Environmentalists in California are attempting to shut down dredging

[Bluebeard]

In 2009 a group of environmental non-profits and a few of the Karuk tribal leaders in Northern California got legislation passed that mandated the DFG to review the current dredging restrictions because they had "new and sound evidence that suction dredging was deleterious to fish". I guess the fishermen non-profits got on board because they believed the environmental non-profits when they stated that gold dredging polluted the waters (there is no proof of this). Nevertheless, a court order mandated another review of the facts and mandated a California Department Fish & Game EIR - while effectively shutting down gold dredging instantly.

The DFG set up a collaborative atmosphere where both sides of the issue got together and discussed their respective points of view. Then Horizon Environmental was tasked to determine in the subsequent EIR what had changed since the original EIR and to mitigate the damages. The problem was that Horizon didn't use any of the 1994 EIR background to come up with conclusions for the new EIR. As a matter of fact, they ignored the original data from the 1994 EIR and ended up filling the new EIR up with "Modal Verbs" describing the damages they perceived. Do you know what a modal verb is? If you read the new EIR (all 800 pages of it) the "proof of environmental damages" are always preceeded with words like (presumably, generally, maybe, could be, would be, can, should, may) and there are no references to any studies which support the modal verbs. It is like an 800 page document of someone's opinion- and you know everyone has an opinion. Unfortunately the current form of the EIR is crafted by people who don't want dredgers in the water.

One of the main contentions of the anti-dredgers is that the dredgers disturb mercury in the rivers. That is the position that most of the naysayers reference. Well, there is a very well intentioned dredger who happens to enjoy crunching numbers and he reviewed the Fleck studies (the studies that the whole flouring of mercury depends upon) and crunched the numbers. He found out that whoever originally crunched the numbers apparently wasn't very good at math (or had an ulterior motive). The numbers which supported the anti-dredgers conclusions, were in fact several orders of magnitude off. In order for the amount of mercury to be captured off the back end of a single dredge (which collects 98% of the mercury that runs through it) there would instead have to be 14,000 dredges dredging at the mouth of Humbug creek (a literal superfund site for mercury) for over a month to recover the quantity of mercury that supposedly one dredge generates in a day.

Oops.

I can appreciate getting the numbers wrong as I tend to be dyslexic with numbers too.

So as soon as this information came out, the NEXT DAY a budget rider bill was slipped into the budget legislation by an unknown person. A very well connected unknown person and the rider dictates that suction dredging be shut down for 5 years and the DFG stop its work on the EIR.

Now why would the anti dredgers who mandated the EIR all of the sudden want to shut it down? Inquiring minds want to know. I think I know the answer and those in the know don't want the REAL SCIENTIFIC facts to see the light of day.

Another thing, the enviros aren't really anti dredging. The fully support a government sponsored dredging operation at lake combie, in Nevada County. That operation costs the taxpayers $3M, has less efficiency than that of the small suction dredgers- and the most curious part of it- if the enviro-sponsored dredge is collecting mercury, then that means the dredge is also collecting gold too (probably lots of gold). Since the taxpayers are paying for the operation, how come no one tells us what our (the taxpayers) return on our investment is? Or is that just a perk that goes to the guys running the dredge (or perhaps the Enviro groups for their support). Sounds like a cool gig- get paid to clean up the lake and keep the gold too. Sign me up.

FYI just to let you know how the environmental movement is stripping California of a potential $23M industry in order to get the dredgers off the river. I encourage you to read the EIR, and you too will see the dredgers are being railroaded off the rivers.

[ME Co.]

Happenning here in CO too. HH Mark

[Goldhedge]

Well, the good thing is out of all this is it's good for gold...

[Unclad Lad]

They did not attempt it. They DID it. Now they are trying to make it permanent.

[Irons]

Was there ever a time in this country when you had to have hard facts before your little group could step in and destroy somebody elses livelihood?

I swear if I was bill gates rich I would look for cases like this and step in and destroy the busy bodies, sue them and keep them in court until thier grandchildren are broke.

I would do the same thing to algore.
Until there are consequences for thier actions this frivolous lawsuit crap will just go on, next time it might be you they break financially.

[Bluebeard]

>>Was there ever a time in this country when you had to have hard facts before your little group could step in and destroy somebody elses livelihood?<<

The "funny" thing was, the environmental non-profits created a rush legislation stating that they had new information that proved that suction dredging was bad for the environment, so the legislation was voted and passed as a rush legislation- and it mandated a new supplemental Environmental Report needed to be created to describe and mitigate the "new scientific discoveries proving suction dredging was bad for the environment"- well, guess what? There was no "new proof" and that exercise cost the taxpayers of the State of California over $1.8 million dollars to make that determination. Not to mention putting small miners out of business for 1.5 years (at a cost to California commerce to the tune of $150M).. There ought to be a law that states if you propose emergency legislation based on fraudulent science, and it is recognized at a later date- you will be billed for the exercise. It would make the persons "crying wolf" a little more exact on their science if their own butts were on the line.

This has been an expensive and immense waste of time for everyone involved, yet the environmentalist non-profits walk away with no losses on their end.

