2cmorau
Bronze Member
- Nov 8, 2010
- 1,608
- 1,294
- Detector(s) used
- GMT&GM3 Whites MXT Pro, Shadow X5, Fisher 1280, OMG and the TDI
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Subject: Fwd: D.F.G. Rebuttal
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:43:30 -0700
Conversation: D.F.G. Rebuttal
Subject: D.F.G. Rebuttal
First off we would like to show our appreciation for the folks that braved the bad weather and where present at the past 2 D.F.G.- D.S.E.I.R meetings. It would have been nice to see more folks attend the meetings. DFG is watching us and testing our resolve. In order to save our Industry and Mining Rights we must fight for our survival at this time.
Mark Stopher and the D.F.G. have written regulations that can only serve one purpose. Regulating us out of the water!
They are more interested in one-sided regulations that can withstand court challenges. Besides commenting at the meeting and in writing to the DFG, your California Legislators must hear from you as well.
DFG is expected to make decisions based on facts, objective evidence and Peer reviewed science. To do otherwise would constitute a type of arbitrary and capricious conduct that our State and Federal Constitutions forbid.
How is it that the D.F.G can pre-determine the outcome of the Yellow Legged Frog Endangered Species Listing before it is even listed...It appears our regulations are written for just this outcome. This is illegal and a Civil Liberty Violation.
Once you sign in to speak you will be given a choice of two Cards. Both allow you to Speak for 3 min each. Have your friends grab the Cards with the Red box around the number. This card can be donated to increase a speaker’s time.
Here are the top 11 Speaking points, there are many more.
1. 4000 limit on permits.
A. What's to prevent an adversary from buying as many permits as they have resources?
B. What about the future population needs of our state?
C. Severe financial times we are living in. We have been out of the water for 2 years. Many more folks could be forced to subsidize their income with dredging. The cap will prevent this.
D. The Cap is not based on a Fact. Millions of Rafters, Fisherman, kayakers & other users are not being LIMITED in their activities.
E. Arbitrary number. It is a takings if a single claim owner cannot purchase a dredge permit.4000 limit on permits should be eliminated.
2. Three Foot rule. Riparian life forms.
A. Dredgers are typically site specific of ingress and egress which means entering and exiting the dredging area from one path.
B. If intention were to protect the life forms in the riparian zone they would not allow the millions of fisherman to walk up and down the zone. In addition rafters, kayaks, tubers, swimmers. Would also be banned from the Riparian Zone. Our activity is Less than significant.
3. Proposed 4" ring restriction.
A. A 4' ring restricted dredge is a sampling dredge. Small-scale miners cannot move enough material to be profitable. The effect of this is to make dredging nonviable.
B. The costs of maintaining a claim cannot be made with a 4" ring dredge.
C. 1994 Regs were prohibitive but allowed larger dredges.
D. Special use permit allowed us to use larger dredges than the 1994regulation took from us. Permits were later canceled. An act of bad faith.4" ring has no bases in science, should be eliminated
4. DFG was not interested in our Federally Granted Mining Rights.
A. Stopher said, "don't even bring up your mining rights.
B. They seemed uninterested and apathetic at any speaker who addressed the Takings and Prohibition of our Granted Rights.
C. The new permit attempts to restrict and circumvent our Federally granted mining rights
D Dredging permit and restrictions that they are proposing are nothing more than an attempt to regulate Suction dredging out of existence.
E. There attempted to over regulate thus eliminate suction dredging is a blatant attempt to do away with our civil liberties.
5. Gas powered Winching: DFG wants a site visit for use of a gas powered Winch.
A. Winching is used as a safety measure. Prevents crushing and dangerous situations.
B. Waiting for a site survey could take how long?? At what cost? Who is qualified to conduct this survey. How much will DFG have to spend on that!!
C. DFG used to require a Stream alteration permit for Winching. They quickly did away with the permit replacing it with the wording wet rocks stay wet, dry rocks stay dry. This is a rehashed old Idea. It’s more about the money and regulating us out of dredging.
D dredgers who don't live near their claims will be severely impacted.
E. How are you to find our claims? Arrange a meeting place? On and on.
No change is necessary.
6. Adjustments to mining seasons. Favor Frog.
A. Effect is to make mining unprofitable.
B effect is to keep us out of the water.
C. Effect is to favor other user groups. We are being treated different that other user groups (who don't have GRANTED RIGHTS)
E. Seasons have worked for 50 years
F. Effect is to make our claims unworkable (Weather, high water. etc) Dangerous.
No change necessary.
