New Bill in California

[Goldwasher]

I know the guy who lobbied the Senator to to help craft this bill

He is the guy GoldenMojo and I rafted with early summer I posted a thread.

He used to lobby for the building trades got the fever. I sold him a used bazooka at my shop. We hit it off.

I introduced him to Shannon Poe. He has decided to start his own firm and lobby for small scale miners


PRO BONO!!!!!

Your welcome

Some typos and wording I'm gonna give him feed back on. It is nice to see some proactive work being done at the capitol on our behalf.

Bill Text - SB-1222 Use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment.


Please call your Congressman and tell them you want them to support this Bill

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Garrote Gold]

who cares about highbanking in a stream anymore? I can do the same amount of work with bazooka and dont have to lift my shovel as high to feed the banker or buy gas and related breakdown expenses lol.......... I would rather worry about getting the dredging permitted than worry about high banking flour gold in the mother load..... that being said, here is a different angle no ones talking about- I would love to run a highbanker on the beaches of california so put that wording in the bill please!!!!!

is my clam gun a suction dredge? lol too much acid shut down my dredge these past years ......

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Assembler]

who cares about highbanking in a stream anymore? I can do the same amount of work with bazooka and dont have to lift my shovel as high to feed the banker or buy gas and related breakdown expenses lol.......... I would rather worry about getting the dredging permitted than worry about high banking flour gold in the mother load..... that being said, here is a different angle no ones talking about- I would love to run a highbanker on the beaches of california so put that wording in the bill please!!!!!

Please keep everyone updated on this. This may also down the road apply to say Oregon and Washington cost lands as well.
Thanks

 

[N-Lionberger]

Instream power sluicing has its place, not every location is ideally suited for running a stream sluice. I like running my highbanker high up on the bank. Cali beach highbanking that does sound fun.

 

[mytimetoshine]

Instream power sluicing has its place, not every location is ideally suited for running a stream sluice. I like running my highbanker high up on the bank. Cali beach highbanking that does sound fun.

id rather highbank the delta...thats where all the gold is. Not much reached the ocean here. Too bad its DEEP

 

[N-Lionberger]

id rather highbank the delta...thats where all the gold is. Not much reached the ocean here. Too bad its DEEP

There are a couple spots where good gold can be found, one of them sadly is in SF and in a national recreation area where you can't even run a detector for lost change, which fingerchile or whatever his name was pointed out. Another spot which is where I really really want to beach mine is up north where the Klamath spills into the ocean. I have a friend from high school whos dad heavily invested and lost in a gold dredging operation on the delta, if I remember correctly on Decker Island, the money was supposed to go into a big bucket ladder dredge or something it was all a big scam. I do think about the delta quite a bit, there has to be quite a bit of fines in there. You would need a power sluice with beach matting I would think, snowballs chance in hell a bazooka sluice would be affective on the delta lol.

 

[mytimetoshine]

yea the river coming out of the motherload go to the delta, then the bay, then the ocean. Ive taken black sand sample from the beach in SF. there isnt any gold, maybe tiny tiny bit but yea up north this is cause river actually runs to the ocean.
I will put a bazooka against beach matting 8 days a week. Bazooka catches -200 out of sand with 10x the feed rate.

 

[N-Lionberger]

I'm pretty sure a lot of gold is caught by the bay.

 

[mytimetoshine]

I have seen fishermen down at the pier in Berkeley squeeze merc out of shark meat.

.....no you didnt lol.

 

[QNCrazy]

As promised, here is the link to the page that contains other links to the Senators: https://www.americanminingrights.com/a-new-bill-to-provide-relief-to-california-small-miners-sb1222/

However, before you start clicking on the links, I have come up with some clarifying language of my own. I believe the intent behind 1222 is to clarify the language to avoud BS interpretations of the LEO's.

