California dredging loophole?

[calisdad]

I know Dave Mack has his detractors here but what do you think of his 'theory'? Seems to me there still is a turbidity issue.

Comments?

Dave Mack


How’s this for good news: Looking closer at the California regulations, there does remain a way for us to go down along the bottom of California’s waterways and suction up the shallower, higher-grade gravels. This is because, as defined by DFG’s own formal regulations, as long as we remove the sluice box from our motorized suction system, we are not operating a “suction dredge.”

I have outlined the initial concept on my blog at bit.ly/DaveMackBlog. Check it out!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[kuger]

Gonna need extremely rich dirt,and a lot of containers!!

 

[G1sammons]

Your still dredging even if you don't have a sluice

As sand and gravel dredges don't use them but still require permits
To operate

But I think you will see it over turned very soon
As federal mining laws say that the states can regulate but not ban mining
And is currently being challenged by several individuals
Lets keep our finger crossed

 

[russau]

My father had a sign hanging in his home that said,"even a fish wouldnt get caught, if he kept his mouth shut"!

 

[Hefty1]

"As federal mining laws say that the states can regulate but not ban mining"


Can you point out those "Federal Mining Laws"

Thanks in advance.

 

[G1sammons]

Hefty

I say them in another post on here
In the dredging section look under the dredging section
Veni started a tread called dredging in Cali today coppers come get us
It's a long one but you will find some PDF files attached in there that reference them
I tried to post the link but I can't seem to do it

 

[G1sammons]

http://67.189.25.76/gold/Art letter to Ted Ferrioli.pdf

 

[Hefty1]

Got it G1
I missunderstood your statement...as IMO is not complete..."As federal mining laws say that the states can regulate but not ban mining" And not be in conflict with the 1872 mining laws as amended.

Nice letter btw.

 

[G1sammons]

There are several challenges currently goin on in Cali siting these laws

Personally I don't see how they can loose but then I was sure Obama would not do another 4years
So what do I know

 

[Fullpan]

Calisdad, thank you for posting the info - I urge everyone to read Dave Mack's idea in its entirety! http://www.goldgold.com/ It is the second subject on
the list at his website. Please read the whole thing - twice! I believe it is the best "strategy" to come along in 4 years. Please consider how the "letter of
the law" has been proven effective in case law. Then return to comment here.

 

[Rdg Sluicer]

Per Mark Stopher DFG Redding if it doesn't have a sluice it is not dredging thus does not fall under the moratorium. No restrictions.

 

[W4MRK]

Per Mark Stopher DFG Redding if it doesn't have a sluice it is not dredging thus does not fall under the moratorium. No restrictions.

Until they (DFG) read the piece written by Dave Mack, or the first few times someone outsmarts them. Then they just go and re-write the rules and the dredgers are right back to square one.

 

[jcazgoldchaser]

I know Dave Mack has his detractors here but what do you think of his 'theory'? Seems to me there still is a turbidity issue.

Comments?

Dave's idea? I posted that on this forum in April before the final regulations were adopted. Several times in fact. John even posted the same negative comments to my posts.

G&F defines suction dredging as motor/pump, hose, sluice.

Figure it out. A sluice is pretty much a trough. A fluid bed is not a trough.

[edit]
My mistake, I posted it over there in April
http://bb.bbboy.net/thenew49ers-viewthread?forum=2&thread=881

And not till July over here:
Jul:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/gold-prospecting/302873-i-have-no-idea-what-all-means.html#post2851986
Sept:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/dredging-hi-banking/309511-dredging-tomorrow-california-come-get-us-coppers-3.html#post2926309

 

[Fullpan]

Here is the letter from Stopher, dated, 2 Jan 2013, The New 49'ers :: Gold Prospecting :: We can still suction mine in California's waterways! You have to scan to the bottom
of the page to see it. I don't see "I GUESS THIS DOES NOT" in the letter - what's up?, John? But, yes, they can kill this loophole
in a couple days of backroom BS.

 

[mazzy74]

Would my idea work? Check out the thread I started called Pennsylvania loophole

 

[Gravel Hog]

Don't get too excited about this. Legislators will be looking into a patch job. Happens when you create big hype and everyone runs to the CDFG with questions. Duh!!!!
Too bad for the rest of us that figured it out last spring and were already using this method last summer.

 

[Fullpan]

I apologize for being naive, and helping to spread this around. Can we ask the administrator to kill this whole thread? And how about a warning signal
for the future, such as: "PMPMPM!!"

 

[calisdad]

Fullpan I didn't start the thread to misinform people, merely to start a conversation on the subject. As I stated i my initial post I thought there were some concerns. Those who say it will be legislated around are just speculating. When Edison was asked if he failed to invent the lightbulb he said: "No, I just found 1000 ways to not build one." Personally I think booming is a better alternative but conditions are different everywhere. It appears prospectors are inventing solutions as we speak. Isn't that the American way? As far as the DFG's response, here it is for those who want to judge for themselves:

"I carefully read (today) the information that McCracken provides on his website. I believe Dave McCracken's description of the legal requirements and application of the regulations is accurate. If practiced as he describes, this is not a violation of the moratorium and is not prohibited.

There is no specific permit required and no seasonal restrictions. Since this is not suction dredging, neither the moratorium or our adopted regulations for suction dredging apply. It's essentially a loophole in existing law. However, as McCracken notes, Fish and Game Code section 1602 could apply if the streambed alteration is substantial, that is, you create a big hole. My guess is that such a system will be less efficient, and less excavation will occur, than if you were using a suction dredge since there is no sluice box and miners will need to use some other system to sort through the material."

Mark Stopher
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

voice 530.225.2275
fax 530.225.2391
cell 530.945.1344

 

[Gravel Hog]

You didn't misinform people, matter fact the opposite you informed people which inturn inquired about this to the CDFG and they were informed also. Still you are not the one who made that drawing and website so not your fault at all.
I got the same response from Stopher as what you have there on your post but my neighbor ask a few different question of Mark Stopher and he got this response... don't look like speculation to me.

"Yes, I do see a potential problem with this method because without regulations there are no constraints on when, where and how this is done. It's is not hard to imagine the possibility that a miner will vacuum up salmon or steelhead eggs in the gravel, for example."

"You may already know that we must report to the legislature no later than April 1, 2013 on coordination with other agencies regarding suction dredge law and provide any recommendations for changes to laws and permit fees that we feel are warranted. This particular issue is a new development and I just don't know at this time the full range of suggestions we might make to the legislature. We are required by current law to make this report to the legislature regardless of any court action decisions between now and then. What the legislature might then do is unknown."



Mark Stopher
Senior Policy Advisor
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

voice 530.225.2275
fax 530.225.2391
cell 530.945.1344
mark.stopher@wildlife.ca.gov
www.wildlife.ca.gov

 

[kuger]

Just for those that dont know F&G and especially Stopher are NOT our friends,for all intents and purpose they are the ENEMY....especially Rat Faced Stopher!!!!!

Also,what somebody at F&G tlls you to a question does not protect you from anything in the field!!!!!!!!I would not trust em if they told me it was 2013,thats not somebody that answers phones jobs....to know answers to laws.If you want to know an answer to something not clear,confer with an attorney.The lawbook is also written in a way that one law can be interpreted differently warden to warden,and at the end of the day,unless you have a good attorney the Judge will side with the Warden