dfg suction dredge report is out

Hefty1 said:
“The law requires us to use fish as our criteria,” Stopher said. “The deleterious effects are our primary consideration ... (but) it has to have a substantial effect.”

They keep using the word "substantial" but not one of them can tell me the defination of the word is or they all have different answers.
Click to expand...

Hefty1, don't forget "potential" and "might" as they are using these words an awful lot also.

They want to close everthing down because something potentially might be a impact. A meteror might fall on your dredge releasing the gas , this is a potential impact too.
They want you to get a permit to dredge but then to use that permit, with the equipmnet you may want to use, you will need an on-site inspection to aquire written permission. Next will be a permit for the written permission.
Whatever happen to abide by rules (reasonable ones) or be cited????? Set regulation (reasonable ones) and enforce them, guess they can't do that anymore????

Sorry for the rant!!! I just go off sometimes. CDFG has gone way too far this time!
 

Siskiyou County, Calif. — The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is asked in a recent letter if it approves of “misstatements, threats and attempts by threats to extort action” in response to letters sent to agricultural water users earlier this year in the Shasta and Scott river watersheds.
The letter, sent to DFG Director John McCamman by the law office of Minasian, Spruance, Meith, Soares and Sexton in Oroville, Calif., references letters from acting regional manager Mark Stopher regarding the enrollment period for the watershed-wide permitting program. That program, according to Stopher’s first letter, has as its primary purpose “to bring agricultural diverters into compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.”
The reference to the 1600 series of codes also surfaced in a recent petition for declaratory relief filed with the Siskiyou County Superior Court, in which the California Farm Bureau is asking the court to help define the meaning of “substantial” diversion and how the meaning will ultimately decide which diverters will have to enter into agreements with the DFG.
Stopher’s letters are referenced both in the bureau’s petition and in the letter from the firm, with the firm challenging the tactics described by Stopher.
In Stopher’s letter, it is stated that if an agricultural surface water diverter does not participate in the watershed-wide permitting program and fails to individually acquire the permits and agreements with the DFG, he or she may face large fines and jail time.
The firm alleges in its letter that the language used constitutes threats and attempts by threats to extort action.
“Should not citizens be entitled to a full and accurate explanation of the law from public officials? Is it not extortion and a form of terrorism to attempt to frighten citizens into taking action not required by the law?” the firm asks.
The firm asks that question in its letter after challenging the DFG’s authority to determine water quantities and bypass flows, as well as the requirements for Incidental Take Permits (ITP) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review.
The firm states in its letter that it believes that DFG should be responsible for costs of CEQA reports prepared regarding changes to pre-existing water rights, rather than requiring the diverters to pay the costs of preparing the reports, as Stopher suggests is required.
The requirement for ITPs, which permit activities that can kill endangered or threatened species, is challenged by the firm by referencing Fish and Game code 2087, which reads, “Accidental take of candidate, threatened, or endangered species resulting from acts that occur on a farm or a ranch in the course of otherwise lawful routine and ongoing agricultural activities is not prohibited by this chapter.”
While 2087 is set to be repealed on Jan. 1, 2011, the legislature can, as it has in the past, vote to extend the exemption for another two years before that date.
“Please tell us: Does the State of California, Department of Fish & Game, approve of these tactics, statements and methods? Is DFG’s plan so important that it insists on its employees and officials’ right to extort, mislead and take private property without due process of law?” the firm’s letter concludes.
Asked Thursday on whose behalf the firm’s letter was submitted, Paul Minasian, the author, stated, “The best way to think about the letter to [the] DFG Director is that it is designed to correct the atmosphere and allow him to get ahold of this problem for the benefit of the whole of the community and not sent on behalf of any one client.”
The letter was sent on June 25.

Copyright 2010 Siskiyou Daily News. Some rights reserved



The reference to the 1600 series of codes also surfaced in a recent petition for declaratory relief filed with the Siskiyou County Superior Court, in which the California Farm Bureau is asking the court to help define the meaning of “substantial” diversion and how the meaning will ultimately decide which diverters will have to enter into agreements with the DFG.

