Wow, what a hit piece. I had to create an account just to comment.
I'm new to the hobby so I don't have the perspective some might but I found these assertions to be particularly egregious:
Laws like the General Mining Act of 1872 are clear that removing minerals from this river is illegal.
Um that is the law that says it
is legal.
On 12 April 2016, I submitted a media request to accompany the US Forest Service upriver. Press approval is a slow process, and agents told me off-the-record that mining "isn't a high priority," and "not well-enforced.
And yet he couldn't find any actual harms on the ground, even though there is NO enforcement. Sounds like the mining community is enforcing itself pretty well to me.
Local police told me there were no reported crimes committed by miners, or hiker run-ins. "We haven't received any calls," Azusa police dispatcher Lauren Santamaria confirmed.
Fair enough. But what are the miners doing to rivers and the species that live in them?
Again, no reported issues but the author
feels like there must a be problem so he goes prospectin' for some.
Peter Moyle of the University of California Davis has been studying California's fish since 1969. He says the simple act of dumping rocks damages the environment and reduces the prey available to fish. Even the most conscientious miners will impact something's habitat, he adds.
An 'impact' is not the same as a negative impact. If I change the orientation of a stone or draw a pattern in the sand I've had an impact but its absurd to think it is somehow harming the environment.
This watershed is one of 20 river systems that feed Los Angeles. That means the people working in it could affect the purity of drinking water, even if they do not use heavy chemicals.
"It's not ideal, obviously," admits Wen Huang, manager for engineering at the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. "There could be increased turbidity of source water."
The more people in rivers, the more impurities may be introduced into source water. That means more work for treatment systems "to get rid of that," Huang says.
So the issue is people, not miners. If it is really an issue and you want to ban people from the area then do that; why target prospectors specifically? No one uses heavy chemicals so not sure why those are brought up at all. I seriously doubt a little gravel dust that quickly settles back out in a stream dozens or hundreds of miles from a treatment system has any impact whatsoever.
Still, the other accusation stands: that the miners are polluting the land with trash, diverting rivers and threatening species.
Still, the other UNFOUNDED AND FALSE accusation stands: that the miners are polluting the land with trash, diverting rivers and threatening species. FTFY
Minor quibble but indicative of the lack of research that went into this piece.
Getting serious gold requires destroying rocks and sometimes altering rivers. Many miners build shelters and fires, and stay in the wilderness over 21 days. This is all against the law.
Destroying rocks? Definitely not required, not against the law. Building a shelter and a fire? Heavens! That almost sounds like ... camping. Not against the law.
In 2015, in the narrows, a section of river hemmed in by sheer rock walls, a miner in his 60s was crushed by a boulder. His body was not found for 10 days.
Another old-timer, Papa Bear – a Vietnam veteran who was a fixture along with his common-law wife, Mama Bear – also passed in 2015, from a heart attack.
Not many miners are left. "You could probably count them on fingers and toes," Pat lamented.
Is the author trying to imply that prospecting is an inherently dangerous activity? Doesn't the fact that there aren't many miners left undercut the entire argument that this is a big problem?
Hikers splash in the water a hundred yards off, but they could hardly be farther away. The "us vs them" mentality sharpens upon Savage's arrival.
No further evidence to back up this claim about a feeling the author had.
On his chest are tattoos of a skull and bones, and a shovel and pickaxe. They look like gang colours.
...
Later that night, under cover of darkness because he is wary of unexpected guests, Savage showed us where he lives. It is a few feet from a trail, sandwiched against manzanitas and an overhanging oak. You could be leaning on his front door and not know it.
So the one guy that is technically breaking the rules is doing so in a way that is almost impossible to notice. Portrait of the guy is someone suffering, perhaps slightly unhinged, yet seems to have found a safe space where he doesn't bother anyone else. Something must be done! Clearly this guy should be forced into a mental hospital and pumped full of pharmaceuticals rather than the therapy of the outdoors he has chosen. It would be much better for everyone if he was another homeless bum on the corner committing petty crimes and wasting public resources...
It is also, in financial terms at least, not terribly worthwhile.
Again, really undercuts your argument that this is some giant problem if there isn't much money to be made.
Both sides villainise the other. In the miners' defence, I did not see any endangered species threatened, or miners dumping chemicals or trash. Yet, that does not mean they are not having an effect. Certainly, I saw plenty of streams diverted, and men working in them.
So you went to investigate and saw with your own eyes that this narrative is false yet....
I also worry that, one day, a wayward trekker will startle a miner who has made a big find, and gold fever will turn tragic. Even if this dramatic scenario never comes to pass, the miners chuck rocks around carelessly, which seems like a recipe for an accident.
Wow. What a vivid imagination the author has, maybe they should stick to fiction. Is everything an Us-vs-Them issue these days? Author seems to have a bigger issue with the miner's assumed political stances than anything they are actually doing to the environment. (And I say that as a filthy liberal.. well ok moderate.. but either way we're not all crazy.)
