What's new

Billl to ban motorized mining in Maine

winners58

Bronze Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
4,070
Golden Thread
0
Location
Oregon
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
New bill to ban mining in Maine, passing this along if someone around Maine wants us to write letters
let us know where to send them to be admited as testamony

a copy of the Bill;
http://westernminingalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Maine-126-SP-646-item-1.pdf

this is all the info I could find
Public Hearings, Environment and Natural Resources for SP 646 #Ld 1671
Monday, January 27, 2014 10:00 AM,Cross Building, Room 216
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1671&PID=1456&snum=126&sec3

main legislative office: (update: use this address to mail comments)
Environment and Natural Resources Re: Ld 1671
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-1692
fax: (207) 287-1580

found an e-mail
Maine legislature
Environment and Natural Resources
(207) 287-4149
Clerk: Jacob Stern, Jacob.Stern@legislature.maine.gov
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
it wont be long now that all states will adapt this kind of thinking! we just keep saying that your a "recreational" miner and things will start popping for you soon!this is a general statement and NOT aimed at anyone here!
 
I would like to go to the meeting,I live 4 hours away but I prospect in Maine as well as n.h. where I live. I have been following the western loss of freedom on our lands and trying to support our fight to maintain our rights. The vast majority of eastern land is privetly owned so the mining law does not apply at all. I would like my western mining brothers and sisters to P.M. me links to peer reviewed studies proving that dredging has no negative impacts of fish. Please send me valid scientific papers and common sense arguments and tips on how to present them in a meaningful way at the meeting.I think that posting arguments on a public board would be a bad idea.
With sugaring season comming and this being the height of winter logging season i really cant afford to take a day to do this, but as a good friend of mine used to say "talk is for loosers of fools, which one are you?" I dont want to think i could have made a diffrance and know i did nothing.
Thanks in advance, parker
 
If you want the truth, its public knowledge, no need for pm's. The truth is contained right on the front page of the Western Mining Alliance website. The number 2 and
5 bullet point relates to fish.

Western Mining Alliance | Voice of the Independent Miner

The dilemma is, there is too much information, both scientific, and propaganda mixed in the 100 plus page 3 million dollar Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The greenies cherry-picked these studies, and convinced lawmakers to adopt the dubious "precautionary principle" whereas there "may be" potential harm, there "could be" adverse effects from dredging. None of these arguments would carry any weight in a court of law, but did carry weight enough to vote on by liberals in the calif. legislature. The source documents can be found by going here. The relevant docs. start about halfway down the page - GOOD LUCK !

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/suctiondredge/

Also check out the link "suction dredging fact sheet" at the very bottom of the WMA site - it lists scientific references to back up the facts on dredging.
 
Last edited:
What I would like are peer reviewed studies, something with some weight behind it that might make a reasonable person question why fish are even being used as a club against dredgers...we have both seen rivers running brown with mud,silt,rocks and boulders for days during a flood and the fish survive,,compared to that would a small dredge bo any harm to a fish? The thought is rediculous. I am looking for something that a law maker would put some faith in, mabey be swayed by. Peer reviewed studies, but anything would help...the fact that this issue is even being brought for review baffles me but I live in the real world and I think most of the opposition does not...try going to the center for biodiversity web site and spend a couple of hours looking around..made me sick,,but I live in the real world.
 
There is the argument. Search Ebsco Host for papers. Too many to count. Heres the deal. No doubt about it, dredging disturbs the stream gravel. If 10,000 dredges were operating next to each other there may be ecological harm to aquatic insect numbers. Green revolutionaries dont think they act on emotion. The same reason they banned walking off trail in many areas. Ask Hoser Johns opinion on these rules he just loves em! Point blank there are way more green people and tourists than us prospectors.
Unfortunaty we already lost... Guess that makes me an outaw... F,em all
 
I live in communist Maine. The general way the legislature works here is to pass CONTROLLING and ridiculous super environmental rules. The fact they are wasting any time on this is all telling. After all Maine is not a big gold producing state and the number of dredges in the state is very small. Just another reason I am looking to sell and move out of state. Also why I am tea party as well. Looks like I will have to send some emails and make some calls...

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2
 
Wait they cant do this! This is America.. Land of the free! What happened to this country? I'm just sickened by what is happening. Our mining days will come to an end at some point. Environmental organizations in the US are more powerful than the CIA. As far as Maine.. They are just following the rest. Will send email testimony. Hope some way the environmental mafia losses the case
 
Last edited:
With the liberals in power freedom is sure to be a thing of the past...:banghead:

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2
 
A funny thing about "peer reviews"- the damning "humbug creek study" that took place in one of the most mercury contaminated creeks in the state of California (the study was used as a "mean" for the state of California)- the "peer review" was apparently submitted AFTER the experiment. Apparently the peer review is supposed to be submitted BEFORE the experiment to ensure the scientific methods are followed to gather proper data. A couple of the reviewers noted this anomaly and called FOUL, but I guess 2 reviewers out of 4 or 5 wasn't enough to throw out the study. WMA did a follow up analysis of their humbug creek study and they calculated that the "scientist's" computed measurements were several orders of magnitude off of what they should have been. Apparently someone wasn't checking some grad student's calculations. Apparently facts don't matter when you have an agenda.
 
All right I have a little ammo to bring up to the meeting, what else can you folks offer up? I have a hard time finding stuff on the web(time) and I am sure its been done before..I know its a long shot in today's world but at least I'm going to try! You?
 
its comeing to ALL states!be vigilant and watch to see what your gubermint officials are up to behind your back! theyve already got a lot of thier backstabing done, while we were sleeping! get involved or wave goodby to our rights!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom