BREAKING....

[goldhog]

Found it interesting...

House Votes to Reject EPA Stream Protection Rules

Doc

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[HardHatMatt]

Introducing new sediment has never been seen as a problem. If it was they would have banned sluicing right along with dredging. Especially considering sluicing actually introduces NEW sediment into the stream in many cases if you're bucketing dry material to the river/stream to wash it.

You should see some of the holes/trenches that get dug out on the EFSG in the river during the summer. Entire swimming holes got mined during the low flow of the river last summer using shovels and buckets and stream sluices. Yes, it took much more manpower to excavate the amount of dirt that was sluiced compared to a mechanical dredge but the net result was the same. Streambed was excavated, gravels were displaced, mercury/gold/lead/iron was removed from the river. And no one cared.

This is purely a cash grab wrapped around saving the world from mercury so the Sierra Club can get a kickback from the $ they donated to Jerry Brown's campaign.

The "Leave No Trace" crowd hates prospecting/mining because we leave a trace. Doesn't matter if that trace is washed away in the flood season. Is a trace. You read comments anywhere on these subjects on other forums and it's always the same. Holes in the river. Loud and noisy. Smelly exhaust. Kills the fish eggs. Disturbs mercury.

It's a pile of misinformation that dredgers are dredging the salmon/trout runs in the middle of the spawning season sucking up fish eggs/blocking the flow of the river and at the end of the day cleaning out their sluices and pouring the mercury/lead/iron back into the river.

Dredging the river for mercury recovery and dredging the river for gold are the SAME thing.

Welcome to the world of Fake News. Tell a lie enogh and people eventually believe it's the truth.

There are plenty of scientific studies (not to mention common sense) that refute your position..I know, I know every one of them is junk science concocted for the sole purpose of keeping you from mining. If you want to dredge, I believe that you should have the right to do so...but don't kid yourself into thinking you're doing the environment some kind of favor. I voted for Trump and I don't support the restrictive regulations in place in California or bureaucracies like the EPA and USFS's continual erosion (no pun intended) of our rights, in general...but I also won't delude myself into thinking an activity like mining doesn't impact the environment. Just how I choose to "feel" about the issue.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[HardHatMatt]

Cannot support his position with facts, thus loses the debate. Resorts to name calling, sound familiar to anyone?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well I have plenty of facts, but apparently they are all "fake." How convenient for your argument! If you'd like links to the various studies that refute your position, I'll be happy to oblige or you can simply Google "the impacts of suction dredging" and read them for yourself. I'm also open to you engaging in the discussion with your own opinions. I didn't know "yokels" was considered name-calling - especially since I consider myself a yokel, being a Kansas farm boy, hunter, gold prospector and the like...but I do apologize if I have offended your delicate sensibilities. I hope you have access to a "safe space" near you!

 

[Goldfleks]

Everything has an impact, no one is disputing that. The question is, is the natural balance of nature enough to reclaim/restore what impact we have.

And I don't think that all the studies are "junk science." But I do know that when you set out to prove a hypothesis, "does dredging harm the river," you tend to be biased in your search for that answer. Especially when you are being paid to find that answer. Data and statistics are easily manipulated to show different conclusions based on the same information.

 

[HardHatMatt]

Fair enough; but to be clear, I never authored or commissioned one of these studies, and I certainly never set out to interpret them in a negative light, considering that I love gold mining and I'm a huge proponent of freedom and individual rights. I'm just using my own experience and knowledge to form an opinion, which apparently is not shared by the majority of my fellow miners and prospectors. That's ok with me, but neither am I content to give up my own right to an opinion because one person or a thousand say I'm wrong. If some folks want to brush my opinions aside as nothing more than the "feelings" of an ignorant, misinformed hippie wrapped up in fake news and biased science derived from pre-conceived conclusions, then that is their prerogative. To each his own.

 

[Hamfist]

Everybody here wants the same thing here and still we manage to debate over it. Fun!...haha

You don't need to be a scientist to understand that dredging in a constant flowing stream with fish, amphibians, etc. living in it, does cause some disruption. Nothing on the scale that Mother Nature causes during high flow conditions, obviously, but it does slightly disrupt the ecosystem.

