Is none motorized dredging or high banking legal in California
- Thread starter et1955
- Start date
Goldwasher
Gold Member
- May 26, 2009
- 6,077
- 13,225
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- SDC2300, Gold Bug 2 Burlap, fish oil, .35 gallons of water per minute.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I said it before the new definitions will just mean more people will be in court for new stupid reasons.
OwenT
Hero Member
Gravity dredges ok?
Any limit on size? And I don't want this to start a whole new debate, so don't get too distracted here.
Any limit on size? And I don't want this to start a whole new debate, so don't get too distracted here.
spaghettigold
Hero Member
spaghettigold
Hero Member
i,ts just sad..hope there,s some justice one day
MadMarshall
Hero Member
what new definitions? Or are these new definitions? YOUR DEFINITIONS...
Like I have asked before...how has the anti mining crowd or the pro mining crowd that you despise so much affected anything you are currently doing to recover gold?
I fail to see any relevance to your question but to appease you Ill answer.. they effect me the same way they effect everyone else.. The ignorance they preach breeds. proof of this can be seen this thread. Just reread your statements in this thread.
You think that the ban on suction mining doesn't effect me? You couldn't be further from the truth.you think since I have no claim that somehow discredits me? Well I am some what at a loss in this regards.. I have been looking for a long time. Its actually a costly thing prospecting for a claim. Its a corrupt market out there.. Also I am looking for a claim that has potential to work for a profit. Takes time and work.. My motives are the only thing keeping me from getting a claim and the fact that I have yet to come across ground I feel I have the means to work for a profit. Gold claims are a dime a dozen these days hell now a days they are as easy as a buying a dollar raffle ticket.. I suppose if I were looking for a recreational purposes it would be a different story..
GW you tell me to get off my high horse.. I say you climb up here and pull me off if u can.
GPAA is a good fit for you GW I think.. Easy acsess fun recreational claims for the whole family. About time you joined the MMAC family..
Gravity HB and gravity dredge is OK per DFW.
This was also covered in those meeting I assume? or just what you think!
I aint gonna weigh in on whats legal or not.. Truthfully does no good .
Truth is if you are looking for answers here you deserve to be played for a fool. Maybe the prudent thing to do is just read the laws and become familiar with them. Then you will know... And be able to derive your own conclusions..
MadMarshall
Hero Member
okbasspro
Hero Member
Not worth getting everybody's panties bunched up over. Thought we were all on the same side? You guys can argue over who's right or wrong I'm going dredging.
ratled
Hero Member
- Feb 18, 2014
- 950
- 2,396
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
ClaimStake
Full Member
- Jul 27, 2015
- 198
- 233
- Detector(s) used
- Gold Bug 2 (sold it)
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
I've said before regulations are not laws. regulations must follow laws.
but that doesn't stop them from coming up with them and lying to you. telling people "it's the law". (no it's not with a good lawyer they would lose this in court)
a motorised water pump is not a vacuum or suction dredge. a venturi, infinity or powerjet "must" be present to be considered a "dredge".
a water pump is a water pump,
a hookah is a hookah,
a dredge is a dredge.
from:
Recreational Gold Prospecting blm site
""
-High banking is not allowed and is not considered casual or recreational use
-The use of suction dredges, machinery, winches, water pumps, or explosives is not considered to be casual or recreational use
""
on casual or recreational use;
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
""
Title 43 → Subtitle B → Chapter II → Subchapter C → Part 3809.11
(a) You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval before beginning operations greater than casual use
(b) You must submit a plan of operations for any bulk sampling in which you will remove 1,000 tons or more of presumed ore for testing.
""
this is the only piece of legislator anywhere I can find that adequately defines the difference between casual and commercial use. and "significant disturbance".
and from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/228.4
CFR 36 -> 228.4
""
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a notice of intent to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. Such notice of intent to operate shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted. Each notice of intent to operate shall provide information sufficient to identify the area involved, the nature of the proposed operations, the route of access to the area of operations, and the method of transport.
(1) A notice of intent to operate is not required for:
(i) Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System purposes;
(ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting of mineral specimens using hand tools;
(iii) Marking and monumenting a mining claim;
(iv) Underground operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance;
(v) Operations, which in their totality, will not cause surface resource disturbance which is substantially different than that caused by other users of the National Forest System who are not required to obtain a Forest Service special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization;
(vi) Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a significant disturbance of surface resources; or
(vii) Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for approval;
(2) The District Ranger will, within 15 days of receipt of a notice of intent to operate, notify the operator if approval of a plan of operations is required before the operations may begin.