When I was in school, many years ago, i was told you cant define a word by using the word in which you are trying to define. For example, in SB 637, they use "suction dredge" to define "Suction Dredging". Below, you will see the current language of 637 followed by my clarifying language. Let me know what you think. If you like the language and you are behind 1222, sumit this language to the senators via email. Here it is:

As currently written:
For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals. This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

My version:
For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, the use of a vacuum or suction device equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system to draw or take in by, or as if by suction, through a hose and/or suction nozzle, for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake, in order to recover minerals. This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

 

[MadMarshall]

Goldwasher,

I am failing to see how this new bill is proactive? In all honestly I see it more as spinning wheels. I don't understand why changing the language is so important to some.. As SB 637 is currently written and enforced it seems like a waste of effort to accomplish nothing.. If California decided to use SB 637 in the extreme wouldn't that be the best thing that could happen to us? Seriously if they were to use the language to stop all forms of motorized mining that would be an outright ban on mining. Or if they were just to enforce it on the small scale mining community and not enforce it against larger mining operations that would be discrimantory.. Instead of preempting what they could do maybe we should see what they actually do and enforce with SB 637.. Who knows maybe the way SB637 is written and possibly enforced may end up working in our favor in the long run... I personally have my doubts that SB637 will be used in the extreme.. This new bill if passed would literally do absolutely nothing other then change language.. If we need a bill passed to clarify a dredge aint a powerboat or a generator. Well then we have bigger problems then anti mining.. But anyway I am interested in hearing from others and why this would be a victory for California miners or why this is even proactive to the small scale mining community?

 

[Goldwasher]

I know two people who have been told they can't use dry vacs because of the "new law" directly from a dfw officer.

Both of them stopped. I told them there was a reason they were "warned' and not cited....is that the law is b.s. and they will see where and who they can get it to apply to

Keep in mind there is a guy in court right now because he was mining and running water through pipe to do his work.

I also know a guy personally who they tried to nail for using a motor to blow overburden...he is more stubborn and informed. The dfw guys ended up leaving.

call me a liar if you want but, these people have no reason to make these things up.

Like I said I know the guy who is helping guide this rare procative bill. He is not getting anything for doing so. He is actually spending his own time and money.

There is a very low chance ...almost none that you are going to get dinged for running a generator to provide light. While mining.


But, a very high chance that if you run a pump within a 100 yard buffer of a waterway and a dfw agent comes across you of someone reports (very rare chance)

you to the swrcb that you will end up with a citation....based on what that agent feels the law is.

The dredge law as it is now was in fact written the way it was to cause confusion and make it seem like things are illegal that aren't.

That is an issue if Shannon exists or not. There is a reason the definition was changed after two committee's.

I was there it happened. At the SWRCB workshop, Izzy herself agreed right to our faces that sluicing should be unlawful as well....I mentioned it looking her in the eyes and she nodded her head up and down like a horse with one of those big horse play balls in its mouth.

Keep in mind that In B.C. and the Yukon you can't stream sluice ..it is not out of the realm of possibility for people to get that ball rolling and make it happen.


there are more than one laws in place that say one thing or started with a certain intent and are now used to just plain intimidate and stop people from doing things they always did.

A law that clarifies things for leos is a good thing.

The big guys mining placer in Ca,. Have been doing so where they are for years with permits and spending money.

The words from Izzy and her cohorts were literally that the Little guy in Ca. should be treated exactly as the big guys. Regardless of the scope and size of what they are doing. Honestly that is ridiculous and a burden if you are trying to scale up what you are doing at all.


Some people would complain if they weren't being hanged with a brand new rope!!

 

[Goldwasher]

Goldwasher,

I am failing to see how this new bill is proactive? In all honestly I see it more as spinning wheels. I don't understand why changing the language is so important to some.. As SB 637 is currently written and enforced it seems like a waste of effort to accomplish nothing.. If California decided to use SB 637 in the extreme wouldn't that be the best thing that could happen to us? Seriously if they were to use the language to stop all forms of motorized mining that would be an outright ban on mining. Or if they were just to enforce it on the small scale mining community and not enforce it against larger mining operations that would be discrimantory.. Instead of preempting what they could do maybe we should see what they actually do and enforce with SB 637.. Who knows maybe the way SB637 is written and possibly enforced may end up working in our favor in the long run... I personally have my doubts that SB637 will be used in the extreme.. This new bill if passed would literally do absolutely nothing other then change language.. If we need a bill passed to clarify a dredge aint a powerboat or a generator. Well then we have bigger problems then anti mining.. But anyway I am interested in hearing from others and why this would be a victory for California miners or why this is even proactive to the small scale mining community?