The thing that irks me is the fact that we can't highbank or dredge in intermittent streams. My favorite spot only flows when it's raining or for a week or so after extremely heavy rains, which in CA has been once in the last five years. There are no fish, amphibians or other aquatic animals there and the water disappears underground at the end of the canyon. I've never seen enough water there to run a sluice. Still, I'm not allowed to dig a cubic yard of dirt out of the ground and run that material through a recirculating highbanker, taking only a cup of black sand and a half gram of gold, even if the rest of the material goes right back into the hole from whence it came. By filling in my hole with the material that came out of it, I'm dumping "mining waste" into the stream bed. That's a stupid law and should change. In this example, all I've done is rearrange 2,000 lbs rocks and remove three lbs of heavies until the next storm sorts it out again.

 

[HardHatMatt]

According to the studies, the presence of dams have been the cause of stream bed impaction. By reducing raging torrents through the rivers and streams churning the material. That is how these ecosystems made it through the eons without us yokels. Instead of making fatuous statements, educate yourself.

I agree with you there. Once we have created negative artificial conditions (in this case, impaction) through human activity (such as a dam,) in some cases, additional human activity (such as mining) can mitigate the negative effects of the original human activity, even while producing some negative impacts of its own.

That said, I'm not sure if this is a solid argument in favor of mining as much as it is an argument against building the dam in the first place.

 

[Goldfleks]

https://youtu.be/EXZJjHwvKOU

Impact.

This wasn't even the worst of it. The trench was huge by the end of summer all the holes got connected. Terrible mining impact. Destroying the fork. I can guarantee you can show that video to ANY of the Leave No Trace crowd and they will be horrified by the destruction caused by the miners. Mining on the fork should obviously be banned. Hands and Pans only! Forget dredging!

It's all under water right now. So technically the miners left no trace?

The 5-year drought really opened up some areas on the river that could have never previously been sluiced. There was some really good gold pulled out from that trench. It won't even be diggable this summer if the weather continues, that whole area will still be a river. They are digging farther back on the bank right now but the gold isn't nearly as good.

The problem with these studies and arguments is they don't show a timeline. In the moment the mining operation on the river looked like a war zone. 5 years of drought left holes all over the place. Some of the holes got HUGE from 5 years of digging in them. But that's a snapshot. And a snapshot doesn't tell the whole story of how the ecosystem works and manages itself. Post those pictured on an Eco-Forum and those members are going to think mining is terrible. And obviously needs more legislation and oversight. But that same location today is just a flowing river now that the rain has returned. You won't see the Eco people posting pictures after the river recovers the land in the flood. Why? Because it doesn't fit their agenda.

I know it's not dredging, they were sluicing. But now that that area is covered with water, that SAME EXACT DIRT is now suddenly terrible for the river if it's run through a dredge instead of shoveled into a bucket and then scooped into a sluice.

It makes zero sense.

 

[HardHatMatt]

Your point is well understood, but I don't know that it tells the whole story. Yes, if you take a photo before the drought and after the drought (or on a contracted seasonal time scale, before a flood cycle and after the flood cycle) the two will look the same. But that would completely ignore the fact that time marched on during the period in between and real changes, both positive and negative, took place in the interim as a result. The mining activity doesn't occur in a vacuum...it's not accurate to say that the impacts are simply "washed away" because the original conditions are eventually restored. That's like saying gaining thirty pounds since high school has no impact on my body as long as I eventually get back to my original weight. The time between is as real and valid as the before and after snapshots.

 

[Goldfleks]

That's just it though. If the conditions return quickly to their original state then the impacts are minimal to nonexistant. Your weight analogy in terms of seasonal river flooding/mining would be more akin to gaining 5 pounds between thanksgiving and christmas and losing those 5 pounds by march. A natural cycle of gaining weight during the winter and shedding the pounds in the spring when activity increases again. I doubt you would find many doctors who would say you have significantly impacted your lifespan by putting on a few pounds during the holidays, especially if you return to your 6pak abs in the spring.

