Bad news California

[Clay Diggins]

Rinehart lost the CA Supreme Court appeal:

We conclude the state‘s moratorium is not preempted.
The federal laws Rinehart relies upon reflect a congressional intent to afford prospectors secure possession of, and in some instances title to, the places they mine. But while Congress sought to protect miners‘ real property interests, it did not go further and guarantee to them a right to mine immunized from exercises of the states‘ police powers. We
reverse the Court of Appeal.

You can download the whole decision HERE.

Heavy Pans

 

[hvacker]

Since when does State law trump Fed law??

 

[SchoolOfHardRocks]

Since when does State law trump Fed law??

When its convenient for the gov't.

 

[goldenIrishman]

The fat lady hasn't sung yet folks!!!!

Just read something on the ICMJ web site that brings up a VERY good point! NOW is the time for all of the mining districts to get themselves back into the swing of things and put their collective feet down across the necks of these people trying to take our rights from us. Mining Districts have LEGAL POWER should they decide to use it. There have been several recent examples of how their legal power could be used in the fight against these rules.

Go to their site and read the articles:

ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal Main page

CA Supreme Court Rules Against Rinehart -- But there is a solution - Miner's News - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal Article mentioned

Video - The Power of Mining Districts: Restoring Access & Returning to Reasonable Regulation - Miner's News - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal "How-to" Video


If there was ever a good time and reason to get the mining districts back into the fight, I can't think of it.

 

[kcm]

Since when does State law trump Fed law??

Well, let's look at another hot topic - guns and gun control. Since when does state law trump federal law? That answer should be ANY TIME IT WANTS! United States of America was born of individual states that was to have a single, loosely-governing federal body. ...It's sorta grown since then.

Montana went against federal law on guns made within the state of Montana, provided the guns do not cross state lines. I don't remember all the fine print about that, but yes, states can (and often should) trump federal law.

States were designed to be different - so that if a state started going sour and getting out of control, people/businesses would leave and revenue would drop, and things would stay that way until the state stopped being stupid. ...This was back when it was very difficult to move from one state to another. Horse travel was a bit slower. Now that we have planes, trains and automobiles, it has gotten to where nearly every state is like nearly every other state. It's more difficult than ever to escape the insanity of many of the elected officials, whether federal, state or local.

 

[Nitric]

Well, let's look at another hot topic - guns and gun control. Since when does state law trump federal law? That answer should be ANY TIME IT WANTS! United States of America was born of individual states that was to have a single, loosely-governing federal body. ...It's sorta grown since then.

Montana went against federal law on guns made within the state of Montana, provided the guns do not cross state lines. I don't remember all the fine print about that, but yes, states can (and often should) trump federal law.

States were designed to be different - so that if a state started going sour and getting out of control, people/businesses would leave and revenue would drop, and things would stay that way until the state stopped being stupid. ...This was back when it was very difficult to move from one state to another. Horse travel was a bit slower. Now that we have planes, trains and automobiles, it has gotten to where nearly every state is like nearly every other state. It's more difficult than ever to escape the insanity of many of the elected officials, whether federal, state or local.

Yes, But I thought Federal was supposed to Protect Your Rights too against states.

A State can't take your Right away! Our rights are supreme...But they just twist their way in...Like they did here....They didn't say you can't have a mineral claim! They are just saying how you can work it. Which makes no freaking sense, but it was their "way in"......If I understand it right....

I don't really know, this stuff gets confusing....

And no!!! A state should not take your Rights...Even though those laws were written "back then" they fully understood what they were writing and why....

Ok, KCM....Just wanted to ramble for a min...

Added...I just read your post again...I think I got confused...Maybe... Another example is Pot laws...It's against Fed, but states are allowing...Thinking of it that way? I agree with what your saying, Its a little different...........But no state should be able to take your second amendment or any other or you Rights.

 

[bedrock bubba]

I would love to see them prove damages from dredging! I don't see how they could!

 

[winners58]

Memo from James Buchal 8/23/16

 

[DXBDave]

Can we fight fire with fire?

