IT APPEARS THAT WE WON

[Oakview2]

STILL TRYING TO WADE THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[NeoTokyo]

Thank you 2cmorau, that was a lot of reading but not as bad as I thought the regs would be.

I do however see a lot of creeks that I KNOW use to be dredged that are now off the list and fall under "A".
Big French Creek off the Trinity is one. I have hiked to Rainbow camp 18 or something up back that way and there are some impressive dredge holes up there that were AWESOME fishing holes.
But I can kind of see why Big French Creek was removed since they are following bunk science, there is a serious fish shortage on that creek and last year (2014) the water was so warm, it was sad honestly because its not suppose to be warm, ever.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[2cmorau]

NEOTokyo 2012 rules n regs Suck , i have my fingers crossed that we will operate under 94 R&R


(k) Equipment Requirements.

(1) Nozzle Restriction. No suction dredge having an intakenozzle with an inside diameter larger than four inches maybe used unlessA) The Department has conducted an on-site <----- BSinspection and approved a larger nozzle size inwriting; the maximum inside diameter of the intake​

nozzle is no larger than six inches, or eight inches

Restrictions on Methods of Operation.(1) Motorized winching or the use of other motorizedequipment to move boulders, logs, or other objects isprohibited, unlessA)The Department has conducted an on-site inspectionand approved the proposed suction dredging operations​

in writing;

Winching, whether motorized or hand powered, shall beconducted under the following provisionsA) Boulders and other material may only be movedwithin the current water level. No boulders or othermaterial shall be moved outside the current water linelevel.(B) Winching of any material embedded on banks ofstreams or rivers is prohibited.(C) Winching of any material into a location whichdeflects water into the bank is prohibited.(D) Nets and other devices may be used to collectcobbles and boulders by hand for removal from dredgeholes providing the materials are not removed fromwithin the current water level.(E) No woody streamside vegetation shall be removed ordamaged. Trees of sufficient size and condition may beused as winch and pulley anchor points provided thatprecautions are taken to ensure that trunk surfacesare protected from cutting or abrasions and the tree​

is not uprooted.

No person shall operate the nozzle of a suction dredgeand remove material within three feet of the lateral edge <----- this one really sucksof the current water level, including at the edge ofinstream gravel bars or under any overhanging banks.(4) No person shall remove or damage streamside vegetationduring suction dredge operations.(5) No person shall cut, move or destabilize instream woody​

debris such as root wads, stumps or logs.

 

[Oakview2]

 

[Hefty1]

Wow...is about all I can say right now. As I was about to put my "Golden Eagle" claim on the chopping block. I think now I will hold for a little longer.

Thanks to all involved to help get this right. Thank you, Thank you.

 

[fishnfacts]

After reading the "Miners News" I read a very important part as I see it. If you are going to put boots to the ground in the very near future, TAKE PICTURES of your work, cleaning out Mercury, cleaning up the land and the water. Show them that miners of today are stewards and care more about the streams and land than the tree huggers do. Take pictures and post them up. Show the world and Da' Judge, he made the right decision.

 

[Reed Lukens]

The 2012 regs is still one of the problems that we are fighting because this was brought on by the Sierra Fund, Karuk and so on in the middle of the ban and the 2012 regs shut down too many areas. On my claims we have gone from year round dredging to 120 days or not at all with the new regs and even the 120 days just isn't enough time to make a yearly living from dredging plus lets not forget that you only get a maximum of 6 hours per day from 10am to 4pm to dredge now with these new regs that none of us in California have been able to use yet. Just look at the Klamath if you want to see over regulation. The fight isn't over yet by any means.

 

[NeoTokyo]

Yeah, I saw the nozzle restrictions and proximity restrictions, its still better than an all out ban but it needs to go back to the 94' Regs.
I am guessing that the whole 500' in between dredges is new too because when I was a kid I remember seeing dredges that were much closer to each other than that on the Trinity.

PS. And the 1500 maximum dredge permits allowed is BS too.

 

[Reed Lukens]

Yeah, I saw the nozzle restrictions and proximity restrictions, its still better than an all out ban but it needs to go back to the 94' Regs.
I am guessing that the whole 500' in between dredges is new too because when I was a kid I remember seeing dredges that were much closer to each other than that on the Trinity.

PS. And the 1500 maximum dredge permits allowed is BS too.

The goldhounds letter states that everyone is following the 94 regs because they are agreed upon. With this win, the state cannot not give you a permit so their 1500 permit crapola went out the window voiding those regs in every dredgers eyes.

 

[goldenIrishman]

I've got to agree with you on that one Neo. Limiting the number of permits to 1500 is B.S. and could cause some major legal problems for the state if miners wanted to press the issue. Considering the shear number of claims that are not only on Federal lands and could also be dredged, limiting the number of permits is going to cause many to not be able to use this method of mining to work their claims.

