To All Dredgers In Washington State

jog

Bronze Member
Nov 28, 2008
1,364
682
Tillamook Oregon
Detector(s) used
Whites MXT / GMT
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I received this today, looks like they need all the miners to show up! Just getting the word out there, pass it along....

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Thursday's Hearing

Hello everybody,
Thursday, February 12, 2015, the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee will have a public hearing on House Bill 1162 "Concerning motorized mineral prospecting." The mineral prospecting and mining community needs to fill the room to standing in opposition to this bill.

You should by now have a clear understanding of the consequences should this bill be enacted, but the devil is always in the details, in this case, the Fiscal Note where the agencies explain how they will implement this bill to the tune of $1,235,470 for 2015 through 2017 and then $8,800 every year thereafter.
Here are some disturbing statements gleaned from the Fiscal notes:
From Ecology:
"Section 2 would temporarily suspend the gold and fish pamphlet and not allow mineral prospecting that uses a suction dredge or other form of motorized mineral prospecting within the wetted perimeter of a stream or river until October 31, 2016." Not Accurate, section 2 will allow motorized equipment by individual HPA, Section 3 will prohibit "motorized mineral prospecting in any segment of a river or stream where all fishing is prohibited either by the commission or the federal government."

From WDFW:
They make no comment regarding Section 3 which bans motorized equipment in rivers or streams where no fishing is allowed.
"We assume that many prospectors will forego motorized prospecting during this time period because of their opposition to paying fees." They probably are right.
"For this fiscal note, the Department estimates that 1,000 prospectors will apply for individual permits in FY 2016." Really, a thousand prospectors dredging? Or is it 1000 permits?
"We further assume that we will issue general permits on a statewide basis, so that all locations will be covered in a single permit. Therefore, multiple permits will not be required for each individual and $150,000 will be generated in FY 2016." Are you reading this, they are saying that we (1000 of us) can ask for all of our prospecting locations on 1 ONE application and it will be granted. This has not been the policy and NOTE.... if the application is denied, you will not get all your money back.
"We estimate that 300 individual permits will be issued generating $45,000 in FY 2017." So 300 more people or 1300 dredgers in this state. Realistic, don't think so.
"After this time we anticipate that motorized prospecting will be authorized by the Gold & Fish pamphlet in most cases; therefore no revenue above current-law levels will be generated." This is because they will have completed the 2nd of 2 comprehensive rule making sessions which would incorporate the study results and those conjured up by the other parties.
"The Department will conduct the scientific literature review in-house, rather than contracting to a university. This will require Fish and Wildlife Research Scientist 2 in FY 2016 to identify and analyze published literature on the subject, write the literature review, and present to the work group identified in this section. The remaining Fish and Wildlife Research Scientist 2 in FY 2016 and in FY 2017 will be required for working with the advisory work group to develop the anticipated research project required by this section, designing, implementing, and overseeing the research project, compiling the report to the workgroupof the findings, and assisting in designing recommendations to the legislature for any policy changes for
regulating prospecting as outlined in this section. The research project will require three two-person crews (6FTEs) Scientific Technician 2 over the course of the field research. We assume all crews will be headquartered in Olympia, but will spend the majority of their time in the field for FY 2016. Each crew will require one 4X4 SUV at standard rental rates and are anticipated to drive 1,000 miles/month for a cost in FY 2016 of $9,912. We
further assume that each FTE will spend 3 nights/week in travel status in FY 2016, resulting in reimbursement at the low-cost rate of $129/night for a total of $27,864. In addition, we assume that the Research Scientist will spend 1 night/week in travel status in FY 2016 at the same reimbursement rate. That total will be $6,192. No field research will be conducted in FY 2017.
" I suppose that the Area Habitat Biologists are unfamiliar with the area that there is a need to send people from Olympia into the field. and will need 4X4 SUV's to get there. I smell fraud waste and abuse by the department.
"The research scientist will be a new staff addition and so will require cubicle space at the standard rate in FY 2016." New hire????
"Will require development and publishing two new versions of the Gold and Fish pamphlet following the two versions of rulemaking mandated by this bill." Any rule making done under 77.55 is considered to be legislative rule making and can not be accomplished overnight as there are specific requirements for accomplishment. Remember it took darn near 3 years to develop the current rules.

There is so much more in this section that people should take the time to read.

From DNR
"DFW is estimating five quarterly workgroup meetings in Olympia at a state office location from July 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016. It is further assumed there will be a single representative from each group and agency. Based on the subject matter, DNR will provide a geologist (Natural Resource Scientist 3) with a mining background for participation in the work group meetings, and that additional preparation time prior to each
meeting will be needed. Expenses include staff and associated costs, for a total of $5,000 in FY 2016 and $2,000 in FY 2017."



The small scale mineral prospecting and mining community needs to fill the room beyond capacity for this legislation. Pass this information around, take the day off, bring the spouse and children (they get civics credits) and prepare a testimony to be provided to the committee. We will meet at the sundial at 1 PM. See You There.


Bill Thomas
 

Upvote 0

KRIKITTS

Full Member
Sep 19, 2014
104
75
STATE OF JEFFERSON
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting

fowledup

Silver Member
Jul 21, 2013
2,757
5,162
Northern California
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT V/SAT
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Congrats Bejay. As a fisherman yourself I'm sure you already know this but the folks you are presenting to are not a true representation of the fisherman of that state or any other. They are the vocal 10% who would happily remove the other 90% of the other "fisherman" from the waterways they are forced to share them with. The truth is 90% of fisherman don't know enough to care about what we do, and as long as they get to fish life goes on. If they are not embraced and brought into the argument they will take the advice of their comrades that dredging is bad simply because they are "fisherman". I think that was a huge mistake on our part here in California. We alienated the everday fisherman under the guise and definition we were applying to the wacko 10% ones that are the most vocal. It should be pounded into them they are not exempt from whats coming down the pipe just further down the list. Force them to get involved. I hate to see lead used as a us vs. them tool. When we can we should always show that other user groups benfit from us. We compliment a negative aspect of their endeavors, we help remove a substance their user group introduces without trying to abolish it. Common sense approach, checks and balances. Fisherman are a big group with big bucks, foster the relationship, they don't like the wacko 10% purists who have appointed themselves as the representives of all things fishing anymore than we do. Hope this makes some sense, just got out of hospital so still pretty foggy, not trying to debate or question your strategy at all just adding some things to think about in the long run big picture.. Good luck, educate them silly Bstrds!!
 

Bejay

Bronze Member
Mar 10, 2014
1,026
2,530
Central Oregon Coast
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Thank you Bejay for walking the walk...

If your presentation was transcribed and then published in mining journals, outdoor sports magazines , club newsletters, WEBSITES etc , that "published" article could then be presented to "Fish and Wildlife Research Scientist 2 in FY 2016 " ,legislators, representatives, eco-terrorist's etc...

Just to offer a little insight as to how I have approached such situations.
Many years ago the same "anti" type crowd wanted to close the Oregon Beaches and Dunal Composite to ORV use. (they already had 50% closed for their own personal enjoyment). But they wanted it all closed.

The Geology issue had not ever been discussed. The anti crowd and the pro ORV users simply argued without bringing science into the picture. So I began doing presentations about the "geology" of the beaches and dunes. The management agency (USFS & State ODFW) began to invite my presentations on their behalf. So I was able to actually bring to opposing sides together....once they understood the science aspect. Both sides actually cared for the dunes and beaches!

Then I formed a non-profit organization: "Oregon Dunes Restoration Council" --ODRC-- (what I call the "good ship lollypop" approach). Then I started to get invited to do radio talk shows and a few college presentations. My goodness....people realized the ORV use could be used as a management tool to illuminate the invasive non-native vegetation that was destroying the dunes....and dunal composite.....and unique open sand ecosystem. I gathered all the photo history and docs for a 100 year period and we produced a documentary film that is buried in a time capsule here still to this day.

I always use an analogy that I think is worthy of mentioning. As children we (at least I was), taught that just because a big ugly spider looked bad it was not always a bad spider. Looks could be very deceiving! A big ugly spider could actually help gardens and flowers because it ate the bad bugs. No need to always perceive that "ugly" is bad!....no need to kill that ugly spider. Such knowledge is a great tool.

The use of geology to inform and educate is a very effective tool. I wish "geology" was taught more often. Almost everything we see on the earth is a result of "geological" events/happenings. I only wish people could grasp the magnitude of it all.

Anyway, the reason for mentioning this on this thread is because I feel it can effectively counter the "dredging is bad for fish issue". And yet I know there are those who can not accept anything else but what they believe is bad. But we can preach to the choir all day long:.....however we need to reach those who disagree.

Maybe best case scenario will be if I go up and help the STEP do some fish enhancement project using my dredge!

Bejay
 

Last edited:

2cmorau

Bronze Member
Nov 8, 2010
1,608
1,294
Camptonville, CA
Detector(s) used
GMT&GM3 Whites MXT Pro, Shadow X5, Fisher 1280, OMG and the TDI
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Just my few grains worth
Iron Mountain, Frogs, Salmon, Mercury is to miners as the spotted owl was to loggers.
For decades the Sierra club has been very effective convincing the public the horrors of logging and mining. Perceived reality vs actual reality. Why cure a perceive cancer if it means a loss of income. Mercury, lead, Salmon is the cash cow for the special interest groups.
Today we have internet, unlike the loggers in the past. The cherry pickin days of the environmentals can be use to our advantage. “Mercury is bad, thermostat’s in our homes must be removed, lead is bad so it too must be removed from are homes”.
Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited and others good intentions and I too was Maim(ber) of. ( thank the lord I found dredging) Infiltrated by members of the Sierra Club or the like could care less dredgers have the cure for cancer?
Warning; sarcasm
The solution; well that’s really difficult, our public serpents have been convinced dredging is bad because the State Water Resource Control Board completed a study indicating the benefits of removing Hg, but darn there was this 2% loss that the Environmentals lobbied on, and darn if I’m not confused why would that pesky izzy org want the use of a dredge and recovery at best 90%
Their focus on the 2% loss rather than the 98% removed, is testament to their form of diplomacy, they want the money you foolish tax payers
wish ya the best Bejay
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top