Well, simply because it is not reacting to a bill that is being used against us.

Waiting to get a ticket and then fighting it through the courts has been tried.

How did that work out for Brandon? How is that working out for Keith?....Keith is going broke fighting because he was moving water through pipe.

Sb637 isn't even finalized ...they are playin games. The guy in charge of the program..."Voluntarily" changed positions he was actually working with us... the new person not so much.

I expect the waterboards stance to be no dredge permits once they "decide" we were supposed to have a preliminary answer last year. Especially after Brandons case wasn't heard at SCOTUS

Its not a matter of enforcement when some can pay to play and some can't so, that is not the issue the court will decide.

This is Ca. as long as a few can pay they don't consider it discriminatory.

All one has to do is follow firearms issues, lead ban..new lad weight ban, off road vehicle laws to see how it actually goes in Cali.

if you can pay you can play.

Sorry Victor but, your Bias is always right on your sleave and your input and angle doesn't rely much on logic or history in regards to the situation and its past.

 

[MadMarshall]

I know two people who have been told they can't use dry vacs because of the "new law" directly from a dfw officer.
Both of them stopped. I told them there was a reason they were "warned' and not cited....is that the law is b.s. and they will see where and who they can get it to apply to
Not uncommon for individuals to be bs'd and taken advantage of. Holds true more for the uneducated. There are recourse individuals can take when being harassed .. I hope these people made official complaints in regards to their encounter..
I also know a guy personally who they tried to nail for using a motor to blow overburden...he is more stubborn and informed. The dfw guys ended up leaving.
call me a liar if you want but, these people have no reason to make these things up.
Its nice that he is informed.. I wonder if they will continue there harassment against him or if they will leave him be? I don't think you are making things up but I do think you are making a very thin point on absolutely nothing.. These incidents are what lends your position value?
Like I said I know the guy who is helping guide this rare procative bill. He is not getting anything for doing so. He is actually spending his own time and money.
There is a very low chance ...almost none that you are going to get dinged for running a generator to provide light. While mining.
I fail to see any relevance on how this would be helping anything other then prevent confusion that a few moron miners have started.. It was a few individual miners who have encouraged and promoted these outlandish interpretations on sb637 and if they want to spend time preempting there own stupidity that's fine with me.. The fact that the guy doin it for free is even better in my opinion because I would see it as pretty stupid to pay or nothing..
The dredge law as it is now was in fact written the way it was to cause confusion and make it seem like things are illegal that aren't.
That is an issue if Shannon exists or not. There is a reason the definition was changed after two committee's.
Its easy to confuse idiots and the uneducated.. I am not surprised individuals like Shannon were confused by it.. I am surprised how quickly they used it to ban themselves and everyone else from high banking to running a crack vac in the desert. I suppose if this new bill puts a stop to all these bans and what if scenarios that these mining activist have promoted then I suppose that would be a good thing.. Honestly it seems the only fix for stupid is stupid!!!

 

[Assembler]

The term "Dredge" is defined in "Code / Administration policy / Permits".
So what is in this "New Bill" that is not in the existing "Code / Administration policy / Permits"?
Thanks

 

[Johnnybravo300]

With all the gold clubs in Cali and one guy is fighting this? Seems like they are more interested in keeping people on their own claims and the money rolling in. What a bunch of pansies!

 

[RobertF]

With all the gold clubs in Cali and one guy is fighting this? Seems like they are more interested in keeping people on their own claims and the money rolling in. What a bunch of pansies!

