Is none motorized dredging or high banking legal in California

5653. (a) The use ofvacuum or suction dredge equipment by a person
(in) a river, stream, or lake of this stateis prohibited, exceptas
authorized under a permit issued to that person by the departmentin
compliance with the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 5653.9.
Before a person uses vacuum or suction dredge equipment in ariver,
stream, or lake of this state, that person shall submit an
application to the department for a permit to use the vacuum or
suction dredge equipment, specifying the type and size of equipment
to be used and other information as the department may require
pursuant to regulations adopted by the department to implementthis
section.
(b) (1) The department shall not issuea permit for the use of
vacuum or suction dredge equipment until the permit application is
deemed complete. A complete permit application shall include any
other permit required by the department and one of the following, as
applicable:
(A) A copy of waste dischargerequirements or a waiver of waste
discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control
Board or a regional water quality control board in accordancewith
Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code.
(B) A copy of a certification issuedby the State Water Resources
Control Board or a regional water quality control board and apermit
issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in accordance
with Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. Secs. 1341 and 1344, respectively) to use vacuum or
suction dredge equipment.
(C) If the State Water ResourcesControl Board or the appropriate
regional water quality control board determines that wastedischarge
requirements, a waiver of waste discharge requirements, or a
certification in accordance with Section 1341 of Title 33 of the
United States Code is not necessary for the applicant to use of
vacuum or suction dredge equipment, a letter stating this
determination signed by the Executive Director of the StateWater
Resources Control Board, the executive officer of the appropriate
regional water quality control board, or their designee.
(c) Under the regulations adoptedpursuant to Section 5653.9, the
department shall designate waters or areas wherein vacuum orsuction
dredge equipment may be used pursuant to a permit, waters or areas
closed to the use of that equipment, the maximum size of the vacuum
or suction dredge equipment that may be used, and the time of year
when the equipment may be used. If the department determines,
pursuant to the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 5653.9, that
the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment does not causeany
significant effects to fish and wildlife, it shall issue a permit to
the applicant. If a person uses vacuum or suction dredge equipment
other than as authorized by a permit issued by the department
consistent with regulations implementing this section, that personis
guilty of a misdemeanor.
(d) (1) Except as provided inparagraph (2), the department shall
issue a permit upon the payment, in the case of a resident, of a base
fee of twenty-five dollars ($25), as adjusted under Section 713,
when an onsite investigation of the project size is not deemed
necessary by the department, and a base fee of one hundred thirty
dollars ($130), as adjusted under Section 713, when the department
deems that an onsite investigation is necessary. Except as provided
in paragraph (2), in the case of a nonresident, the base fee shall be
one hundred dollars ($100), as adjusted under Section 713, when an
onsite investigation is not deemed necessary, and a base fee oftwo
hundred twenty dollars ($220), as adjusted under Section 713, whenan
onsite investigation is deemed necessary.
(2) The department may adjust the basefees for a permit described
in this subdivision to an amount sufficient to cover all reasonable
costs of the department in regulating suction dredging activities.
 (e) It is unlawful topossess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas,
or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of
vacuum or suction dredges.
(f) A permit issued by the departmentunder this section shall not
authorize an activity in violation of other applicablerequirements,
conditions, or prohibitions governing the use of vacuum or suction
dredge equipment, including those adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board or a regional water quality control board.
The department, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the
regional water quality control boards shall make reasonable efforts
to share information among the agencies regarding potential
violations of requirements, conditions, or prohibitions governing the
use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment.
(g) For purposes of thissection and Section 5653.1, the use of
vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging,
is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or
assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the
bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order torecover
minerals. This section and Section 5653.1do not apply to, prohibit,
or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational miningactivities,
including panning for gold.
5653.1. (a) The issuance of permits to operate vacuumor suction
dredge equipment is a project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section
21000) of the Public Resources Code) and permits may only be issued,
and vacuum or suction dredge mining may only occur as authorized by
any existing permit, if the department has caused to be prepared,and
certified the completion of, an environmental impact report forthe
project pursuant to the court order and consent judgment entered in
the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California Department
of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG
05211597.
(b) NotwithstandingSection 5653, the use of any vacuum or
Suction dredge equipment (in) any river, stream, or lake of
this state is prohibited until the director certifies to the Secretary of State
that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The department has completed theenvironmental review of its
existing suction dredge mining regulations, as ordered by the court
in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California
Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court
Case No. RG 05211597.
(2) The department has transmitted forfiling with the Secretary
of State pursuant to Section 11343 of the Government Code, a
certified copy of new regulations adopted, as necessary, pursuantto
Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3
of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(3) The new regulations described inparagraph (2) are operative.
(4) The new regulations described inparagraph (2) fully mitigate
all identified significant environmental impacts.
(5) A fee structure is in place thatwill fully cover all costs to
the department related to the administration of the program.
(c) (1) To facilitate its compliancewith subdivision (b), the
department shall consult with other agencies as it determines tobe
necessary, including, but not limited to, the State WaterResources
Control Board, the State Department of Public Health, and the Native
American Heritage Commission, and, on or before April 1, 2013,shall
prepare and submit to the Legislature a report with recommendations
on statutory changes or authorizations that, in the determination of
the department, are necessary to develop the suction dredge
regulations required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), including,
but not limited to, recommendations relating to the mitigation ofall
identified significant environmental impacts and a fee structure
that will fully cover all program costs.
(2) The requirement for submitting areport imposed under this
subdivision is inoperative on January 1, 2017, pursuant to Section
10231.5 of the Government Code.
(3) The report submitted to theLegislature pursuant to this
subdivision shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9795 ofthe
Government Code.
 (d) The Legislaturefinds and declares that this section, as added during the 2009-10 RegularSession, applies solely to vacuum and suction dredging activities conducted for(in stream)
mining purposes. This section does not expand or provide new authorityfor
the department to close or regulate suction dredging conducted for
regular maintenance of energy or water supply management
infrastructure, flood control, or navigational purposes governed by
other state or federal law.
(e) This section does not prohibit orrestrict nonmotorized
recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.
5653.3. Any person required to possess a permitpursuant to Section
5653 shall present his or her dredging equipment for inspectionupon
request of a state or county fish and game warden.
5653.5. For purposes of Section 5653, "river,stream, or lake"
means the body of water at the current water level at the time
of thedredging.
5653.7. In the event of an unanticipated water levelchange, when
necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources, the department may
close areas that were otherwise opened for dredging and for which
permits were issued pursuant to Section 5653.
5653.8. For purposes of Sections 5653 and 5653.3,"person" does not ????
include a partnership, corporation, or other type of association.

