Tuolumne county mining district meeting in January Sonora Ca

[Tuolumne]

Anyone get on of these in the mail today?

Anyone know this guy?

Your thoughts tnet?

Any Sunday would have been better for me

I thought you couldn't have vote at first meeting?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[RobertF]

I've read posts here for many years and I see the same old thing over and over again "Screw XYZ group, they do nothing for us but take our money!"

It's fine to keep saying that but at the same time I'd expect those that constantly complain would have their own ideas as to how to keep the small mining community represented to legislators and regulators. Maybe they just like hearing themselves ***** and moan, I don't know. I think TNet is great for getting help with specific questions, passing the message about pending legislation, etc but it doesn't do anything towards having our voice heard outside of TNet. It serves as a great industry FORUM, not an industry REPRESENTATIVE.

With that, do I think mining districts are any sort of golden ticket for miners? Hardly, but they're local and get regions of miners together which I think is great. Do I think Kevin and Robert G are the best for the job? I don't know them each well enough to judge that but so far they've been willing to voluntarily give their time to getting districts back together, even after their departure from MMAC. I can't say I see tons of other people standing up to lead the effort to get the districts organized again but I do see plenty of people asking when they can show up to the meeting that someone else is setting up.

To that end, mining districts are locally run by claimants within the district. So regardless of MMAC sending out a flyer, running the modernization meeting and demanding money, the members vote all the officers in and can vote for MMAC affiliation or not. I think showing up to the meeting and voicing your concerns to the ears of other local miners who would be impacted by the modernization of the district goes a lot farther to helping than to just post about it here on TNet. With the forceful way MMAC has been acting towards their point of view, I think it would serve best for all miners to get any district going they can that isn't won't be MMAC association. Let the local miners deal with local officer of agencies, we certainly don't need another agency to regulate us.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[RobertF]

And to the point about anyone representing us being or not being a good miner, I think that's aiming your concern in the wrong direction. When I want someone to represent me to legislators and regulators I'm more concerned with their public speaking ability, professional decorum, and overall knowledge of the law. Year after year regulation has passed that shows they (the govt) isn't concerned with technical details. Watch anyone testify to Congress or the CA state Senate. It's not detailed technical questions, they're legislators, not miners. We need people to represent us that can handle that end of it. That's vastly different than knowing the intricacies of how to look for and recover gold.

 

[jog]

Is the MMAC still taking payments through the PLP, just curious?

 

[Goldwasher]

And to the point about anyone representing us being or not being a good miner, I think that's aiming your concern in the wrong direction. When I want someone to represent me to legislators and regulators I'm more concerned with their public speaking ability, professional decorum, and overall knowledge of the law. Year after year regulation has passed that shows they (the govt) isn't concerned with technical details. Watch anyone testify to Congress or the CA state Senate. It's not detailed technical questions, they're legislators, not miners. We need people to represent us that can handle that end of it. That's vastly different than knowing the intricacies of how to look for and recover gold.

Disagree 1000% what has been shown by most pushing districts is that they do not understand Mining Law or mining. Look at J Mortari.
We need people who speak well but, also that know what the hell they are talking about. Mining districts are good. They are not going to bring back dredging however.

 

[Goldwasher]

Is the MMAC still taking payments through the PLP, just curious?

Yes via the 'New" half of PLP. Wegner. Klauwiener(sp?) and two other dudes in the historically mining rich "Thousand Oaks District" of L.A. county. They are actively pursuing money because the bank accounts are frozen.

MMAC is a corp and any funds you give are not deductible. If you read the page you have to pay for your district membership. for "lobbying"

not to worry though if your claim is an association only one owner must pay a "gold" membership. Everyone else can just pay a "silver" membership.

WHAT A DEAL!!!!!!

 

[jog]

I would and will not give the MMAC a dime considering they have no clue when it comes to dealing with money's sent to them. Maybe they should check into money laundering laws, I'm pretty sure their already there.