I have been reading this and all the other threads I can find since the decision was released. I agree the court really screwed the pooch on this one. But I have a couple questions from a naive wannabe miner. Does this decision mean that 673 {Only non mechanical mining} remains the law of the land? If all the rules seem to revolve around using an engine in or near the water, how does this relate to boating and water pumps used in irrigation? And finally how do the large mines/gravel companies get exempted from the law? Seeing above that hydraulic mining was stopped not by law but by civil suits, why isnt that the small miners tactic? Stop trying to spend huge dollars on defense, and start filing lawsuits. Any activity that runs afoul of the water boards laws against small miners but is not enforced, file suit. If large companies can still dig with heavy equipment in or near waterways, file suit. If a company is using suction dredging to clean a reservoir and getting to keep the gold, file suit. Put them in the position to defend their actions. Maybe I am really naive but dont most lawyers just love to file suit hoping to get a percentage of the damages/legal casts? Again, maybe I am waaay out there, but just trying to find a way to fight this miscarriage of justice without breaking the bank. And maybe allowing all the alphabet groups to join together in the same way the environmental groups did to fight dredging. Just an idea off the top of my head, welcome any suggestions....

 

[jere64ca]

Memo from James Buchal 8/23/16

The legal battle in Oregon on SB 838 is perhaps the next most important case as is the next nominees to the US Supreme Court.

 

[jere64ca]

I would love to see them prove damages from dredging! I don't see how they could!

You have hit the nail right on the head as to why this all is so frustrating for all of us miner types. Study after study have proven there is no damage to the environment. The reality of the situation is we are fighting a very opposing Agenda.

 

[hvacker]

By asking when does State law trump Federal law I was being facetious. Our reliance on Federal powers
has gone in a way never intended. Take the 10th amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

I guess this case depends on interpretation of Federal law as regards to land ownership and that seems like a State issue.

Mining has had a poor performance overall. We just suffered a huge release of contaminated water due to
an abundance of errors.
But where are essential minerals going to come from? China? South Africa?

States have given much of their powers to the Fed. Might have something to do with getting the tax dollars back.
Rights are a strange thing to try to define. There's just a few.
Sometimes It seems to cook down to what the hippies used to say."Do your own thing as long as you don't hurt anyone."
The impact of mining needs to be asked that question. Are you hurting anyone?
We are only guaranteed a handful of "rights" and should not be confused with "laws" as they often are.
Laws are just game rules subject to change.

 

[ClaimStake]

I have been reading this and all the other threads I can find since the decision was released. I agree the court really screwed the pooch on this one. But I have a couple questions from a naive wannabe miner. Does this decision mean that 673 {Only non mechanical mining} remains the law of the land? If all the rules seem to revolve around using an engine in or near the water, how does this relate to boating and water pumps used in irrigation? And finally how do the large mines/gravel companies get exempted from the law? Seeing above that hydraulic mining was stopped not by law but by civil suits, why isnt that the small miners tactic? Stop trying to spend huge dollars on defense, and start filing lawsuits. Any activity that runs afoul of the water boards laws against small miners but is not enforced, file suit. If large companies can still dig with heavy equipment in or near waterways, file suit. If a company is using suction dredging to clean a reservoir and getting to keep the gold, file suit. Put them in the position to defend their actions. Maybe I am really naive but dont most lawyers just love to file suit hoping to get a percentage of the damages/legal casts? Again, maybe I am waaay out there, but just trying to find a way to fight this miscarriage of justice without breaking the bank. And maybe allowing all the alphabet groups to join together in the same way the environmental groups did to fight dredging. Just an idea off the top of my head, welcome any suggestions....

due to the way the code is written. the term "mechanical" does not apply outside of using a suction or vacuum device.

so "technically" you can still highbank. and you can run tractors. but you still have to file a proper POO and you will need a lumber claim in order to disturb the forest floor(soil) FS has no jurisdiction when it comes to the dirt/minerals.

and if it's high and dry and 300ft from the water ways. DWR F&G cant say nothing.

 

[hvacker]

A lot of y'all have seen the way nature tosses rocks around on a river. Changes direction. Tears out it's banks.
It makes a dredge seem tame. The dredge says "I pick up rocks and I put them down."