5653.9. The department shall adopt regulations tocarry out Section
5653 and may adopt regulations to carry out Sections 5653.3, 5653.5,
and 5653.7. The regulations shall be adopted in accordance with the
requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340)
of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

From<CA Codes (fgc:5650-5656)
 

Everyone is frustrated because there is no clear cut and dried definition, the laws are chaulked full of ambiguity subject to interpretation. As far as interpretation goes it doesn't matter what the LEO's or yours is. What matters is that your willing to go and have your day in court and put in the effort to convince the man sitting behind the bench who's interpretation is what matters. Folks are all searching for that elusive ah haa, sentence or little known clause in the law books that gets them a free pass- it don't exist. No different than bumping up the cruise control to 80 on the interstate or doing a California stop at the intersection. You need to decide for yourself if doing so is an acceptable risk should you get cited. People should not allow themselves to be bullied or intimidated, go to court and plead your case. I've taken four traffic citations to court and have won each and everytime. I won because I was right, and I took the time to show it. LEO's write citations with an expectation that it will go unchallenged, they plan on the person paying the fine and moving on, citations are revenue generators- nothing more. If each and everytime the guy wrote someone a ticket and it got challenged and beat, you think they'd keep writing them like they are? The caveat to that is you have to be in the right and be willing and able to prove it.
 

Last edited:
Jeff95531 said:
Oh Yeah... Then there is this spahgettigold/ratled/hefty

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

So is my shrimp gun "mechanized? The definition in the dictionary seems to say no???
Click to expand...