 

[Goldwasher]

I would and will not give the MMAC a dime considering they have no clue when it comes to dealing with money's sent to them. Maybe they should check into money laundering laws, I'm pretty sure their already there.

Actually I think that's why they formed a corp. The promise of service they make is so broad stroke, that it would be pretty difficult to allege fraud. Not much tangible what they profess to provide. So, it'd buyer beware really.

J. Mortari soooo slimey

 

[winners58]

Waldo mining district revised bylaws from a 2011 county commissioners meeting
I think this was submitted as part of a presentation to explain why its important to make a county record?
.
just info for anyone interested
.
View attachment 10-04-11%20Legal.pdf
another one on a different date also for Galice mining district

 

[jog]

Money laundering 101!

 

[RobertF]

Disagree 1000% what has been shown by most pushing districts is that they do not understand Mining Law or mining. Look at J Mortari.
We need people who speak well but, also that know what the hell they are talking about. Mining districts are good. They are not going to bring back dredging however.

Not sure what of my post(s) you disagree with as I said it WAS important for them to know about the law (mining law was inferred, this is a mining forum, not divorce ) and I said mining districts should avoid MMAC.

Whether or not someone representing us can pull ounces of gold out of the ground or just grams is no difference as it's of no matter to the legislators. Our reps need just above a conceptual level of mining that allows them to discuss it but that's about it. Their knowledge of [mining] law is MUCH more important than their ability to run a metal detector.

 

[Goldwasher]

It matters to miners and prospectors. We need to work on us representing us better. It's called vested interest and it matters.

I don't know if you have noticed but, pretty much everyone in the legislature has vested interest in their jobs only. Look where that has gotten us. People writing law and regulation in areas they don't actually participate. I consider it a huge negative if your all about something that you don't actually know all that much about.
It give the impression of ulterior motives.

 

[RobertF]

It matters to miners and prospectors. We need to work on us representing us better. It's called vested interest and it matters.

I don't know if you have noticed but, pretty much everyone in the legislature has vested interest in their jobs only. Look where that has gotten us. People writing law and regulation in areas they don't actually participate. I consider it a huge negative if your all about something that you don't actually know all that much about.
It give the impression of ulterior motives.

Close, but the only vested interest the legislators have is in representing those that have caught their attention, usually via large monetary donations to their reelection campaigns. Who has been representing the small scale miner for years? Almost no one, and when we are represented, it's typically it's miners themselves that stand up and say something.

No other industry relies on the industry members directly to be their own representation. They organize and hire professionals to do the representation. If you want to keep using amateurs, be my guest, but government overreach in California shows you what that has accomplished. If you go back and read my posts, I'm only talking about the need for our industry to start using professional representation. Not once did I mention that professional representation would be obtainable with MMAC. Good luck finding actual professional representation that has a personal vested interest in small scale mining. They're going to be very few and far between.

And I'll say it again, I don't feel at this time any mining district should align with MMAC. Their strong armed tactics alone scream that they're not really out to represent me or my district.

 

[Goldwasher]

Close, but the only vested interest the legislators have is in representing those that have caught their attention, usually via large monetary donations to their reelection campaigns. Who has been representing the small scale miner for years? Almost no one, and when we are represented, it's typically it's miners themselves that stand up and say something.

No other industry relies on the industry members directly to be their own representation. They organize and hire professionals to do the representation. If you want to keep using amateurs, be my guest, but government overreach in California shows you what that has accomplished. If you go back and read my posts, I'm only talking about the need for our industry to start using professional representation. Not once did I mention that professional representation would be obtainable with MMAC. Good luck finding actual professional representation that has a personal vested interest in small scale mining. They're going to be very few and far between.

And I'll say it again, I don't feel at this time any mining district should align with MMAC. Their strong armed tactics alone scream that they're not really out to represent me or my district.

There are quite a few miners dealing with lobbying and legislation and they are the most effective because of their industry technical knowledge. Sorry Bob , but there is a reason that these guys that aren't familiar with being on site have no business lobbying. The strongest Lobbying groups for mining in the U.S. are staffed by miners, geologists and mining engineers.

And I know your not for MMAC I'm not talking about that.

 

[getmesomegold]

So , I'm a little confused by some of your statements Goldwasher, Do you think there is value in Mining Districts ?
Can they be an effective tool if run by their localized claim holders?
What does the Reinhart decision mean to you and miners and Mining Districts?
What do you think about SB637 and what do you think is the most effective way to approach the upcoming meetings and decisions that are to be made during this process?
I can recognize TNET as being a valuable resource! But, what other valuable resources do you feel are available to miners ?
And finally, what would be your call to action? What are the steps you feel miners should take moving forward in this sea of legislation?
How would you unite both the small scale miner ( The Recreational Miner as has been termed by those who would strip us of our rights) and those who actually rely on mining to make a living?
How can we create a force to be recognized and utilized ?
Actually, this is an open ended question to anyone who will answer........

 

[MadMarshall]

Robert. Are you and Kevin still hosting the mining district meeting?
Also I would like to address some of the the things in your last post. First let me say this uniting the mining community talk is getting old. Whether we like it or not we are all united in the sense we all want to find gold. Also I would like to point out that the individuals who say that, are the one who have created multiple advocacy groups. And in my opinion further divided and left the mining community at risk of multiple advocacy groups preaching different versions or opinions and in some groups manipulation. Now as far as mining districts being used for the soul purpose of giving miners a more solid voice is flawed.
You ask what the Rhinehart decision means to me? Another shot of whiskey I guess.
Let me ask you this what did mining districts mean to you before the Rhinehart case?
Also let's talk a little about transparency.. so many groups and many still support Mmac.plp. Robert you are associated with how many groups? How many groups did you alone start? Rightomine? Miningdistricts.com? Maybe others?
To what end? GPAA supports plp Mmac. Amra yourself and
Others all endorse and promote and work together for a common goal? Actually it's hard to know what goals or action or where individuals donations or raffle donations are goin. To what cause? To any cause?

Now in regards to your upcoming meeting. How I wish you would be more transparent and forthcoming.
Maybe you can share your thoughts on how to form a legal mining district. All of it. From notice to claim holders to the bylaws template... I honestly don't think the mining districts you reorganized is legitimate. I already have spoken to claim holders in some of those districts and they never even knew anything about it.
Honestly it's my opinion that the best thing that can be done for the mining community is. That the individuals who are running theses groups and orgs to pull their head out of their arse. These so called leaders always like to point fingers and say what are you doin.? How are you making a difference? Well I'll answer for the vast majority of us we are digging gold and not trying to screw things up more. How I wish yourself and other clubs would do the same!

 

[MadMarshall]

I would also like to say that mining districts is a tool that must be forged and used within that district. That the claim holders within that district will be the deciding factor of the success or failure. Trying to set up as many districts as one can in hope that the districts somehow become one colloberative voice is absurd and failure is the difinitive result.
The power in a mining district is solely dependent on the claim holders within that district.

Robert you can not even show the validity or tangible results for any other mining districts or meeting you have facilitated. What about those efforts you and Kevin put forth hustling miners for Mmac? And now you and Kevin are continuing the effort as spokesperson for higher. You regard yourselves as authorities on the subject and offer services. Now I know iknow all out of the goodness of your guys heart... Well I been on this earth long enough to know the wheel is always getting greased somewhere.
I heard your spill in foresthill. You were still all hard for Mmac then. Not really long ago.
Anyway I truly feel for the individuals you influenced when working for Mmac and I certainly feel bad for the people you influence now.