I think one of the main things is that it was only recently that a few high bankers got cited (or harassed) under the changes done by SB637. And that's the problem with a lot of the "if you think high banking was banned you're an idiot" thinking is that it doesn't really what the person being cited thinks... it's what the officer thinks.

As even when you're right, your time in court isn't free, nor is the lawyers.

This bill eliminates free form thinking for the officer and makes it black and white, and I support that.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I think one of the main things is that it was only recently that a few high bankers got cited (or harassed) under the changes done by SB637. And that's the problem with a lot of the "if you think high banking was banned you're an idiot" thinking is that it doesn't really what the person being cited thinks... it's what the officer thinks.

As even when you're right, your time in court isn't free, nor is the lawyers.

This bill eliminates free form thinking for the officer and makes it black and white, and I support that.

Believe me, there are many miners that are retired and living on a fixed income that cannot risk the cost of losing equipment, fines, court fees, attorney fees, ect.
The older generations generally have a lot more respect for the law than younger generations, which are more apt to throw the finger in the air and do what they please regardless of the potential ramifications. This language needs to be clarified and additional effort spent to build momentum towards larger protections of miners rights. There should be zero risk involved.

 

[QNCrazy]

I wanted to share the email I sent this morning to the Senate Committees and my District Supervisors.

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am writing you today to show my support of Senate Bill (SB) 1222 and ask you for your support.

In January of 2017, SB 637 was enacted specifically for suction dredging and was intended not to be all inclusive of anything motorized or mechanized, but instead to ensure that all forms of suction dredging that were allegedly harmful to the environment, were caught within the net of this language. SB 637 requires a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRBC) and Department of Fish and Wildlife to suction dredge under this definition.Unfortunately, this has inadvertently caused many types of deminimus (not harmful to the environment) equipment and mining to be labeled or interpreted as suction dredging and rendered it illegal to use in California. Equipment such as a small water pump which fits in the palm of your hand, a dry washer which is used in the desert without water, and even a powered post hole digger which can dig a hole.

SB 1222 is a bill to clarify exatcly what a suction dredge is and remove any doubt regarding other deminimus equipment. In my personal review of SB 1222, the current language proposed, still leaves questions about what is legal and what is not. I believe a simple reordering of the current language of SB 637 and adding additional language will acheive the desired results the mining community is seeking. Below you will find my proposed language for SB 1222. During the process of SB 1222, please request this language be substituted in lieu of the language currenly proposed.

The language is as follows:

For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized vacuum or suction device, to draw or take in by, or as if by suction, through a hose and/or suction nozzle, for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from beneath the current water level of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals. This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a hose or suction nozzle.

Sec. 2

Section 13172.5 of the water code is amended to read:

13172.5

(a) For purposes of this section, suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized vacuum or suction device, to draw or take in by, or as if by suction, through a hose and/or suction nozzle, for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from beneath the current water level of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals. This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a hose or suction nozzle.


Thank you for your time and consideration into this matter. Please help us get the small miner back to work and boost the revenues of the small communities affected by SB 637.


Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Vice President
Delta Gold Diggers


I know there are the neysayers out there but they can GST.

Mike

 

[QNCrazy]

I have been approached twice within the last three years in Tuolumne County. Once prior to SB637 and once after. Both times, I was in possession of suction dredge equipment, but the first time I wasn't actively using it at the time they showed up. I was using a highbanker and the LEO was trying to tell me I needed a POO. I stood my ground and was allowed to continue my operations. The second time, I was actively using the suction nozzle. Same Officer. We argued for almost an hour. He himself indicated SB 637 was not clear and opened to interpretation. I explained it was clear if you understood the english language. I stopped using the nozzle and switched to highbanker just to get the most out of my day. We had a mutual respect for each others opinions.

My point is, LEO's are misinterpreting 637 and there needs to be clarification without any grey area.

Are you an LEO or have you been an LEO? Do you know how policy changes are moved through department to reach the Officers who are responsible for enforcing them? Just curious.

 

[Tnmountains]

Under Moderation