Miners angry about proposed regulations in Redding California

[Tuolumne]

Miners angry about proposed regulations

There was plenty of anger to go around Wednesday at Redding City Hall as some 80 miners turned out to lambaste a new state law to regulate suction dredge mining.

Under the law passed in 2015, the California Water Board is required to issue permits to miners who want to use the motorized dredges to get gold out of streams.

Water Board staff members held a workshop in Redding on Wednesday to take comment on whether the state should issue the permits, under what conditions and what miners would be required to do to offset potential environmental harm done by the mining.

“Should the state Water Board issue a permit? Emphatically no!” said James Foley, who lives along the Klamath River in Siskiyou County.

“Should certain protective practices be required? No. There is no harm from suction dredging,” he said. “What prohibitions should be applied? I say none.”

Out of the more than 30 commenters at the meeting, only one person in the audience spoke in favor of the permits. The rest disagreed with the premise that suction dredge mining harms the environment or fish.

Suction dredge mining has been prohibited in the state since 2009 because state officials are concerned about the environmental effects of the practice, which involves using a pump to suck materials from the bottom of a stream and run it through a sluice to separate gold.

Much of the concern centers around dredges kicking up mercury from stream beds. The mercury then gets into the food chain, causing a buildup of methylmercury in fish, according to the state.

Miners, however, say the dredges remove toxic metals. The dredges also can kick up sediment and disturb cultural sites, according to state officials.

Suction dredging also destroys salmon and trout salmon nests, said Forrest English, a program manager for Klamath Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife is also required to change its suction dredge mining permits, but that is a separate process.

English said he would prefer the state not issue any permits. English did not attend the meeting in Redding, but went to the board workshop held Tuesday in Orleans in Humboldt County.

“The Water Board needs to either not permit this type of suction dredge mining or in the alternative put very strong protections in place where resources are not at risk,” English said before Wednesday’s meeting.

Miners said they were worried the permitting would be so complex, burdensome and expensive that they would not be able to afford to go through the process.

“But if you must (require permits), create a simple permitting process, one that is inexpensive and can be rapidly processed,” said Shannon Poe, president and CEO of the American Mining Rights Association.

Most at the meeting said mining was a way of life to them and they use mining to supplement their income. Creating a burdensome permit process would prevent that, they said.

Poe said miners are not environmentally irresponsible.

“It is a miner who has a real property mining claim. He pays taxes and is being denied the ability to feed his family due to ideology and not facts,” he said.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[bcfromfl]

Work around and compromises for what? The so called "damage" done by dredging is nonexistent. In fact dredging can be quite beneficial, especially when you get into things like streambed armoring and interspatial siltation. Those two things have an effect several orders of magnitude greater on aquatic habitat than dredging ever will.

The more complex the eco freaks try and make this issue, the more absolute crap that comes out. The only problem that I have found over the years is the fact that these eco freaks with their 2.0 GPA's think they know what they are talking about because they can use a computer model. If they actually spent time out in the real world their heads would explode from reality that Mother Nature can take care of herself no matter what we do.

I said in my post you quoted that, "Suction dredging...doesn't harm riparian habitats or fish." The possible harm is caused by those few instances where the dredge nozzle is used invasively into the banks, which leads to increased sedimentation and destruction of possible habitats for some animals that depend upon that environment.

As far as "work around," what I meant was a way to navigate the proposals for permitting, etc. Way too complicated, and unnecessary at the moment. Some form of permitting is necessary, so if there is a problem, LEO knows who to blame if they are viewing a location when everyone is gone. I would say that MOST of our problems (an oversimplification, I know) were caused by a few bad apples ruining it for everyone.

Please don't make me look like a "bad guy." I'm a miner, and am just trying to offer a point of view that may get us back in the water doing what we love. Until this point, we have failed to get any action, in small part, because of a "no compromise" focus on negotiation. Again, an oversimplification, as there are other agendas out there, but we can accept that there has been a global shift in public attitude, and pressure upon elected officials and the courts, and things are likely not going to be like they were in the past.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldfleks]

What if you guys focused on rivers/streams that don't have fish in them first? I'm sure there are plenty of rivers creeks and streams that either go dry in the summer/fall or that don't reach the ocean. Once you're back in the river push to expand to other waterways.

