Rumor has it there is big news brewing in the Brandon Rinehart case

[Oakview2]

I will wait for Brandon to confirm. PS I spelled your last name right this time.....

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[russau]

I think I heard the same "rumor"! im also waiting for Brandon to "spill the beans"!

 

[2cmorau]

yes, and waiting for a link so i can send it to the BOS in Sierra and Yuba countys

 

[goldenIrishman]

You guys are such teases! I've been following Brandons' case and just hope it's not only good news for him, but also good news for all of our dredging brothers in California!

be sure to let us know asap

 

[Bnugget]

http://www.icmj.com/news-detail.php...dredgers_in_light_of_recent_Rinehart_decision

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm glad to hear the District Attorneys are getting a clue.

My biggest fear is that the State will drop Brandon's case to avoid a decision. Not easy now that they have backed themselves into a corner with the appeals court. If they pull off a dismissal with Brandon we will be left with the "sue and settle" tactics now being pursued by PLP and the 49ers in San Bernadino. I'm pretty sure any settlement there will be challenged by the greenie groups. I'm not seeing a quick or a good end to that one.

The courts have been ruling for quite a while that "sue and settle" is illegal. The fact that the same tactic is now being used by the miners side doesn't make it any more OK.

Hang in there Brandon. You are our best hope, in my opinion. Thanks for all that you do!

Heavy Pans

 

[winners58]

I hear where your coming from I get angry over sue & settle myself.
IMHO courts do settle if a party is likely to win, the classic “sue & settle” is when the state makes the agreement.
With several that I’ve seen they impose something on a third party such as a more restrictive permit.
In this case the state is not giving in willingly, and the cases are seeking fewer restrictions,
it does not impose anything on the environmentalist or even the state,
the cases are to reclaim rights that have been denied by the state.

 

[Oakview2]

Clay they are still doing it in spite of the courts decision

U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Web: www.fs.usda.gov/r5 News Release​ Media Contact: John C. Heil III (707) 562-9004 [email protected]​ [h=3]US Forest Service, conservation groups reach agreement[/h] Contacts: Forest Service John Heil 707-562-9004 DOJ Wyn Hornbuckle 202-616-0903 Sierra Forest Legacy Susan Britting 530-295-8210 Center for Biological Diversity Justin Augustine 503-910-9214 Earthjustice Greg Loarie 415-217-2000 VALLEJO, Calif., October 23, 2014 -- The U.S. Forest Service and environmental plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement on Oct. 9, ending a decade-long legal battle over the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework Forest Plan Amendment, which affects management of the Sierra Nevada national forests in California. A coalition of conservation organizations led by Sierra Forest Legacy and including the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society, filed suit in early 2005 claiming that the 2004 Framework plan failed to adequately protect old growth forests and associated wildlife species and was not consistent with national environmental laws. They were represented by legal teams from Earthjustice and the Sierra Club. A consideration in settlement discussions was the Forest Service's current effort to revise the forest plans in the Sierra Nevada under the 2012 Planning Rule. All parties are interested in moving forward with plan revision collaboratively, and have agreed upon some of the topics that will be considered in the current revision process. Updating these forest plans will provide an opportunity to reassess understandings of environmental conditions and take into account new science. The conservation strategies, included in this settlement agreement, will be a useful tool in this process. In mid-2013, after years of court hearings, appeals, and the development of a voluminous court record, the Forest Service and the environmental groups began productive discussion on several key issues, including conservation of at-risk species, the need for increased fire use as a part of forest management, and conservation of post-fire forest conditions. The settlement agreement documents (click here) include creation and analysis of conservation strategies for the Pacific fisher and the California spotted owl, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the increased use of managed fire for ecological benefit, and analysis of forest plan components for post-fire, complex early-seral habitat. "Over the years we have found that Forest Service scientists, Forest Service leadership, and conservation groups, while not in perfect agreement, are beginning to share many of the same concerns over conservation of at-risk species, the positive role of fire as an ecological disturbance process in forest environments, and the need to improve management of post-fire habitats," said Susan Britting, Executive Director of Sierra Forest Legacy. "This Settlement Agreement allows us to promote an 'all-lands' approach by using the best available science to improve forest resilience while protecting at-risk species". "We're encouraged to see collective movement towards conservation of the ecologically important wildlife habitat created by fire," said Justin Augustine with the Center for Biological Diversity. "We look forward to working to make that happen so that at-risk species will be able to thrive on our public lands." "The parties decided it was a better use of time and resources to sit down, roll up our sleeves and work on an agreement on these issues that were of concern to all of us," said Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester for Natural Resources for the Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service. "Collaboration is a hallmark of this region. We're excited about this agreement and what this means for all of us moving forward." *For more information on at-risk species, fire and early seral forests go to: www.sierraforestlegacy.org; http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/black-backed_woodpecker/index.html ​