Now if they were to make it so that only claim owners can get a permit instead of every one, I feel it would be a much better system. Making the permit so it covers the claim itself would still allow those that the claim owner give permission to to be able to dredge on his claim. The claim owner would of course be responsible for the actions of his guest miners and must make sure they stay within any equipment and proximity restrictions. IMHO, this would be the best permit issuance system they could set up.

 

[russau]

It sure would be nice if someone would inform the forest cops so they know whats up for a change. BECAUSE if they aren't notified from their higher ups then they will still issue citations until notified not to. am I correct on this? OR print out a copy of this decision and carry it with your paperwork for them to read. BUT still there will be those that say they are waiting for their boss to tell them......

 

[goldenIrishman]

It sure would be nice if someone would inform the forest cops so they know whats up for a change. BECAUSE if they aren't notified from their higher ups then they will still issue citations until notified not to. am I correct on this? OR print out a copy of this decision and carry it with your paperwork for them to read. BUT still there will be those that say they are waiting for their boss to tell them......

Very true Russ. there are going to be a number of LEOS that are not going to like this ruling because it will allow the dredgers back into "THEIR FORESTS". Many of the field and office personnel at the F.S. are card carrying greenies and will do their best to keep making life hard for miners of all types.

 

[Gelmac]

The 2012 regs is still one of the problems that we are fighting because this was brought on by the Sierra Fund, Karuk and so on in the middle of the ban and the 2012 regs shut down too many areas. On my claims we have gone from year round dredging to 120 days or not at all with the new regs and even the 120 days just isn't enough time to make a yearly living from dredging plus lets not forget that you only get a maximum of 6 hours per day from 10am to 4pm to dredge now with these new regs that none of us in California have been able to use yet. Just look at the Klamath if you want to see over regulation. The fight isn't over yet by any means.

Reed, I really hope for a happy ending to the benefit of the prospectors. You're welcome on my part of the globe to do any prospecting you like Yeah, we have (some) regulations but these are for the placer/hard rock operations only. Still the Mineral authorities trying to organize the messy Small miners activities : trying to convince small miners with the new methods/tools to use instead of the dangerous and ineffective methods they are using now. Some progress is made, new wet jaw crushers/mills instead of the dusty older ones. Spread of use of retorts to limit the health problems with the extensive use of mercury and moving away processing plants away from near populated areas. There is much more to be done, but the positive thing is , it is for the small miners improvements .

 

[Hoser John]

Go by the 94 legal regs as 2012 just bs. ICMJ warning is indeed correct. If you jump out and start dredging in the middle of a spawning season you will have proven the haters right,that we don't give a squat for what damage might be done. There is MUCH work being done behind the scenes,hidden by gag orders,that are absolutely CRITICAL at this juncture in time. Court on the 23 will bring some into the open and by god some amazing stuff. What you do reflects on the whole so don't flush 7 years of hell/pain/agony down the toilet with stupidid actions. See what the next week brings....John

 

[Oakview2]

I beleieve Hose John said he would post a picture of him dancing on his eight incher with a bottle of tequilla and a tee shirt that says rock to you ralph:-)

 

[goldenIrishman]

John is right guys. There's a lot of stuff that has gone on that we don't know about because it's under a gag order. To go out and do something stupid now could possibly undo all that has been accomplished so far. Hold up for a bit and see what the next week or two brings. (But I'd still be tuning up the dredge motors!)

 

[Clay Diggins]

I promised to put in my 2 cents on this ruling. I'm not your lawyer and you shouldn't take any of this to be legal advice. I'll be basing all my comments on the facts. If you are offended by factual comments you might want to pass this by.

First it's very important to understand that the appeals court did not rule that federal mining laws preempt state regulations. What that appeals court did rule was that the lower court in Rinehart needs to consider the possibility that federal mining acts could preempt state dredge regulations to ensure that Brandon's rights were not violated by the dredge moratorium. There is a big difference between those two concepts.

Judge Ochoa, as the appeals court instructed, did consider the possibility of federal preemption in deciding one of the complaints in the combined cases. He ruled that on that single issue the State dredging regulation scheme was an obstruction of the federal intent. Judge Ochoa didn't, and couldn't, decide that for all times in all courts. His ruling only applies to the combined cases and only to the single complaint. There is a lot more to the combined cases than the preemption issue so that dog and pony show still has several more acts to play before it's over.

I think some people have gotten the incorrect idea that the 49ers, WMA or PLP somehow caused this win. The simple fact is that they had nothing to do with the preemption ruling. Brandon Rinehart brought the issue to the appeals court and that was the decision that caused Judge Ochoa to reach his decision.