[Not Sure]

putting small miners out of business

"Small miners" do not use machines more suited in a science fiction program than prospecting.

Come on, people! What's the limit? Can Barrick come in with a 100 foot wide dredge and scoop up the entire river bed in one swoop? Is that "freedom," too?

Suction dredging is a menace, period. It's easily proven by simply watching it for a short time. No $1.8 "environmental study" needed. That report was desired not only by "environmentalists" for their own purposes, but others to CYA when "poor little miners" hired big money lawyers to sue.

[Bluebeard]

>>Suction dredging is a menace, period. It's easily proven by simply watching it for a short time.<<

I'd appreciate it if you can find one (just one) instance where small mining suction dredging (we are talking about using a lawnmower sized engine, here) has caused any damage anywhere to a single fish (just one). There are over 60 years worth of government (and other) funded studies that have proven over and over again that the small miners (in the pursuit of extracting gold from rivers and creeks) cause no damage to the rivers. As a matter of fact, we extract: 98% of mercury (and other heavy metals), garbage that other forest users have dumped into the creeks (use your imagination with this one- but baby diapers is one example), lead fishing weights and bullets, tin cans- you name it the suction dredger pulls it out and properly disposes of it. Is there one other forest user who - day in and day out- who does this (and isn't paid by the government to do so)? I think not.

On my claim I am out in the middle of nowhere in a near vertical canyon buffeted by steep canyon walls, rattlesnakes and poison oak- no one ever comes to visit. It is over 100F on a daily basis, yet I don my wetsuit and slip inches under the surface of the water to experience for the next 6 hours the most amazing aquatic universe. As I am using my 4 inch dredge (capable of moving a cubic yard in a day), I am surrounded by schools of fish, who are perched near my shoulder in anticipation of scooping down and quickly picking up a helgramite I may uncover. I spend so much time underwater I watch the different personalities of the fish and give them names accordingly. We are friends. In the hot summer days, I am responsible for digging deep cool water holes for them to hide from the heat of the day.

While most other people are engaged in jobs with companies they hate, bosses they hate, doing jobs they hate, in cities they hate, I have the unique opportunity to be self employed, in a pristine environment, utilizing environmentally sensitive machinery, creating a helpful aquatic environment for my fish friends, loving every minute of existing in an alternate universe. And mining money. You ought to try it sometime, it is great for your soul.

Conversely, if a fisherman happened along, he would be responsible for either killing the fish or terrorizing them by catching and releasing them or slinging lead weights into the river. Or perhaps the river rafting concerns which in the middle of an all day tour, the participants just slip over the edge of the raft to relieve themselves. Tell me, who is doing more damage? The irony is those two groups of people are the same groups of people accusing the dredgers of destroying the river.

How's that for an irony?

[Bluebeard]

Not sure-

What is happening in California has nothing to do with Barrick or any other corporate mining concern. And no big money either. What we are talking about is small, family run businesses where some of the bigger businesses bring in $100,000 a year. The big money in this case is the Non-profit environmental, fishing and tribal concerns (loaded up with casino money). They are concentrating on putting the small miner out of business and spending $millions to do so.

I'll let you in on an angle I think they are taking (this is my theory and no one else's - The Non-profits are adamantly against small miners, yet they support reclamation dredging- which is surprising, since both use the same equipment. The only difference between an reclamation dredger and a gold mining suction dredger is the reclamation dredger uses much bigger equipment (causing bigger dirt plumes) and of course their intent- they aren't searching for gold, but they do recover it as a byproduct of their process.

My theory (its too early to tell on this one) is that they will kick the gold dredgers off the rivers (and claims) and since gold dredging is the most efficient method to extract gold from those claims, any other process will make the claim not profitable. If the claim is not profitable, there is a chance the claim will be given up- or in the case of my theory- it wouldn't need to be given up. My theory progresses- the California Dept of Fish and Game has done a deplorable job of cleaning the rivers- as a matter of fact they make no effort to do so. My theory states that once the miners are thrown off the rivers, the non-profits will get grants to do river clean up and will work with the DFG to put reclamation dredges up and down the rivers to "clean up the river" - it will be taxpayer funded, and the contractor will get paid by the government and all the gold they find will be a bonus to be shared by the dredger and their non-profit sponsor - in other words, you get paid twice- nice work if you can get it. It is an end run around the small miner and will literally entail legal state-sponsored claim jumping in an era of rising gold prices.

No other explanation makes sense. The Non-profits are pulling in big money to run 3000 family run operations off the rivers. Let's put this in perspective- if all the small suction dredge miners in the state had all their dredges on one stretch of river, they would fill up 1500 feet along a 30 foot wide river. That's all the small dredgers in the state of California. In the big picture of things, it is white noise. Why are they using all their media resources and political resources to throw 3000 small dredging families off the river? Nothing else makes sense- especially since the small dredgers do not cause any damage. It has to be for the gold.

As a side note, many have noticed that the USFS is closing down access to the forests. The small miner has a constitutionally guaranteed right to access their mining claims in the forest- so the USFS cannot prevent that access. If the small miner is run off his claim due to uneconomical extraction costs to recover the minerals, the claim becomes void, and then it becomes much easier to close down the forest access. Hmmmmm