Or are you afraid you'll be locked out of fish rivers if you compromise on starting with the other waterways first?

What about Jet Boats? I know it's not suction dredging specific, but those guys get into shallow water and run year round. You're telling me the nozzle on those boats doesn't stir up sediment or disturb gravel beds. I don't see the environmental city folks who ride the boats up the rivers complaining about the gravel/sediment/bank erosion caused by their tourism. Just a thought.

 

[Mad Machinist]

I said in my post you quoted that, "Suction dredging...doesn't harm riparian habitats or fish." The possible harm is caused by those few instances where the dredge nozzle is used invasively into the banks, which leads to increased sedimentation and destruction of possible habitats for some animals that depend upon that environment.

As far as "work around," what I meant was a way to navigate the proposals for permitting, etc. Way too complicated, and unnecessary at the moment. Some form of permitting is necessary, so if there is a problem, LEO knows who to blame if they are viewing a location when everyone is gone. I would say that MOST of our problems (an oversimplification, I know) were caused by a few bad apples ruining it for everyone.

Please don't make me look like a "bad guy." I'm a miner, and am just trying to offer a point of view that may get us back in the water doing what we love. Until this point, we have failed to get any action, in small part, because of a "no compromise" focus on negotiation. Again, an oversimplification, as there are other agendas out there, but we can accept that there has been a global shift in public attitude, and pressure upon elected officials and the courts, and things are likely not going to be like they were in the past.

I'm not trying to make anybody look like a "bad guy" except those that deserve it. So you know, I make my living hardrock mining. I also hold a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Science and I am well on my way to my Master's Degree in the same. Every bit of it has been paid for out of my own pocket so I am beholden to nothing except the truth.

You have to understand that when you get into the hydrodynamics of stream flow that even if a dredger gets into the banks of a stream it is inconsequential, especially when compared to the damage that can be done during one flood season. Yes grass, trees, and the like act to stabilize a stream bank right up until the next flood. Small bits of gravel and sand start flowing in the water and slowly eroding the banks breaking smaller dresses and trees loose. Those smaller things get caught and bunch up around larger things and help create hydrostatically pressure. Eventually the hydrostatically pressure builds to a point that it overcomes anything stabalizing the banks and things get ripped out. All of this flows downstream creating sandbars, islands, and deltas. When you try to remove any of this, you effect much more downstream than most people realize.

All of what I posted here can be seen and verified by what is happening in Louisiana and the loss of the coastal wetlands. The efforts to reduce erosion and sedimentation over the years are finally rearing their ugly heads. Land is being lost through subsidence since there is very little sediment coming down the Mississippi River now. All thanks to a bunch of know nothing eco freaks who act on emotional hatred of something THEY don't deem appropriate.

Another thing you'll find is that more often than not, invasive species do far more damage that a dredger could ever do. I deal with that here everyday. We have invasive crayfish here. They were brought here by our Fish and Game Department. Of course, fisherman get blamed for the spread of the crayfish. Nobody in Fish and Game wants to address the fact that crayfish can survive AND walk on land as long as their gills stay wet. Crayfish are "opportunistic omnivores" meaning they will eat anything including plants, fish, fish eggs, bugs, snakes, frogs, frog eggs, basically anything the can get their claws on. Crayfish WILL also lkill and eat each other if they get overcrowded so they WILL move to other areas as a survival method.

With that being said, we also have several endangered species here that rely on water to survive, like the leach minnow. The leach minnow lays it eggs in spaces under rocks. Wanna guess where crayfish live? Remember what I posted earlier about interspatial sedimentation and streamed armoring? So if the spaces between the rocks are filled with sediment and gets "hardened" where are the minnows going to lay there eggs? Crayfish are capable of digging into streambanks and under rocks. So if the minnows lay there eggs there, its like Chinese takeout for the crayfish. If a species cannot reproduce for whatever reason it dies off. Mother Nature's rules, not mine.

So you see, these eco freaks have seriously screwed things up over emotion and in the name off profit. And they are now using a disinformation campaign to try and cover their butts while still making a profit. If they really want things fixed, they need to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way, we miners will take care of it.

 

[bcfromfl]

I'm not trying to make anybody look like a "bad guy" except those that deserve it. So you know, I make my living hardrock mining. I also hold a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Science and I am well on my way to my Master's Degree in the same. Every bit of it has been paid for out of my own pocket so I am beholden to nothing except the truth.