 

[HardHatMatt]

Some good points, thanks for the thoughtful discussion!

I don't want to carry out the weight loss analogy too far because I'm not particularly well-versed on the subject, but I will say that I would guess there are doctors and scientists who WOULD argue that holiday weight gain has or potentially has a negative impact on overall health and life expectancy.

More generally, I believe that individual organisms and ecosystems exist as they are thanks to a delicate balance and interconnectivity; this principle is based on an element of chaos theory commonly known as "The Butterfly Effect." As such, I feel that anything, large or small, that disrupts this balance alters these entities...not necessarily for the better or worse. In the case of mining, our activities do not occur in a vacuum and perpetual, persistent disturbance of an ecosystem is bound to have consequences that significantly effect these environments and the organisms that exist (or cease to exist) within them. I think there has been a good deal of evidence to suggest that these impacts are negative for organisms and ecosystems in areas that have been subjected to mining activity. This isn't to say all mining should be outlawed or that no good comes from mining; it's just an honest acknowledgement that our activities can produce negative outcomes that many people would rather avoid.

 

[wildminer]

I believe a reasonable approach to modern mining that shows no significant impact is the way to go. I actually look at it in a bigger approach than just our lifetimes. I can look back through the ages as far as 650 million years ago if you can imagine how staggering that is and to look back when there was a super continent when North America was connected to the European continent and South America was connected to Africa. You can look at Yellowstone blowing in the recent past and the ash covering the whole earth sending it into an ice age. When will it blow again? No one knows. That is in the future if it does. I believe the natural resources are here for us to utilize and see no reason to take the God given elements and minerals away from the common man to utilize and make his life better. The earth is in a perpetual state of change.

 

[HardHatMatt]

You're right, the earth is in perpetual flux and I don't know that there is anything inherently noble about keeping things static at all costs. I also agree that a sensible approach strikes the right balance between the practical rights and needs of man and the value in being good stewards of the environment we all share and inhabit. I wish that all miners shared our sentiments, but it seems that some are so jaded by government intrusion to all facets of our lives that they immediately bristle at even scientifically-sound and well-intentioned attempts to regulate their activities. I'm no big fan of government regulation, but it usually stems from inadequacies in self-regulation. I've seen countless examples in farming, mining and elsewhere of what can happen when people and companies refuse to acknowledge that their choices have consequences or simply don't care who or what is impacted as a result. Personally, I think we lose a lot of credibility in the debate and in our attempts to reduce the more burdensome and unnecessary regulations when we put blinders on and don't engage in an honest discussion of the undeniable negative impacts that mining produces.

 

[spaghettigold]

You're right, the earth is in perpetual flux and I don't know that there is anything inherently noble about keeping things static at all costs. I also agree that a sensible approach strikes the right balance between the practical rights and needs of man and the value in being good stewards of the environment we all share and inhabit. I wish that all miners shared our sentiments, but it seems that some are so jaded by government intrusion to all facets of our lives that they immediately bristle at even scientifically-sound and well-intentioned attempts to regulate their activities. I'm no big fan of government regulation, but it usually stems from inadequacies in self-regulation. I've seen countless examples in farming, mining and elsewhere of what can happen when people and companies refuse to acknowledge that their choices have consequences or simply don't care who or what is impacted as a result. Personally, I think we lose a lot of credibility in the debate and in our attempts to reduce the more burdensome and unnecessary regulations when we put blinders on and don't engage in an honest discussion of the undeniable negative impacts that mining produces.

