God gave women, former slaves, Native Americans the RIGHT to vote. I recall reading in the history books that our government gave them the right, not the privilege to vote. It has never been the privilege to do anything but a right given by law. The only time the word privilege is used is when they want to take something away from you. "It's a privilege not a right." Unless a minority is being prevented from doing something like the liberals are always accusing that they are being denied their RIGHT to vote. It can't be both ways folks. Either the government gives us law given rights or all laws that give us anything is a privilege. Which is it? I believe I have rights not privileges.

Not to derail this subject, but be convicted of a felony and try and exercise your right to vote. (Voting is a civil right, ie government granted privilege)
Rights exist independent of government. If there was no government, I still have the God given rights to life, liberty, and property (among many others).
Last I will say about this as I am not trying to derail an important topic.

 

[Jeffro]

Stupidest. Post. Ever.

 

[2cmorau]

well golly geee jeff, that was a very insightful statement, what have you done lately for the miners in your area, just because Pods has good Ganja and has highjack this post, maybe throw in a helpful comment to get it back on track