You have to understand that when you get into the hydrodynamics of stream flow that even if a dredger gets into the banks of a stream it is inconsequential, especially when compared to the damage that can be done during one flood season. Yes grass, trees, and the like act to stabilize a stream bank right up until the next flood. Small bits of gravel and sand start flowing in the water and slowly eroding the banks breaking smaller dresses and trees loose. Those smaller things get caught and bunch up around larger things and help create hydrostatically pressure. Eventually the hydrostatically pressure builds to a point that it overcomes anything stabalizing the banks and things get ripped out. All of this flows downstream creating sandbars, islands, and deltas. When you try to remove any of this, you effect much more downstream than most people realize.

All of what I posted here can be seen and verified by what is happening in Louisiana and the loss of the coastal wetlands. The efforts to reduce erosion and sedimentation over the years are finally rearing their ugly heads. Land is being lost through subsidence since there is very little sediment coming down the Mississippi River now. All thanks to a bunch of know nothing eco freaks who act on emotional hatred of something THEY don't deem appropriate.

Another thing you'll find is that more often than not, invasive species do far more damage that a dredger could ever do. I deal with that here everyday. We have invasive crayfish here. They were brought here by our Fish and Game Department. Of course, fisherman get blamed for the spread of the crayfish. Nobody in Fish and Game wants to address the fact that crayfish can survive AND walk on land as long as their gills stay wet. Crayfish are "opportunistic omnivores" meaning they will eat anything including plants, fish, fish eggs, bugs, snakes, frogs, frog eggs, basically anything the can get their claws on. Crayfish WILL also lkill and eat each other if they get overcrowded so they WILL move to other areas as a survival method.

With that being said, we also have several endangered species here that rely on water to survive, like the leach minnow. The leach minnow lays it eggs in spaces under rocks. Wanna guess where crayfish live? Remember what I posted earlier about interspatial sedimentation and streamed armoring? So if the spaces between the rocks are filled with sediment and gets "hardened" where are the minnows going to lay there eggs? Crayfish are capable of digging into streambanks and under rocks. So if the minnows lay there eggs there, its like Chinese takeout for the crayfish. If a species cannot reproduce for whatever reason it dies off. Mother Nature's rules, not mine.

So you see, these eco freaks have seriously screwed things up over emotion and in the name off profit. And they are now using a disinformation campaign to try and cover their butts while still making a profit. If they really want things fixed, they need to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way, we miners will take care of it.

You know this, and I know this, too. What we are battling is public perception, and agendas of those bringing lawsuits, etc. We have to accept this as part of the "playing field." I'm not arguing the points you made one iota.

I've been a poor man's biologist my entire life, ever since a child swinging my butterfly net, and I know all about the habits of aquatic species.

I will say, however, that dredgers should stay out of the banks of streams on purely an aesthetic basis. Even I, a miner, would not appreciate hiking into a remote spot for the day and seeing an ugly hole in a bank left by some careless dredger. (And by "hole," I don't mean a 3x3 hole into the bank. Some dredgers will excavate several feet using the water to cave in the bank trying to find a stringer or pocket.) Imagine what someone else would think after seeing something like this. (I imagine this has happened, in fact, and is part of the negative perception we're dealing with.) We need to work within the confines of the system now, as potentially a lot more folks are aware of what we do just because of the bad press, and a lot more of those folks are carrying cell phones with them that can be used for pictures or video.

I know that compromise is not a popular notion. But until this point, most of what has been done in our behalf, is claiming that our rights have been violated, and that the rules need to be returned to the sanity that existed before. There's no compromise there. Part of the problem is that we are poorly-organized, and small potatoes to the courts. They see us before them, and they say to themselves, let's side with the enviros and Karuks and get rid of these whiners so we can hear other cases. But if we approached with a perspective of "what do we have to do to make this work?" I think we might make better progress.

This is all I'm saying. We just don't have the clout or influence to change public perception -- even though it may be wrong about us, or what we do. If we accept that there are untruths about dredging (or highbanking), but let's work with that, and ask those in charge (or might become in charge) what we need to do -- within reason -- to get things working again.

