SB 637

[Oakview2]

According to the letter of the law, under SB 637, every outboard motor and jet drive in the state will now require a water dischargte permit. And you anglers thought they were just coming for your lead sinkers....We miners will gladly buy our discharge permit, as soon as you apply the law fairly to ALL motorized boating.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[fowledup]

Good point. I understand they are instituting a boating drivers license as well. So we will probably have to have a mining operators license to keep the circle of rediculousness complete. lol!

 

[Oakview2]

Can you imagine over a million boaters being required to purchase a 1200 permit for every waterway they decide to boat on.

 

[fowledup]

Anywhere else on this wonderful planet I'd say it sounds like we may have new friends and a good argument. But...........it is CA

 

[goldenIrishman]

California has gotten to be so ridiculous it isn't even funny. However.... Maybe if they started to apply the law as written to people other than miners the rest of the people in the state would wake up and smell the coffee at long last. I'm pretty sure that the California miners are tired of having to fight the good fight on their own and wouldn't mind a little help from other outdoors people.

 

[Hoser John]

Kalif ceased to be funny almost 10 years ago bureauratz -John

 

[Goldwasher]

Two things...the base start price for a permit is $25.00 plus diversion if needed..(many reasons this will just bring more court cases) going up on a sliding scale based on impact to the water quality....IF REQUIRED
And the bill also uses the wording something to the affect of "to aid in the recovery of gold"...another reason for court as people will be able to have motors near the water that aren't for mining...gold mining specifically.....
So the definition in the bill will do nothing to stop watercraft at all.......unfair ? YEP....court in the future YEP!
Since the cwa still stands for navigable waters and small scale doesn't qualify....more court
since state has jurisdiction of all other waters....and claims are on federal land within the state ....more court.......
Since even dfw can't give an answer and flat out says that their hands are tied until the consolidated cases finish and Brandons case is re-heard....more court...
sb637 hasn't even done anything yet...and can't take affect until they designate waterways that will require the permits in the first place.

 

[ratled]

Two things...the base start price for a permit is $25.00 plus diversion if needed..(many reasons this will just bring more court cases) going up on a sliding scale based on impact to the water quality....IF REQUIRED
And the bill also uses the wording something to the affect of "to aid in the recovery of gold"...another reason for court as people will be able to have motors near the water that aren't for mining...gold mining specifically.....
So the definition in the bill will do nothing to stop watercraft at all.......unfair ? YEP....court in the future YEP!
Since the cwa still stands for navigable waters and small scale doesn't qualify....more court
since state has jurisdiction of all other waters....and claims are on federal land within the state ....more court.......
Since even dfw can't give an answer and flat out says that their hands are tied until the consolidated cases finish and Brandons case is re-heard....more court...
sb637 hasn't even done anything yet...and can't take affect until they designate waterways that will require the permits in the first place.

^^^^^ THIS IS CORRECT^^^^^^^^^^

ratled

 

[Rdg Sluicer]

Is fish and game enforcing this or the water board?

 

[Oakview2]

All costs must be mitigated by the permit fees. Most in the know say 1200 per permit per location, by lottery. Unless you want to mine on a wa
terway that actually has gold in it, those are all off limits, the Merced, the San Joaquin, American, Salmon, Yuba, Klamath, ect. Some permits to be issued in 2017 and all permits must be personally signed by the head of the waterboard. And if the Karuks, the sierra fund, CBD or any other green facist group decides their river is off limits, then no permits to be issued. All permits that are re fquested in their geographical areas must be submitted to them for approval. This is the crap passed, wait till the waterboard puts their spin on it. Get better mufflers, and spruce up the cameo on your rig, cause that is the only way you are dredging in this state.

mining...gold mining specifically.....
So the definition in the bill will do nothing to stop watercraft at all.......unfair ? YEP....court in the future YEP!
Since the cwa still stands for navigable waters and small scale doesn't qualify....more court
since state has jurisdiction of all other waters....and claims are on federal land within the state ....more court.......
Since even dfw can't give an answer and flat out says that their hands are tied until the consolidated cases finish and Brandons case is re-heard....more court...
sb637 hasn't even done anything yet...and can't take affect until they designate waterways that will require the permits in the first place.[/QUOTE]

 

[johnedoe]

Kalif ceased to be funny almost 10 years ago bureauratz -John

Was a damn site longer than that ago.........