Please note that Judge Ochoa ruled on the law after the parties had already agreed on the facts. Importantly he relied on the California Granite Rock decision rather than leaving his venue and relying on Spearfish or one of the other foreign judicial notices.

Judge Ochoa made sure his decision was sound and would not be easy to overturn on appeal in the state court system. Despite the sloppiness of both the dredgers complaint and the State's defense Judge Ochoa has kept the court proceedings direct, clean and on track.

It should be noted that it was Judge Ochoa that elicited the critical testimony by the State that they could not anticipate an end date for the moratorium. All his hints to the dredgers fell on deaf ears so he took the bull by the horns himself. It was the most important issue that was lost in all the distracting multiple complaints and lawyer conferences and motions.

My conclusions:

Brandon Rinehart and Judge Ochoa handed you this win. More than likely, in my opinion, all the other complaints in the consolidated dredging cases will be lost. Most were silly distractions from the beginning. Consolidating the cases had no advantage to anyone but the lawyer's billings.

If the Rinehart retrial is successful for Brandon and the verdict is upheld on appeal you will then have court precedence to rely on. Until then any dumazz can go dredging, get cited, argue takings or some other stupid defense and get a judgement against them that will give ammo to the opposition.

Dredge if you want, it's never been unlawful, but please be prepared to stand up like Brandon did and take the money and time hits to argue the single issue of federal preemption. Otherwise you are the fly in the soup and might just derail the whole train. If you really want this thing over and settled help Brandon succeed. His case has always been your best chance.

The consolidated cases will drag on until one side or the other gives up or the Judge gets tired of the nonsense. That will likely be after Brandon's upcoming win.

Any settlement agreement on the dredging regulations will be challenged by the greenies and probably a significant number of dredgers. It may take years to come up with workable dredging regulations. That dance will continue until the greenies all move to Colorado or the economy gets so bad the logic of letting people add gold and money to the economy overcomes the stupidity of the "mining is bad" nonsense taught in California schools and media.

Learn from this experience. There is no advantage to bringing multiple suits with many lawyers. A single winnable defense by a single committed individual will take down the State quicker and cheaper than all the lawyers and organizations in the State. It was always about the right to mine without undue interference. If you want it over and settled keep it simple.

There are Judges with agendas and some decisions are made incorrectly. That is rare but it does happen. The vast majority of cases lost by miners are due to poorly argued cases resulting from poorly understood laws and court procedures. Blaming crooked judges or wasting time and money arguing the same bogus theories over and over again doesn't lead to wins. Stop blaming the system - learn the laws - educate yourself and prosper!

And last but certainly not least please understand:

Brandon Rinehart is the miner's hero. He is the one man that took the ticket, argued the single issue that mattered and won. Learn from that and sing his name in your miner's songs.

Heavy Pans

 

[goldenIrishman]

Clay, that has got to be the best explanation of what transpired and why things happened the way they did to hit the forum since the ruling. As usual, you're clear and directly to the point.

I can only agree with you on your statements of "Learn the laws" and "Brandon Rinehart is the miner's hero". Learning the laws is important for all miners so they can protect their investments of time and effort as well as their rights. Brandon should be thanked by every miner for his willingness to stand up and to do it in the right way rather than repeating the mistakes that miners have been making for a long time now.

I do have a quick question for you but I'll e-mail it since it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[QNCrazy]

Great explanation Clay. I have been patiently waiting for that all week.

 

[goldenmojo]

Clay thanks for the explanation and the admonishment about dredging early. I have never dredged and would really like to, starting anytime from this moment forward but I will bide my time until it is right to do so. Thanks for all you do in helping us to understand the convoluted mess.

 

[Bnugget]

I think some people have gotten the incorrect idea that the 49ers, WMA or PLP somehow caused this win. The simple fact is that they had nothing to do with the preemption ruling. Brandon Rinehart brought the issue to the appeals court and that was the decision that caused Judge Ochoa to reach his decision.

Heavy Pans

Barry, I appreciate all the praise your giving me for taking on the State single handedly and yes Ochoa did heavily rely on my case. I know you understand this lawsuit stuff way better than I ever am cable of and I have the utmost respect for your opinions. I wanted to address one part of your statement.

While New 49ers, WMA, and PLP may not have been directly involved with the preemption ruling in the appeals court their efforts behind the scenes had a huge effect. James Buchal relied heavily on input from all of these groups and others when developing his briefs. These groups helped refine key points in our briefs.

On top of that, these 3 groups account for almost half(around 45%) of contributions received to directly fund my case. Without their fundraising efforts there would be no Rinehart case as I never would have been able to afford to carry this past trial.

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes just wanted to give credit where it's due.

Brandon Rinehart