 

[Bejay]

Aesthetics.....You hit the nail on the head bcfromfl. The aesthetics issue is what drives the "anti" enthusiasm. There is no better example than that of timber harvest in the Great Northwest. If it looks bad it must be bad. Erosion is conceived as bad yet it is the driving force behind all we see in the geographic/geologic landscape today. Keeping things "pristine" is what is wrongly viewed as perfection.

The anti issue is always more complex than can be explained in a format such as this. But it always brings me to two concepts of thought: 1. When one sees a big ugly spider one does not want to simply smash and kill it...as ugly can represent good. 2. A butterfly (humans on earth) sitting a giant sequoia tree (earth for humans) would think that the living changing thing had always been the giant tree it sits on....when in fact it is a living changing thing. The earth undergoes changes.

Yep...it is all about aesthetics and pristine. That is why no scientific study has shown small scale suction dredging to be harmful.

Bejay

 

[Goldfleks]

Considering I got scolded by a 5 year old girl for detecting in the playground sand today because I was making the sand look ugly (filled in holes but not the nice raked lines after the gardners finish) I think you guys are fighting a losing battle lol...

 

[Mad Machinist]

You know this, and I know this, too. What we are battling is public perception, and agendas of those bringing lawsuits, etc. We have to accept this as part of the "playing field." I'm not arguing the points you made one iota.

I've been a poor man's biologist my entire life, ever since a child swinging my butterfly net, and I know all about the habits of aquatic species.

I will say, however, that dredgers should stay out of the banks of streams on purely an aesthetic basis. Even I, a miner, would not appreciate hiking into a remote spot for the day and seeing an ugly hole in a bank left by some careless dredger. (And by "hole," I don't mean a 3x3 hole into the bank. Some dredgers will excavate several feet using the water to cave in the bank trying to find a stringer or pocket.) Imagine what someone else would think after seeing something like this. (I imagine this has happened, in fact, and is part of the negative perception we're dealing with.) We need to work within the confines of the system now, as potentially a lot more folks are aware of what we do just because of the bad press, and a lot more of those folks are carrying cell phones with them that can be used for pictures or video.

I know that compromise is not a popular notion. But until this point, most of what has been done in our behalf, is claiming that our rights have been violated, and that the rules need to be returned to the sanity that existed before. There's no compromise there. Part of the problem is that we are poorly-organized, and small potatoes to the courts. They see us before them, and they say to themselves, let's side with the enviros and Karuks and get rid of these whiners so we can hear other cases. But if we approached with a perspective of "what do we have to do to make this work?" I think we might make better progress.

This is all I'm saying. We just don't have the clout or influence to change public perception -- even though it may be wrong about us, or what we do. If we accept that there are untruths about dredging (or highbanking), but let's work with that, and ask those in charge (or might become in charge) what we need to do -- within reason -- to get things working again.

We are going to get things working again. We spoke loud and clear as to that on Nov. 7.

Anytime the eco freaks are willing to compromise, it is because we are about to drive them straight into the ground. Now if they want to follow the Constitution of this country, as they claim they do now, the Supremacy Clause takes precedence. Our mining rights trump all.

I see no need to compromise with them at this point now that we have the upper hand. I understand people are hurting and I feel for them. I really do. But it is time to settle this one way or the other.

 

[Goldwasher]

What if you guys focused on rivers/streams that don't have fish in them first? I'm sure there are plenty of rivers creeks and streams that either go dry in the summer/fall or that don't reach the ocean. Once you're back in the river push to expand to other waterways.

Or are you afraid you'll be locked out of fish rivers if you compromise on starting with the other waterways first?

What about Jet Boats? I know it's not suction dredging specific, but those guys get into shallow water and run year round. You're telling me the nozzle on those boats doesn't stir up sediment or disturb gravel beds. I don't see the environmental city folks who ride the boats up the rivers complaining about the gravel/sediment/bank erosion caused by their tourism. Just a thought.