I wonder how they defined it???
 

"When a suction dredge comes in, it basically on a very small scale does what mother Earth does on a very large scale" during spring snow melt or flooding, says Mike Higbee, a veteran miner who owns a mining equipment store in Grants Pass, Ore. "There are a lot of user groups — fishermen, rafters, kayakers — that actually walk into these beds of eggs, and they aren't regulated."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-09-gold-miners_N.htm
 

if the removal of lead and mercury ia a environmental hazard then the introduction of lead and mercury should be criminal, ie fishermen losing lead, and rafters that capsize lose cellphones and cameras that hold batterys which contain mercury.
i have found fragments of cell phones and cameras while dredging or walking back and fourth from camp and dredge site

I find no report on or mention of using a retort system, which is a safe method of separating gold from mercury.
any thoughts
 

YES-NEVER EVER NO WAY MENTION MERCURY OR RETORTS WHEN TALKN' DREDGN' AS WE HAVE ENOUGH *&^%$# PROBLEMS-has absolutely nuttn' to do with dredging and took a ton of work and many hundreds of hours of work to eliminate this NON ISSUE-John
 

I'm with you there John, don't even mention any thing they might use against us real or not.
 

Tarkus, Hoser
ok, but not sure how to address this whole new permit program ?,
Chapter 4.4 PAGE 4.4-1 line 12 and PAGE 4.4-3 LINE 28 PUTS IT TO ARE BACKSIDE

Chapter 4.3 and Appx-k has the fish covered pretty good, except for non-native fish were some like salmon eggs

so how are you guys going about protesting this with comments

we need fact and data opposing view points science /facts
anecdotal comments won't work
 

I didnt read the whole chapter,but I would like for them to show me one dredger that uses Mercury while dredging to recover gold as they have stated
 

2cmorau- When commenting focus on their reasoning for a given regulation or their lack of. Always ask about the proof or data for that specific restriction.
Most of their regulation I noticed are species specific and they don't give proof that dredging effects or impacts them specifically. They just are using a whole lot of general wordage of concerned questioning rather than specific related proof and facts. The whole mercury thing, not enough new data to warrant the restrictions they are imposing. The few new studies could not possibly aplly to the entire state.

A lot of reading and yes they are trying to shake us off their back with questionable words like- maybe, might, potential, could be , if, would if, so on.......

Tell them that the only alternative that makes sense would be to set the regulation back to the 1994 EIR based regulations as they were quite viable to meet the suction dredge permitting program. ;D
 

New since 1994 EIR, sorry. There is some since then "Literature Review".

Yes, there is only one very recent, that is all a bunch of biased twisted crap. You know where they can file that one.
 

Gravel Hog
I agree, most everything in this report is inconsequential, all the reports of/ or thier findings end in,maybe, believe to have, unknown,in thier conclusion.
reading as much as i can about mercury, it appears that methlymercury accures in still waters only, and running waters have elemental mercury, but the way it reads makes it sound like were putting mercury in the water

much thanks on direction
 

Did you read the most recent report from Charles Alpers USGS that the DFG is using in their findings?
Nanograms, one billon to one gram.
 

the way i see it,the whole 670 seir thing was an illegal process.the state banned instream dredging in the absence of studies showing deleterious effects upon fish.that being the case,any pending revisions are also illegal.am having trouble drafting my comments on the proposed new regs,because anything i say from my heart will sound rabidly anti government.and still i do not see any scientific evidence produced by the new so called study.my comments will not be taken into consideration anyway.but perhaps my actions will be. :angel9:
 

patches63- dang it, perhaps.

But none the less we must try to capsize this farce CDFG SDEIR boat of Shet, as they both float the same. And if we can't sink it at least bury them with a ton of truths.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Is there an easy way to determine where claims are and are not?

⬅️ Previous Thread

New California Proposed Dredge Regulations here:

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top