(3) An operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations will be conducted in lieu of a notice of intent to operate if the proposed operations will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. An operator also shall submit a proposed plan of operations, or a proposed supplemental plan of operations consistent with § 228.4(d), to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations are being conducted if those operations are causing a significant disturbance of surface resources but are not covered by a current approved plan of operations. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply to the operations listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v). The requirement to submit a plan of operations also shall not apply to operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.
(4) If the District Ranger determines that any operation is causing or will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the District Ranger shall notify the operator that the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations for approval and that the operations can not be conducted until a plan of operations is approved.
""
the emboldened parts are in conflict with each other as well as the definition of what will cause "significant disturbance".
but that doesn't stop them from coming up with them and lying to you. telling people "it's the law". (no it's not with a good lawyer they would lose this in court)
a motorised water pump is not a vacuum or suction dredge. a venturi, infinity or powerjet "must" be present to be considered a "dredge".
a water pump is a water pump,
a hookah is a hookah,
a dredge is a dredge.
from:
Recreational Gold Prospecting blm site
""
-High banking is not allowed and is not considered casual or recreational use
-The use of suction dredges, machinery, winches, water pumps, or explosives is not considered to be casual or recreational use
""
on casual or recreational use;
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
""
Title 43 → Subtitle B → Chapter II → Subchapter C → Part 3809.11
(a) You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval before beginning operations greater than casual use
(b) You must submit a plan of operations for any bulk sampling in which you will remove 1,000 tons or more of presumed ore for testing.
""
this is the only piece of legislator anywhere I can find that adequately defines the difference between casual and commercial use. and "significant disturbance".
and from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/228.4
CFR 36 -> 228.4
""
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a notice of intent to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. Such notice of intent to operate shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted. Each notice of intent to operate shall provide information sufficient to identify the area involved, the nature of the proposed operations, the route of access to the area of operations, and the method of transport.
(1) A notice of intent to operate is not required for:
(i) Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System purposes;
(ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting of mineral specimens using hand tools;
(iii) Marking and monumenting a mining claim;
(iv) Underground operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance;
(v) Operations, which in their totality, will not cause surface resource disturbance which is substantially different than that caused by other users of the National Forest System who are not required to obtain a Forest Service special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization;
(vi) Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a significant disturbance of surface resources; or
(vii) Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for approval;
(2) The District Ranger will, within 15 days of receipt of a notice of intent to operate, notify the operator if approval of a plan of operations is required before the operations may begin.
(3) An operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations will be conducted in lieu of a notice of intent to operate if the proposed operations will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. An operator also shall submit a proposed plan of operations, or a proposed supplemental plan of operations consistent with § 228.4(d), to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations are being conducted if those operations are causing a significant disturbance of surface resources but are not covered by a current approved plan of operations. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply to the operations listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v). The requirement to submit a plan of operations also shall not apply to operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.
(4) If the District Ranger determines that any operation is causing or will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the District Ranger shall notify the operator that the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations for approval and that the operations can not be conducted until a plan of operations is approved.
""
the emboldened parts are in conflict with each other as well as the definition of what will cause "significant disturbance".
Last edited:
you work by hand using hand tools underwater, an air regulator for life support.
someone has to convince the f&g to change their stance, a hookah has never needed a permit.
anything that does not need a permit, even if suction dredging were allowed again, air is still only life support.
someone has to convince the f&g to change their stance, a hookah has never needed a permit.
anything that does not need a permit, even if suction dredging were allowed again, air is still only life support.
Last edited:
Goldwasher
Gold Member
- May 26, 2009
- 6,077
- 13,225
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- SDC2300, Gold Bug 2 Burlap, fish oil, .35 gallons of water per minute.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Like I have asked before...how has the anti mining crowd or the pro mining crowd that you despise so much affected anything you are currently doing to recover gold?
I fail to see any relevance to your question but to appease you Ill answer.. they effect me the same way they effect everyone else.. The ignorance they preach breeds. proof of this can be seen this thread. Just reread your statements in this thread.
You think that the ban on suction mining doesn't effect me? You couldn't be further from the truth.you think since I have no claim that somehow discredits me? Well I am some what at a loss in this regards.. I have been looking for a long time. Its actually a costly thing prospecting for a claim. Its a corrupt market out there.. Also I am looking for a claim that has potential to work for a profit. Takes time and work.. My motives are the only thing keeping me from getting a claim and the fact that I have yet to come across ground I feel I have the means to work for a profit. Gold claims are a dime a dozen these days hell now a days they are as easy as a buying a dollar raffle ticket.. I suppose if I were looking for a recreational purposes it would be a different story..
GW you tell me to get off my high horse.. I say you climb up here and pull me off if u can.
GPAA is a good fit for you GW I think.. Easy acsess fun recreational claims for the whole family. About time you joined the MMAC family..