 

[spaghettigold]

I have been reading this and all the other threads I can find since the decision was released. I agree the court really screwed the pooch on this one. But I have a couple questions from a naive wannabe miner. Does this decision mean that 673 {Only non mechanical mining} remains the law of the land? If all the rules seem to revolve around using an engine in or near the water, how does this relate to boating and water pumps used in irrigation? And finally how do the large mines/gravel companies get exempted from the law? Seeing above that hydraulic mining was stopped not by law but by civil suits, why isnt that the small miners tactic? Stop trying to spend huge dollars on defense, and start filing lawsuits. Any activity that runs afoul of the water boards laws against small miners but is not enforced, file suit. If large companies can still dig with heavy equipment in or near waterways, file suit. If a company is using suction dredging to clean a reservoir and getting to keep the gold, file suit. Put them in the position to defend their actions. Maybe I am really naive but dont most lawyers just love to file suit hoping to get a percentage of the damages/legal casts? Again, maybe I am waaay out there, but just trying to find a way to fight this miscarriage of justice without breaking the bank. And maybe allowing all the alphabet groups to join together in the same way the environmental groups did to fight dredging. Just an idea off the top of my head, welcome any suggestions....

precautionary principle and best practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful). This means they can shut you down even if there is no science saying your harming the enviroment.
You have already lost.

The burden of proof lies to the miner,eirs and so on.

Then best practice..Best practice means you have to use the best existing methods in mining,Regardless of the costs to extract the minerals . These regulations may make sense when you are running atomic waste disposal enterprise,or big ops mining. But what does it mean to the small scale dredger that has a minimal impact .
Lets say you are running a 8 inch dredge and could make 3 to 400 bucks in gold a day with your deposits in your claim(river) You could live with it ,not rich ,but free,moving about twenty yards a day.

But if you have to pay tons of fees ,pay for a enviro study ,your starting capital needs to go higher and the yardage you have to move becomes bigger..but then comes best practice.
Best practice in the total control green dream world for dredging instream doesn,t even exist,because they just don,t want you in an active river bed,especially when it comes to goldmining,because goldmining is bad as they learn from early childhood on,fed with images of mercury polluted rivers and cut down rainforests in thirdworld countries,where there is the other extreme-zero regulation and lack of mining tecnology.

A best practice scheme they maybe would accept is;

1,you only drede where they say you can dredge.
2.You dredge only the ammount material they say you can dredge.
3.They say when you can dredge,with the gear they say you can dredge
4.The gravel and water you dredge doesn,t go back to the river but must be catched and cleaned with ultimate tech.
5.The "cleaned "gravel has to go back in to the hole.
6.You are liable for everything and they can shut you down at any time
7,A bunch of other regs my immagination can,t find at the moment.

Congrats ,your deposit is now worthless,because instead of having to have around half gram a yard you now need maybe 10 grams ayard or have to move about 100 yards a day to meet the costs of the regs. Thats why only the bigger ops can meet the regs.
The fact that these regs are not necessary for small scale dredging is what we have to proove. I don,t know eny exact numbers,just to show the principle.
All this regs are now almost everywhere in the western world,written in the same language and are part of the big plan for the future world of total control by big goverment sometimes mixed together with big corp.(PPP)
Sometimes they have a little problem because the are still some reasonable laws from the old days around but hey,we can interprete this things

but it,s still more probably they don,t want you in the river(And in the wilderness) at all,(the extremists greenies) and the gov. cause you little stinker ,you cause work and a hard to surveille and tax.
Thats why its getting harder and sometimes impossible for the small.

As always i am no specialist in those things,just my opinion,somebody may correct me.

 

[kcm]

I have been reading this and all the other threads I can find since the decision was released. I agree the court really screwed the pooch on this one. But I have a couple questions from a naive wannabe miner. Does this decision mean that 673 {Only non mechanical mining} remains the law of the land? If all the rules seem to revolve around using an engine in or near the water, how does this relate to boating and water pumps used in irrigation? And finally how do the large mines/gravel companies get exempted from the law? Seeing above that hydraulic mining was stopped not by law but by civil suits, why isnt that the small miners tactic? Stop trying to spend huge dollars on defense, and start filing lawsuits. Any activity that runs afoul of the water boards laws against small miners but is not enforced, file suit. If large companies can still dig with heavy equipment in or near waterways, file suit. If a company is using suction dredging to clean a reservoir and getting to keep the gold, file suit. Put them in the position to defend their actions. Maybe I am really naive but dont most lawyers just love to file suit hoping to get a percentage of the damages/legal casts? Again, maybe I am waaay out there, but just trying to find a way to fight this miscarriage of justice without breaking the bank. And maybe allowing all the alphabet groups to join together in the same way the environmental groups did to fight dredging. Just an idea off the top of my head, welcome any suggestions....