7. Gas can restriction
A. impracticable if not impossible in many mining locations.
B. 1994 Regs found that incidental fuel and oil where less that significant.
C. Effect is to regulate us out of the water.
No Change necessary
8. 3/32 Screen on Intake
A. it is unreasonable and unwarranted
B. NO evidence of entrainment for fish or aquatic life.
C. Diameter of hole is so small as to clog with any floating debris. Unnecessary burden to constantly clean screen.
D. Studies show juvenile fish have the burst rate sufficient to escape entrainment.
E. All dredgers will immediately be out of compliance.
No Change necessary
9. DFG plan is to spend us out of existence with excessive permits, fees. Trying to keep
us from making a living, trying to favor other user group over us.
They say we can still mine. Yea with a PAN, but not make a living.
10.D.F.G does not have the manpower, budget, or resources to enforce proposed regulations and on site inspections leaving the dredger waiting for months or the entire season. Effect is to keep him or her out of the water. For 50 years our seasons and winching have been allowed. IF the DFG were really trying to protect Riparian zones, they would adopt similar regulations, permits and fees on the other user groups.
11. No pro dredging reports that were presented at the PAC meeting were used.
Where is all the PRO Dredging Science?
Benefits of Suction Dredging were strikingly missing from DSEIR
1. Economic impact to state, local cities and county businesses, tax revenue
etc. 200 million a year that we are out of the water (source 1994 EIR)
2. Removal of the polluting heavy and toxic metals from the waterways.
1994 EIR found that Suction dredging would have a beneficial impact related to the capture and removal of lead from waterways which, would help to keep lead from entering the food chain.
Less-than-Significant impact on water quality as it relates to mercury present in streams.
3. Creating beneficial habitat for Fish see section 45 of DFG regulations. Fish is defined a wild fish, mollusks or crustaceans, invertebrates or amphibians, including any part, spawn or ova there of.
4 Preventative health benefits to the operators and participants in suction dredging. Physical exercise is a Large part of Dredging.
The D.F.G. does not have peer-reviewed evidence at any time, that supported any Deleterious effect to fish and aquatic life. Therefore if there is no cause or negative impact to the environment, we cannot see any changes needed from the 1994 dredging regulation.
Please remember. We should all read the documents and send a written comment if we are to stop the D.F.G. From ramming these de-facto regulations down our throats effectively ending dredging in CA.
Get out to the meetings
Every Comment COUNTS!
Sincerely,
Pat, Terry, Dee
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:43:30 -0700
Conversation: D.F.G. Rebuttal
Subject: D.F.G. Rebuttal
First off we would like to show our appreciation for the folks that braved the bad weather and where present at the past 2 D.F.G.- D.S.E.I.R meetings. It would have been nice to see more folks attend the meetings. DFG is watching us and testing our resolve. In order to save our Industry and Mining Rights we must fight for our survival at this time.
Mark Stopher and the D.F.G. have written regulations that can only serve one purpose. Regulating us out of the water!
They are more interested in one-sided regulations that can withstand court challenges. Besides commenting at the meeting and in writing to the DFG, your California Legislators must hear from you as well.
DFG is expected to make decisions based on facts, objective evidence and Peer reviewed science. To do otherwise would constitute a type of arbitrary and capricious conduct that our State and Federal Constitutions forbid.
How is it that the D.F.G can pre-determine the outcome of the Yellow Legged Frog Endangered Species Listing before it is even listed...It appears our regulations are written for just this outcome. This is illegal and a Civil Liberty Violation.
Once you sign in to speak you will be given a choice of two Cards. Both allow you to Speak for 3 min each. Have your friends grab the Cards with the Red box around the number. This card can be donated to increase a speaker’s time.
Here are the top 11 Speaking points, there are many more.
1. 4000 limit on permits.
A. What's to prevent an adversary from buying as many permits as they have resources?
B. What about the future population needs of our state?
C. Severe financial times we are living in. We have been out of the water for 2 years. Many more folks could be forced to subsidize their income with dredging. The cap will prevent this.
D. The Cap is not based on a Fact. Millions of Rafters, Fisherman, kayakers & other users are not being LIMITED in their activities.
E. Arbitrary number. It is a takings if a single claim owner cannot purchase a dredge permit.4000 limit on permits should be eliminated.
2. Three Foot rule. Riparian life forms.
A. Dredgers are typically site specific of ingress and egress which means entering and exiting the dredging area from one path.
B. If intention were to protect the life forms in the riparian zone they would not allow the millions of fisherman to walk up and down the zone. In addition rafters, kayaks, tubers, swimmers. Would also be banned from the Riparian Zone. Our activity is Less than significant.