For fun and dicussion it could also be argued as the dictionary saying yes it is mechanized. How about 3 & 4 below?

mech·a·nize (mĕk′ə-nīz′)
tr.v. mech·a·nized, mech·a·niz·ing, mech·a·niz·es
1. To equip with machinery: mechanize a factory.
2. To equip (a military unit) with motor vehicles, such as tanks and trucks.
3. To make automatic or unspontaneous; render routine or monotonous.
4. To produce by or as if by machines.


...and folks please don't say we shouldn't be discussing this on an open forum as it gives the opposition ideas and ammo. While that may be true on court case strategy and inside info, I highly doubt our cussing and discussing these type of topics would uncover any earth shattering ideas they haven't already thought about or discussed themselves.
 

Jeff95531 said:
Oh Yeah... Then there is this spahgettigold/ratled/hefty

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

So is my shrimp gun "mechanized? The definition in the dictionary seems to say no???
Click to expand...

no but..they may make you put a label on it......"this device is knon by the state of california to contain products that may cause cancer"

then who knows what legiSLAYER will get involved to make money for some group to save us all
 

Last edited:
Jeff95531 said:
Oh Yeah... Then there is this spahgettigold/ratled/hefty

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

So is my shrimp gun "mechanized? The definition in the dictionary seems to say no???
Click to expand...

I would say YES - it can be considered a "mechanized" instrument made by MAN to speed up and aid in the process..
They could say that about a plastic or steel Gold pan too if they wanted to get down and dirty.
Shovels and picks are also form of mechanized instruments to aid in what ever your doing.

Just curious, is Canada or Australia dealing with this kind of environmental radicalism?
 

G-bone said:
I would say YES - it can be considered a "mechanized" instrument made by MAN to speed up and aid in the process..
They could say that about a plastic or steel Gold pan too if they wanted to get down and dirty.
Shovels and picks are also form of mechanized instruments to aid in what ever your doing.

Just curious, is Canada or Australia dealing with this kind of environmental radicalism?
Click to expand...

i would say yes,and europe too. It still varies from country to country but the general direction is this and being able to compare the different countries it becomes very clear that this is all a big network,same tactics,same wordings of regulations,same unelected agencies.

Here we are at 3 states now that do not even allow panning and a fourth that last year outlawed sluices as a professional device.They (agencie for nature, fish and game) say that everything above a hand trowel and pan requires a permit-just to write in the next sentence that those permits would most likely not be issued.Before that they claim that no viable placerops do occur enymore in this country (though i now all the gravel plants also separet the gold out and i know of something big in prospecting phase)and if you want to run one it requires all the permits and impactstudys.

They lock the recreationals and the uncontrolable hardly taxable small scalers out. Best practice..

Go Big or go home. little uncontrolable hardly taxable recreationalist and small scalers not welcome.. The root of the problem seems to be (here we go again) worldwide plan for the life of
mankind in the 21 century which was signed by over 190 countries
 

Last edited:
fowledup said:
Everyone is frustrated because there is no clear cut and dried definition, the laws are chaulked full of ambiguity subject to interpretation. As far as interpretation goes it doesn't matter what the LEO's or yours is. What matters is that your willing to go and have your day in court and put in the effort to convince the man sitting behind the bench who's interpretation is what matters. Folks are all searching for that elusive ah haa, sentence or little known clause in the law books that gets them a free pass- it don't exist. No different than bumping up the cruise control to 80 on the interstate or doing a California stop at the intersection. You need to decide for yourself if doing so is an acceptable risk should you get cited. People should not allow themselves to be bullied or intimidated, go to court and plead your case. I've taken four traffic citations to court and have won each and everytime. I won because I was right, and I took the time to show it. LEO's write citations with an expectation that it will go unchallenged, they plan on the person paying the fine and moving on, citations are revenue generators- nothing more. If each and everytime the guy wrote someone a ticket and it got challenged and beat, you think they'd keep writing them like they are? The caveat to that is you have to be in the right and be willing and able to prove it.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, doing which activities would not put you in the wrong and be an unacceptable risk of losing your case? (highbanking, dredging, etc.) Or can this only be determined as there are more real examples and precedents?
 