 

[Goldwasher]

The majority of affect that a mining district can have is on the members of that district. The smaller the better. You can put the government on notice that they are supposed to deal with the district first for field issue's however in California I see as much traction in that as I see with roller skates and banana peels. The state of Ca. and it's judges typically don't care about mining law in reference to the regulations they put forth.
The Rinehart decision can not affect mining law. Ochoa did not say anything to the affect of if Brandon was in a mining district he could dredge. It's too bad you read it that way.

The SWRCB is a non elected government body. It does what the legislature tells them to and gives them power to. That telling people what to do seems to roll down hill and we get told what to do. And man can agenda sure guide that. Our agenda is not on the invite.
I will be at the Sacramento workshop. I will watch our input be logical, factual and important in the discussion and know as stake holders that is supposed to matter. However since these are not true legal "hearings". Due to the fact that the one finalizing hearing the the actual "board" takes part in, is just to set in stone power they have already been given, I am aware that I am taking part mainly because if I don't see it go down like it does in person. It's still just hard for me to believe the way things work at the capitol.

What you guys are trying to do is not what needs to be done, nor is it the force for change we need in the western states.

 

[QNCrazy]

I dont want to higjack the thread but GW provided a segway to the upcoming Public Workshops.

In preparing for the upcoming public workshops, I’ve been doing some research and came upon what I think is a discrepancy within the regulations depending on how you read it. Shocker, Right? Barry, GW, Ratled, and any others, please correct me if I am wrong on my research.

I was researching SB 637, Fish and Game Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, comparing their definitions of Suction Dredging. I have read SB 637 time and time again as well as the referenced sections of the Fish and Game Code and have the same interpretation as most here on the forum. It donned on me that there hasn’t been much discussion on the California Code of Regulations, Title 14.

637 references the language change to the Fish and Game Code section but not TiTle 14. Title 14, Section 228(a) currently states, “Suction Dredging: For the purposes of this Section and Section 228.5, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment (i.e. suction dredging) is defined as the use of a suction system to vacuum material from a river, stream, or lake for the extraction of minerals. These regulations do not apply to, prohibit or restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.” Now this definition does not mention the use of mechanized or motorized equipment with the exception of “nonmotorized” in the last sentence. 637 actually provides a little more clarity in it’s definition in my opinion.

Quoting from Wikipedia Re: California Code of Regulations, “Pursuant to certain broadly worded statutes, state agencies have promulgated an enormous body of regulations, which are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and carry the force of law to the extent they do not conflict with any statutes or the state or federal Constitutions. Pursuant to the California Administrative Procedure Act, a "Notice of Proposed Action" is published in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Notice Register) and at least 45 days are required for public hearings and comment before being reviewed and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and codified in the CCR.”

Also Quoting from Wikipedia Re: California Codes (i.e. F&G Code), Interpretation, “The Codes form an important part of California law. However, they must be read in combination with the federal and state constitutions, federal and state case law, and the California Code of Regulations, in order to understand how they are actually interpreted and enforced in court. The Civil Code is particularly difficult to understand since the Supreme Court of California has treated parts of it like a mere restatement of the common law. In contrast, other codes, such as the Probate Code and the Evidence Code, are considered to have fully displaced the common law, meaning that cases interpreting their provisions always try to give effect whenever possible to the Legislature's intent.”

Based on this information, shouldn’t Title 14 and F&G Code read the same? Is this a discrepancy or should I be looking at it as Title 14 is the law and F&G Code further defines Title 14. My whole premise is that we need one set of clear concise regulations with permitting controlled by one government entity, and therefore easily enforced by the LEO’s. Actually, we shouldn't need permits to dredge.

 

[Tuolumne]

very deep, we should get a t-net all star group to speak and get on the agenda to bring up the concerns like above, wouldnt hurt........bring it up at the meeting tonight 6:30pm motherload fairgrounds in Sonora. Is anyone going?

 

[Goldwasher]

That's why they throw an opaque rice noodle against a wall.....to see what sticks and call it transparent!