 

[Hefty1]

Yea...but will they still come and take your dredge?

 

[russau]

ONLY IF YOU LET THEM!

 

[Hefty1]

ONLY IF YOU LET THEM!

ooooooooooooooooooootay! Another war.

 

[Hoser John]

So the environutz and the FS have decided to sit down and work out their differences,now ain't that just a peach-TO OUR DETRIMENT FOR SURE. Crimes committed on federal lands,ticketed by federal officers are prosecuted in federal court hense DA don't mean squat. Sat through many hearing in federal court here in Redding over mining More convalution and yet still no solution-6 FULL dredge season dead and gone sic sic sic-John

 

[Clay Diggins]

The dredge ban is a California State law. It can not be prosecuted in Federal courts.

The County District Attorney can decide whether to file charges or prosecute based on the possibility of conviction. That possibility can be influenced by either the facts or the law. In this case the County DA has determined he can't get a conviction under the law.

This has nothing to do with the Forest Service, Federal law or Federal Courts.

 

[goldog]

Anything else on the rumored big news? The story posted wasn't new was it? This made the rounds a week ago.

Almost sounds like breaking out the dredge, especially if you are on a claim, would effectively be legal right now. There are currently no permits so you don't need one. Can't be prosecuted for not having something that doesn't exist. Just have to get your local ranger or sheriff to agree.

 

[Terry Soloman]

It's probably pretty close to time for a new rumor.

 

[winners58]

still any assembled dredge within 100 yards of a waterway in California Will probably get confiscated,
if you have a disposable dredge get out there and get some gold. (kinda joking)
Maybe a good time to have a "dredge in" like Idaho.
You could advertise a "dredge in" protest and get a feeling if it could happen.
.
<edit> probably not a good idea when the salmon are spawning.

 

[fowledup]

still any assembled dredge within 100 yards of a waterway in California Will probably get confiscated,
if you have a disposable dredge get out there and get some gold. (kinda joking)
Maybe a good time to have a "dredge in" like Idaho.
You could advertise a "dredge in" protest and get a feeling if it could happen.
.

Maybe a river cleanup dredge in on the Klamath, Salmon season is winding down isnt it? Ought to be all kinds of crap to suck up for a nice photo op to help the Judge in San B. out on his decision.

Gravity Dredge in! They confiscate your dredge your out a couple hundred instead of a couple thousand!

 

[Goldwasher]

Dredging in a salmon river at or near spawn would do us no good they would jump all over that...I hate the fact that I can't dredge a creek that is dry half the year and only has non native Bass after floods. they get stuck in pools that dry up and they get eaten or die. Thats the worst part about the moratorium. Something that started supposedly over fish, yet affects all waters.The publication is a few weeks old the D.A. not prosecuting is new.We just secured access to a claim lease in Grizzly Flats when the ban went in effect. We dredged openly for weeks. There was a guy the next claim up running a 4 inch. His claim had direct access. We heard the f.s. wasn't going to cite miners. We seem to have heard right we never had a visit in more than a month. We stopped dredging at the end of the previously legal season and just never went back.