He's saying there is no magic bullet, you have to interpret your rights and the risk on a case by case situation. I might run a recirc sluice with a motor this year but I am aware the regs (not so much the laws) are so cloudy and open to interpretation that I might get popped, so I may or may not accept this risk and use this device. I believe this device is legal but others may not. I can't really afford to risk a ticket or legal problems but if I could I would be more inclined to take the risk.
 

It's gonna turn into the way it was back in the 30's and 40's and all prospecting and even ownership of gold is outlawed.
We will all have to go back to the original reason "SNIPING" was coined.
"Outlaw Prospectors"...right up there with the "crack smokers" "bank robbers" and "Elected officials" :laughing7:
 

G-bone said:
It's gonna turn into the way it was back in the 30's and 40's and all prospecting and even ownership of gold is outlawed.
Click to expand...

Neither prospecting nor gold ownership has ever been outlawed in the United States.

Did you go to school in California? :icon_scratch: I keep wondering where these ideas come from, you aren't the only one who thought that was true.

Heavy Pans
 

Clay Diggins said:
Neither prospecting nor gold ownership has ever been outlawed in the United States.

Did you go to school in California? :icon_scratch: I keep wondering where these ideas come from, you aren't the only one who thought that was true.

Heavy Pans
Click to expand...

Gee thanks....

I believe it was FDR.....

"I, Franklin D Roosevelt…do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and…do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold…”

EXECUTIVE ORDER 6102, issued by US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt 80 years ago, on April 5th 1933, banned private gold ownership in the United States, forcing gold owners to take their bullion to a bank and exchange it for Dollars at the prevailing rate.

This order has become notorious among gold investors. Some fear a similar gold confiscation could happen again — that their government might seek to take away their bullion and ban “gold hoarding” as part of some trumped up solution to a “national economic emergency”.

Events in Cyprus, where at one point it looked like the state was going to levy a 6.75% on deposits below €100,000 — despite these coming under the deposit protection scheme — have only served to heighten fears that private wealth can, under certain circumstances, simply be appropriated. Governments change laws from time to time, and yes it’s possible that under the right circumstances some governments might try to confiscate their citizens’ gold. But it is important to realize that the motivation for confiscating gold that existed for FDR in 1933 has largely disappeared.

Back then the US was still on the Gold Standard (the UK had been forced off 18 months earlier. The rest of the world would follow by the eve of WWII, never to return). Gold was the foundation of the American currency and economy; at the time of FDR’s order the Dollar’s value was tied to gold at a rate of $20.67 per ounce — the price at which the government offered to buy and sell physical bullion. Making private “gold hoarding” illegal, FDR in fact nationalized what had been private property, using the bullion turned in to the banks to boost Washington’s finances and imposing 10-year jail terms and $10,000 fines (almost half-a-million dollars at today’s gold price) for disobedience. Only one case relating to the confiscation ever reached court (and only then because the gold owner, Manhattan attorney Frederick Barber Campbell, sued for return of his property) but the threat alone pulled in 60% of privately-circulating gold bullion within six months.

Following 6102, Roosevelt was then able to devalue the Dollar against gold by raising the gold price, something the government could now do as it controlled the entire domestic supply, plus a big chunk of the international market, which now poured metal into the US in exchange for ever-more dollars per ounce. FDR was acting on the advice of Cornell agricultural economist George Warren, whose background observing commodity prices had left him with the belief that the best way of solving a deflationary depression was to inject some inflation and push prices higher. This was the reasoning behind devaluing the Dollar; in the weeks following 6102, FDR and his advisers would sit at the breakfast table and decide what the gold price should be, nudging it higher a bit at a time until they settles on the $35 an ounce that prevailed until Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971.

And this is what "they" say got people going out "sniping" for gold..... But if you say it's all BS, then it must be.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Good Water Shoes?

⬅️ Previous Thread

Purdone Crossing Yuba River

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top