Companies that do such work in otherwise restricted areas get special permitting to do said work. Due to this "special permitting", they can charge more for the work done. They already have their gold...in the form of outrageous prices. They don't bother with quibbling ver small bits of gold that they may suck up in the process.

If you really wanna ask a valid question, ask how it is that they can do the SAME work as a dredger, yet miraculously cause no problems or damage? It's all a scam. It ALL has to do with money. With miners/prospectors, the "money" is in the form of gold/minerals, and is splotchy in distribution. In their case, it's a sure thing every time they go out. ....So tell me, who is it that has the REAL gold mine going?!?!?

 

[kcm]

A lot of y'all have seen the way nature tosses rocks around on a river. Changes direction. Tears out it's banks.
It makes a dredge seem tame. The dredge says "I pick up rocks and I put them down."

A dredge is "controllable" - nature is not. If nature could be controlled, there would be no mote hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc, etc, etc... And herein lies the problem - these "natural occurrences" are actually beneficial for the environment. But if they could be controlled (or taxed or permitted or whatever) by anyone, they would be.

 

[The Dirt Pirate]

I can see where it's going and it's not good. If they get their way eventually we won't be able to do any type of prospecting at all because they want to ban it in all states where there is gold so the government can send people in to get it themselves. I'm guessing unless we all do something now in 10-20 years all forms of gold prospecting will be banned nationwide. The other problem is the tree hugger groups that have the ear of the people making all this happen.

 

[jere64ca]

A best practice scheme they maybe would accept is;

1,you only drede where they say you can dredge.
2.You dredge only the ammount material they say you can dredge.
3.They say when you can dredge,with the gear they say you can dredge
4.The gravel and water you dredge doesn,t go back to the river but must be catched and cleaned with ultimate tech.
5.The "cleaned "gravel has to go back in to the hole.
6.You are liable for everything and they can shut you down at any time
7,A bunch of other regs my immagination can,t find at the moment.

You stole these regs from the Nez Pierce Forest Service up in Idaho! Seriously, they are nearly an exact match to this years regs on the South Fork Clearwater.

 

[spaghettigold]

You stole these regs from the Nez Pierce Forest Service up in Idaho! Seriously, they are nearly an exact match to this years regs on the South Fork Clearwater.

Didn,t even know a Nez pierce FS existed,it,s more a mashup of the practises you see when big special permitts for special "green "dredging ops are carried out.Well,they often can cover the coasts with a little help of the taxpayer,that helps.

Guess no profitable dredging then there?

What do they have under point seven in my list?No noise because of the birds? No walking on the grass because it compacts the ground?And who want,s to dredge like this?
Hope you guys can still fix it with the courts before it comes down to dredging studies,because with studies you can proove whatever you want.
It depends on the mindset of the people making the studies and how they sell theire results.Add the prec.principle and "may" ,"could"...and common sense has no weight nomore.

 

[jere64ca]

Didn,t even know a Nez pierce FS existed,it,s more a mashup of the practises you see when big special permitts for special "green "dredging ops are carried out.Well,they often can cover the coasts with a little help of the taxpayer,that helps.

Guess no profitable dredging then there?

What do they have under point seven in my list?No noise because of the birds? No walking on the grass because it compacts the ground?And who want,s to dredge like this?
Hope you guys can still fix it with the courts before it comes down to dredging studies,because with studies you can proove whatever you want.
It depends on the mindset of the people making the studies and how they sell theire results.Add the prec.principle and "may" ,"could"...and common sense has no weight nomore.

You are gunna think I am makin this stuff up but,,,, yes the regs protected birds, dredgers were told where they could camp and,,,, wait for it,,,, walk on the grass to access the river. Crazy huh?

More than enough studies have been done by independent parties like at least 3 by Fish and Game, USGS, Universities ect. All resulted in "less than significant" impacts. We are not fighting science,,,, we are fighting an ideology.