3. Proposed 4" ring restriction.
A. A 4' ring restricted dredge is a sampling dredge. Small-scale miners cannot move enough material to be profitable. The effect of this is to make dredging nonviable.
B. The costs of maintaining a claim cannot be made with a 4" ring dredge.
C. 1994 Regs were prohibitive but allowed larger dredges.
D. Special use permit allowed us to use larger dredges than the 1994regulation took from us. Permits were later canceled. An act of bad faith.4" ring has no bases in science, should be eliminated
4. DFG was not interested in our Federally Granted Mining Rights.
A. Stopher said, "don't even bring up your mining rights.
B. They seemed uninterested and apathetic at any speaker who addressed the Takings and Prohibition of our Granted Rights.
C. The new permit attempts to restrict and circumvent our Federally granted mining rights
D Dredging permit and restrictions that they are proposing are nothing more than an attempt to regulate Suction dredging out of existence.
E. There attempted to over regulate thus eliminate suction dredging is a blatant attempt to do away with our civil liberties.
5. Gas powered Winching: DFG wants a site visit for use of a gas powered Winch.
A. Winching is used as a safety measure. Prevents crushing and dangerous situations.
B. Waiting for a site survey could take how long?? At what cost? Who is qualified to conduct this survey. How much will DFG have to spend on that!!
C. DFG used to require a Stream alteration permit for Winching. They quickly did away with the permit replacing it with the wording wet rocks stay wet, dry rocks stay dry. This is a rehashed old Idea. It’s more about the money and regulating us out of dredging.
D dredgers who don't live near their claims will be severely impacted.
E. How are you to find our claims? Arrange a meeting place? On and on.
No change is necessary.
6. Adjustments to mining seasons. Favor Frog.
A. Effect is to make mining unprofitable.
B effect is to keep us out of the water.
C. Effect is to favor other user groups. We are being treated different that other user groups (who don't have GRANTED RIGHTS)
E. Seasons have worked for 50 years
F. Effect is to make our claims unworkable (Weather, high water. etc) Dangerous.
No change necessary.
7. Gas can restriction
A. impracticable if not impossible in many mining locations.
B. 1994 Regs found that incidental fuel and oil where less that significant.
C. Effect is to regulate us out of the water.
No Change necessary
8. 3/32 Screen on Intake
A. it is unreasonable and unwarranted
B. NO evidence of entrainment for fish or aquatic life.
C. Diameter of hole is so small as to clog with any floating debris. Unnecessary burden to constantly clean screen.
D. Studies show juvenile fish have the burst rate sufficient to escape entrainment.
E. All dredgers will immediately be out of compliance.
No Change necessary
9. DFG plan is to spend us out of existence with excessive permits, fees. Trying to keep
us from making a living, trying to favor other user group over us.
They say we can still mine. Yea with a PAN, but not make a living.
10.D.F.G does not have the manpower, budget, or resources to enforce proposed regulations and on site inspections leaving the dredger waiting for months or the entire season. Effect is to keep him or her out of the water. For 50 years our seasons and winching have been allowed. IF the DFG were really trying to protect Riparian zones, they would adopt similar regulations, permits and fees on the other user groups.
11. No pro dredging reports that were presented at the PAC meeting were used.
Where is all the PRO Dredging Science?
Benefits of Suction Dredging were strikingly missing from DSEIR
1. Economic impact to state, local cities and county businesses, tax revenue
etc. 200 million a year that we are out of the water (source 1994 EIR)
2. Removal of the polluting heavy and toxic metals from the waterways.
1994 EIR found that Suction dredging would have a beneficial impact related to the capture and removal of lead from waterways which, would help to keep lead from entering the food chain.
Less-than-Significant impact on water quality as it relates to mercury present in streams.
3. Creating beneficial habitat for Fish see section 45 of DFG regulations. Fish is defined a wild fish, mollusks or crustaceans, invertebrates or amphibians, including any part, spawn or ova there of.
4 Preventative health benefits to the operators and participants in suction dredging. Physical exercise is a Large part of Dredging.
The D.F.G. does not have peer-reviewed evidence at any time, that supported any Deleterious effect to fish and aquatic life. Therefore if there is no cause or negative impact to the environment, we cannot see any changes needed from the 1994 dredging regulation.
Please remember. We should all read the documents and send a written comment if we are to stop the D.F.G. From ramming these de-facto regulations down our throats effectively ending dredging in CA.
Get out to the meetings
Every Comment COUNTS!
Sincerely,
Pat, Terry, Dee