The ban was originally written for certain waters in Northern Ca. They wrote in all waters during a closed session. Before enacting the moratorium. The things is that they force compromise and make a fight. The majority of gold bearing waters do not have fish.
Many of us have been dealing with this for almost a decade. And as you point out the double standards abound. This isn't about compromise for them. If they had it their way there would be no dredging in any waterway.
Those that are commenting and are new to the issue owe the guys who were dredging to make a living a little bit of research. Coming home labled a criminal one day sucks!! (no pun intended)

 

[Goldwasher]

Considering I got scolded by a 5 year old girl for detecting in the playground sand today because I was making the sand look ugly (filled in holes but not the nice raked lines after the gardners finish) I think you guys are fighting a losing battle lol...

isn't your perception based on the fact that your stuck basically detecting where you " can" like sandboxes? And are in the situation where you have to listen to 5 year old mentality...regardless of actual age!!

I would remind that little kid that she is also playing in the sand. The rules of Babylon..ICK

 

[Goldfleks]

isn't your perception based on the fact that your stuck basically detecting where you " can" like sandboxes? And are in the situation where you have to listen to 5 year old mentality...regardless of actual age!!

I would remind that little kid that she is also playing in the sand. The rules of Babylon..ICK

Sharing is caring I never said I stopped lol.

And there be gold in them there sand boxes!

 

[Tuolumne]

What if you guys focused on rivers/streams that don't have fish in them first? I'm sure there are plenty of rivers creeks and streams that either go dry in the summer/fall or that don't reach the ocean. Once you're back in the river push to expand to other waterways.

Or are you afraid you'll be locked out of fish rivers if you compromise on starting with the other waterways first?

What about Jet Boats? I know it's not suction dredging specific, but those guys get into shallow water and run year round. You're telling me the nozzle on those boats doesn't stir up sediment or disturb gravel beds. I don't see the environmental city folks who ride the boats up the rivers complaining about the gravel/sediment/bank erosion caused by their tourism. Just a thought.

everything above 1500 meters in the sierra nevada Snow Saw mountains in Caliph-ornia was historically fish free- especially coho salmon and steelhead

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

They all drain into fish bearing streams, so water quality will still be a concern.
There will also be the presence of other sensitive species that could/would/will be leveraged against the miner.

Truth be told, if more DNA studies were funded, they would find out that many of the species have DNA unique to a particular habitat/region.
The Siskiyou Salamander is a prime example. The only reason there have not been other species like that is because of the lack of funding.

The ironic thing about the Siskiyou Salamander....the old mining rock tailing piles are prime habitat.

 

[winners58]

They all drain into fish bearing streams, so water quality will still be a concern.
.

EPA region-10 fortymile river study - impact of 8 & 10 inch dredge on water quality

 

[Mad Machinist]

EPA region-10 fortymile river study - impact of 8 & 10 inch dredge on water quality

Interesting study. Thank you.

So after reading this study, a couple of things stand out to me. One being the recovery times of the macroinvertabrates and the other being the lack of railings piles after 1 year.

On the recovery times on 1 year for the 8 and 10 inches dredges and 30-45 days for the 2-6 inch dredges, this classifies as no discernible impact. And this is in a particuly hard arctic environment where "food" for the macroinvertabrates is lower than rivers and streams in the lower 48.

Based on other research with shows "more food, more organisisms", the recovery times in the lower 48 wood be substantially reduced based on their being more food. The loose tailings piles would also give the macroinvertabrates a place to hide from predators while the localized population recovers.

This combined with the low mortality rate of macroinvertabrates going through the smaller dredges and the additional "food" being stirred up by a dredge for the macroinvertabrates sets up a situation where macroinvertabrates have a high survival rate leading to more food for higher organisms.

The heavy metals content is a wash as being bottom dwelling organisms, macroinvertabrates are exposed to this anyhow. It makes no difference if the bottom is stirred up by a dredge, flood waters, ice flows or whatever.

Back to the survival rates of the macroinvertabrates and higher organisms. With there being more "food" for things like salmon and steelhead, their survivability rate goes up. Add in the removal of streamed armoring and interspatial sedimentation by the dredge breaking up the stream bottom, it is now easier for the salmon and steelhead to dig out their "egg beds" leading to more eggs surviving to hatch. More eggs hatching with more food to eat equals record runs of fish.

Now lets add in the "altered" stream bottoms where there ate now deep pools for the fish to rest out of the water current and hide from predators. More fish survive, more eggs get laid. More eggs get laid, more hatchlings survive due to more food, more fish return, and the cycle continues.

This is about the best i can do in "layman's terms" without using a lot of jargon that would make people's eyes cross. You "new guys and gals" get it now?