 

[fowledup]

As written, on the surface it appears to be limited to a direct kill shot on dredging, but don't kid yourself for one minute and think that is where it stops. This bill is a foundation and has legs, it will grow and spread. The saddest part of it all is how conditioned and compliant weve become to it all. You can already see the "It's not so bad, could be worse- your paranoid!" acceptance attitude coming out, and it's been less than a month. Give it another month and folks will be like- "SB637, oh yeah what a bummer that was. Hey well at least we can still pan in the local blm rec area, right? " No I'm not directing any of this towards any one person, It's all across the community, the internet and general population as a whole. "They" have the formula down pat - little bites, not big chunks, go slow and we will give it away, "cuz it could always be worse."
This is total deja vu for me. When "they" put up the first gate going down to the river. It started out with: "It's only for winter errosion control, we will open it in the spring don't worry".
Some of us said BS they are gonna shut us out of the forest. Others said we were paranoid, "they told us why and said they'd reopen it, it makes sense".
Next year gates started popping up on the side roads. "Those are old roads and we don't want people getting lost or hurt or dumping drug labs." The communities response was "Oh ok that makes sense, at least we still have the main road and the road to the river in the summer". Again we said we are losing our access as well as our exit points should we have a major fire. Again- "YOUR PARANOID" , well long story short a few years later - We have ZERO access, one road in one road out. To their credit they didn't lie to us about opening the road to the river in the summer. Yep they swing the gate open sometime in June. However they stopped maintaining the road. So now it's little better than a goat trail, it's a miserable drive even on a long travel atv. Too bad there is no gold in it, I'd set up shop cuz "they" won't even drive down in there now.

 

[Goldwasher]

As written, on the surface it appears to be limited to a direct kill shot on dredging, but don't kid yourself for one minute and think that is where it stops. This bill is a foundation and has legs, it will grow and spread. The saddest part of it all is how conditioned and compliant weve become to it all. You can already see the "It's not so bad, could be worse- your paranoid!" acceptance attitude coming out, and it's been less than a month. Give it another month and folks will be like- "SB637, oh yeah what a bummer that was. Hey well at least we can still pan in the local blm rec area, right? " No I'm not directing any of this towards any one person, It's all across the community, the internet and general population as a whole. "They" have the formula down pat - little bites, not big chunks, go slow and we will give it away, "cuz it could always be worse."
This is total deja vu for me. When "they" put up the first gate going down to the river. It started out with: "It's only for winter errosion control, we will open it in the spring don't worry".
Some of us said BS they are gonna shut us out of the forest. Others said we were paranoid, "they told us why and said they'd reopen it, it makes sense".
Next year gates started popping up on the side roads. "Those are old roads and we don't want people getting lost or hurt or dumping drug labs." The communities response was "Oh ok that makes sense, at least we still have the main road and the road to the river in the summer". Again we said we are losing our access as well as our exit points should we have a major fire. Again- "YOUR PARANOID" , well long story short a few years later - We have ZERO access, one road in one road out. To their credit they didn't lie to us about opening the road to the river in the summer. Yep they swing the gate open sometime in June. However they stopped maintaining the road. So now it's little better than a goat trail, it's a miserable drive even on a long travel atv. Too bad there is no gold in it, I'd set up shop cuz "they" won't even drive down in there now.

I for one am not accepting anything...it is correct that only gold mining is cited in the bill...and even worse being in volved since the first submission....it was the final rewrite after the first two hearings that the definition for "assisting in gold recovery"...they never once mentioned "hi banking " in any hearing or wording... now boom they try to make a new rule that goes against case law and congressional rights. I'm saying it's literally being shoved down people throats.....I wish that the boater and other user argument was true because maybe we would get outside support. This bill was focused on one thing as stated above.
OAKVIEW has great concern over the new bill and I know precisely why and I hope it doesn't affect his op. Just so you know oak I know why and where your coming from and I'm not discounting you and hope I didn't offend.
All I was saying is people are still fighting don't accept anything and there w I'll be more stupid COURT

 

[fowledup]

We all know Green, tan, and brown are great all season colors, but for today's water minded prospector concerned with the never ending court season, don't dismiss those matte blues grays and black tones they are wonderfully effective colors in their own right!

 

[CApicker]

I live is Sacramento and here is a quote from a Sac Bee news writer Dan Walters I saw today.

SB 637 will “kill off an entire recreational activity,” Assemblyman Frank Bigelow, R-O’Neals, complained on the Assembly floor before its 44-24 passage, calling it “an assault on the lifestyle of rural Californians.”
The Nevada City-based Sierra Fund, meanwhile, is jubilant, calling the bill “a great victory for all of us concerned about clean water and healthy fisheries.”

Ironically, however, the Sierra Fund may become a gold miner itself. It is “exploring the marketing potential of metals obtained in the restoration of the environment, in an effort to recapture the costs of remediation, and fund future restoration projects.”
The newly displaced suction dredgers claim that the Sierra Fund’s sponsorship of SB 637 was merely eliminating its competition – a charge that the group rejects.

Read more here: Dan Walters: A new law stops gold dredging | The Sacramento Bee

 

[goldenIrishman]

Anyone with 1/2 a brain should be able to tell that the Sierra Fund has been aiming at this for a long time. They sponsor bills to get honest miners out of the water then want to turn right around and be granted an exclusive right to dredge in the state? Plus they want the taxpayers to pay for it? How stupid do they really think the people of California are? Izzy and her crew need to be hauled in front of a Judge and Jury to explain how this is legal. Come to think of it, maybe we should throw in an IRS audit and an investigation into their tax exempt status as well. What they've been doing is nothing short of fraud in my mind.