Gravity HB and gravity dredge is OK per DFW.
This was also covered in those meeting I assume? or just what you think!
I aint gonna weigh in on whats legal or not.. Truthfully does no good .
Truth is if you are looking for answers here you deserve to be played for a fool. Maybe the prudent thing to do is just read the laws and become familiar with them. Then you will know... And be able to derive your own conclusions..[/QUOTE]
lol your the one that applies all the labels and criteria. of who is who and the merit of ther activities...
I've had a profitable claim for a while now. Your the one always hung up on if someone is doing it as a wage.I guess i'm lucky or hard working enough to make money more than one way. Its just ironic that you are breaking the law to make your wage. Yet, constantly harping on anyone who doesn't do what you do as "Recreational"...funny thing that you make a wage...thus you must be working profitable ground...whats wrong with claiming that?
I don't expect someone who doesn't care whats legal or not to weigh in on legality.
MMAC is a joke so no thanks?
GPAA 70 bucks a year for a magazine subscription and acces to ground all over the country is a steal..it will pay for itself in a few trips. I don't pan from a lawn chair.`
Your personal attack against simply because I exercize my right to to what I wish within my community just shows how immature you are socially.
The regulations and their in the field affect on someone trying to run what is a small insignificant operation have been discussed pretty clearly here. Guys like Ratled, Hefty and claimstake know what they are talking about and how these overreaches affect them. And they don't want to see it keep happening. A commendable attitude to have.
Knowing the law is the way to go drawing your own conclusions keeps lawyers working.
Playing people for fools is not what happens on these forums.
.
My statements are hypothetical in regards to what "motorized" is like I said banning how you make water go through a sluice box is B.S. If they can ban a motor or not issue a permit. Whatever their means then then why not a generator or a hookah? They have made attempts at the noise and fuel by the water argument.
I have not misqouted law or even gave my "Meaning" of anything. I am speaking of the definition of what dredging is per s.b. 637 a definition that was changed after the bill went through the first two commitee of the senate. They don't even include a sluice box in the definition anymore..
The definition that they use to write you a ticket and put you in court. I don't write people tickets. However if someone asks what may get them a ticket and I know then yes, I will tell them. The regulations posted here are directly from the agency who enforces them. Copied and pasted as written so where is the mis-representation? How are these guys playing forum members for fools? No one here has defined anything. They do that for us and we are just left shaking our heads at the utter b.s. these agencies that were originally created to enable resource development, now throw our way to stop us totally. It is plainly obvious it is not to make sure miners don't harm the environment. Its about funneling money into envirogroups and votes.
I know you want to spin it an blame it on the pro mining groups as illogical as it is. So you lash out at their members and efforts. Over and over.
I haven't made any false statement. You just don't understand the differnce between saying what something is vs. discussing a current situation with people that actually are affected by it. I was dredging on a lease making a living when the ban went in affect. We still dredged until it snowed wondering if we would get busted. I don't prospect and mine for recreation.
Goldwasher
Gold Member
- May 26, 2009
- 6,077
- 13,225
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- SDC2300, Gold Bug 2 Burlap, fish oil, .35 gallons of water per minute.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I totally agree...however regulations are the reason Brandon is in court and several have trials that are on a stay.
And the new regulations cause even more conflict between regulations and the intent of congress....the fact that its wrong obviosly doesnt keep you out of court...or mean you will win if you end up there.
ClaimStake
Full Member
- Jul 27, 2015
- 198
- 233
- Detector(s) used
- Gold Bug 2 (sold it)
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
@goldwasher, you're totally correct. that's why I "DO NOT" recommend someone just runs out and starts pumping water, for anything.
so far there aren't any cases on hookahs. afaik
and the water pumping thing just got shot down with the peat moss ruling. but we'll see what that means.
so far there aren't any cases on hookahs. afaik
and the water pumping thing just got shot down with the peat moss ruling. but we'll see what that means.
Goldwasher
Gold Member
- May 26, 2009
- 6,077
- 13,225
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- SDC2300, Gold Bug 2 Burlap, fish oil, .35 gallons of water per minute.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
that ruling was about jurisdiction. I don't think its going to affect the pump issue in California. Used to be discussed as a cwa issue as to discharding etc. ban the thing that causes discharge since you can ban discharging seems to be their tactic.... But hey what do I know i'm only motivated by greed
ClaimStake
Full Member
- Jul 27, 2015
- 198
- 233
- Detector(s) used
- Gold Bug 2 (sold it)
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
ok I didn't really look into it.
Top Member Reactions
-
2583 -
1145 -
1050 -
907 -
887 -
845 -
804 -
699 -
642 -
540 -
488 -
473 -
472 -
466 -
463 -
O
440
-
421 -
390 -
380 -
362