This has absolutely nothing to do with mercury or "saving habitat". This DOES have to do with stopping species from recovering and being removed from the endangered species list. No "endangered species", no control. Plain and simple.

 

[bcfromfl]

State agencies sometimes have their own threatened/endangered lists, and I don't know what the politics are behind California's -- if indeed they do maintain such a list. But I can tell you that there is an extreme reluctance on the part of the US Fish & Wildlife Service to elevate a species onto one of their special categories. The reason for this is each species status has a set of mandated protocols for managing said species for each level of concern. They don't want to impact people's lives, or force changes in agriculture, etc., because that gets Congress involved, bad press, additional funding (that they don't have) to purchase land or get artificial protection measures in place, etc., etc.

Also, if a species becomes rare, that's often the fault of perhaps another agency in poor lands management. The USF&W doesn't like to indicate the fault of other agencies, because that's generally poor form in Washington. USF&W doesn't maintain their own lands -- they are only a watchdog of sorts for species everywhere, whether on private, Federal, or State land. Most land falls under the purview of National Forest or BLM, but the Nature Conservancy is also an important owner/management team.

There are some species endemic to the areas of the West Coast which are in trouble, and do appear on the USF&W lists. But I just wanted to make clear that there isn't some sort of conspiratorial gleeful hand-rubbing going on to add more and more species as threatened/endangered. The USF&W Service actually has active lawsuits against it to add more species from a couple of environmental groups.

It's important to understand how all this works, because sometimes we can get sidetracked by blaming the wrong parties. Ultimately, it's the Federal and State LEOs who enforce the rules, but, more often than not, they're only responding to what has been mandated by the courts.

The environmental groups are well-funded, and this is the thorn in our side. They can force these kind of changes, and actually have an agenda to do this because it increases their donations, plus, they can then fund their buddies to do environmental studies and slant those studies towards their respective causes and influence more protections.

This whole thing may have been started by the Karuks years ago, but it has morphed and snowballed into a gravy train for environmental groups. The Karuks saw this, and joined forces, and now other groups who were struggling before for lack of money have come on board...like in Oregon.

 

[Bejay]

The State EIS list is applicable to those lands the State has authority. The Feds EIS is under the authority of the Federal Gov for lands it manages. The exception for management is Game species where there is a MOA. In Oregon the white tail deer is listed by the State as endangered....however they have not closed deer hunting in the two geographic locations the white tail deer inhabits.....just an interesting note. I have studied and been involved in State vs Fed EIS topics. A State does what it wants.......the State can request the Feds to uplist to their listings but it is seldom achieved.

Bejay

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I wasn't meaning to imply that the Fish and Wildlife would leverage sensitive species against the miners....there are plenty of other special groups waiting to do this.

These groups will sue the regulatory agencies into submission to the point that the agencies will begin to request that these special groups become "partners" and "stake holders" and request that they review and provide input on every project in order to only pursue projects which do not stand a good chance on being stalled by lawsuit.

Slowly these groups will infiltrate the agencies and be in a position to formulate policy and regulations to meet their objectives. It's not a grand conspiracy against a particular part of society, it's more like a religion/politic to which one dedicates their life.

That's just my personal opinion on how things are developing.

 

[wildminer]

I couldn't agree more. I see this process currently with the "progressives" in congress. Actually imo you can take it to the top and find George Soros. Sorry about the politics, but it is what it is.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Well either way, miners are going to have to take a couple pages out of their playbook if they are to be successful in preserving their right to mine.

 

[spaghettigold]

this pages where already taken out with the regulations before the ban,only dredging when not spawning season etc.
There,s no room left..

lets say you have a hardrock mine and they tell ya you could run your ops only a few months per year,with the smallest unpractical tools, lets say a pick when you should run an excavator.
This would equal the regs for dredgers before the ban, only small nozzle sizes during given months .
Then they ban you completely for years and try to shut you down based on lies and feelings and you read in a forum you should compromise more..

The eco's dont want us in the water regardless if it doesn,t harm the rivers.
They wan't stop till we out of the water and they would love to stop and ban everything and everybody human else too,build a fence around the woods and allow only themself to walk -while well payed,-in nature so they can break the balls of all animals there because they want to count and chip them to create more income generating data.