In this case we talk about dredging and it was already heavily regulated before the ban .Your concerns have been adressed before the ban,this discussion makes no sense.I know what you are talking about and i respect your good will. You have the exact feelings that radical greenies have.(sorry)
The butterfly effect works also the other way around.Displaced sediment ,worms ,bacterias,fungis,grass will settle down quickly cause dredging does not occur during floods and colonise new territory.
You also neglect millions of years of evolution that made instream flora and fauna used to "beeing displaced" and some species probably depend on displacing events.
But to be realistic,maybe there are some species that don't like to be dredged up and there,s a impact on them.In this case you have to keep in mind that we are talking about a dredge that sucks up maybe 20 cubic yards a day out of millions of cubic yards in the whole river .The survivors of the impacted species of the dredging process will regenerate and could have less food competition with rivals,the dredged portion of river will be colonised from the undredged surroundings,the babys of the survivors we be fitter to displacement events in the future.When Putting in the scale of a dredge vs the river it puts it in to perspective.
Your problem is you have the perception of an ultra sensitive in- stream enviroment that can't be touched without negative consequences.
This perception of an ultra sensitive mother nature is exactly what produces the" total ban" mentality of the eco nazis .
We can further elaborate using this ideologie if you like,for example:Will have walking on the grass have an impact on the grass?Will walking on the grass have impacts on ants populations in the grass,spiders,bugs etc.etc...will it compact the ground?Then we could start a scientific study that will show impacts on ant populations,bugs,ground compaction and then go on to ask the epa to create "no walk zones"because we have the studies and if they don,t do it we will sue them.
Will dredging have an impact? yes ,some small negatives and some small positives ,but how some studies showed ,less then significant,ok ,lets move on

 

[HardHatMatt]

Fair points...particularly with regard to evolution, "survival of the fittest" and not ignoring the fact that the butterfly effect cuts both ways.

I'm genuinely curious; which regulations do most of you feel are or would be appropriate? One recreational dredge in one day may displace 20 cubed yards, but that number obviously goes up with more dredges and more days. I can certainly envision a scenario in which the cumulative effects of dredging or other types of mining, especially considering that the activity typically becomes concentrated in gold-bearing sections, can have a significant impact on the ecosystem. What kinds of regulation would reasonably prevent occasional, low-impact use from becoming destructive? I get the impression that many feel it should be a free-for-all; maybe I'm mistaken so I'd love to hear which regulations you feel are appropriate and why.

As to the grass analogy, I guess I don't see any reason to dismiss the idea out of hand...I'm not convinced that your desire to walk on the grass supecedes the negative impacts of doing so. In fact, this is one of the reasons why we have sidewalks and designated trails and pathways through wilderness, parks, on golf courses, etc.. Most of us want the grass to remain healthy over the long haul and for occasional, sporadic use - to the extent that you insist that you have the right to walk anywhere, anytime, don't be surprised when there is push back from those who don't put such a premium on you indulging your individual liberty. If it's your own grass, that's one thing...but in this case the "grass" belongs to everyone, and as such it is always legitimate to consider whether unrestricted walking on the grass creates negative consequences that the majority of folks would rather avoid.

 

[mytimetoshine]

Well I for one did my part to help the fish today or is it Moss? no wait its organisms. Butterflies?...no that was butterfly effect..forget it.

The point is I went panning today caught a little gold and 5 large lead fishing weights! oh and a tiny bit of mercury that was stuck to one small flake! Meanwhile there was a few people fishing up stream, that...dare I say...ok, I just say it...they MURDERED a fish!...I suspect it is the same like that are poising the river with lead..I would have called the sheriff but I didn't have cell coverage! dang!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[HardHatMatt]

Hope it was a bonanza! But hey, don't be too hard on yourself for being confused...it IS an awful lot to keep track of. Don't let anyone tell you that there is any shame in digging holes in the dirt and letting others sift through the more nuanced matters. As they say, the world needs ditch diggers, too!

 

[mytimetoshine]

Right. I just can't imagine how these ecosystems ever made it through the eons without a bunch of yokels out dredging...but keep fighting the good fight!

See, you meant exactly what you said. I'm just a yokel..by definition: An uneducated, unsophisticated person from the Countryside

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[HardHatMatt]

Look, if you want to manufacture some kind of comical, half-hearted outrage over being called a yokel, be my guest. Personally, I'm not buying it...but I can't blame you for trying to throw in a red herring to shift focus away from the actual debate. In the meantime, let me know if there is anything I can do to help clear up the difference between moss and fish! Always happy to help.

 

[goldenmojo]

Ya but your a cool yokel........

 

[wildminer]

Nothing wrong at all for being a local yokel.