Any info would be great the
tenure act does not state what is alowed
| Author | Comment | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rickz |
Dredgeing in bc rivers |
Lead | ||||||
|
Does any one know the laws on dredging?
Any info would be great the
tenure act does not state what is alowed
|
||||||||
CK Cowboy |
||||||||
Rickz wrote:Rickz Check out the thread in the Mechanized Placer Mining section below and look at the Are these items permitted on the Fraser and/or Bridge Rivers post. Dave
I like yellow and shiny
|
||||||||
Rickz |
||||||||
|
Thank you that told me all i needed to know for now and you do need a permit and thats if there are no fish in the stream. You guys are all so awsome and
helpful to the new miner thank you Rick Z
|
||||||||
jjbond |
||||||||
|
Call me blond but I'm still kind of confused, I've asked this in the past but received different answers... I'll bullet point it...
+ If I own the placer claim on a cell that has a creek or river going through it, may I use any type of suction device in the water (provided that the output does not go back into the river but instead goes into a settling pond? +Am I allowed (I'm pretty sure the answer here is no) to use a sluice box in the stream, just letting the water run over dirt that I put in the sluice? +Am I permitted to use a shovel in the stream to shovel up dirt from areas behind the rocks, cart it off into the bush where my sluice is and work the dirt there provided the output goes into a settling pond? I've heard "You can not do any dredging" "You can only use a suction if the inlet is 1.5" or less" "You can use any suction you want as long as the output does not go into the creek" I have a real nice claim on the Yalakom that I'm trying to figure out what I can do on it besides pan. Thanks folks. Jen
Jennifer E-Trac and GPX-4500 (and one in the oven, not sure if it will be an Excalibur or Infinium for rainy days). VE7OTH, KB6JEN, formerly VK2WD
|
||||||||
bignug |
||||||||
|
Jen, we're all blondes when it comes to getting legal answers.
Freshwater includes water systems that contain very little dissolved salt including rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, etc. Fisheries timing windows indicate when it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed development in water bodies or watercourses. These timing constraints typically coincide with critical periods in the life cycle of fish (reproduction, incubation and nursery activities). Habitat Protection Provisions include the sections of the federal Fisheries Act that pertain to the powers and authorities to regulate impacts of works or undertakings to fish and fish habitat. These provisions include that prevent anyone from carrying out any works or undertakings in or near water that prevent fish passage, reduce flow needs of fish, results in the destruction of fish by means other than fishing or results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. High water mark indicates the usual or average level to which a body of water rises at its highest point and remains for
sufficient time so as to change the characteristics of the land. In flowing waters (rivers, streams) this refers to the active channel or bank-full
level which is often the 1:2 year flood flow return level. In inland lakes, wetlands or marine environments it refers to those parts
of the water body bed and banks that are frequently flooded by water so as to leave a mark on the land and where the natural vegetation
changes from predominately aquatic vegetation to terrestrial vegetation. For reservoirs this refers to normal high operating levels."
Last Edited By: bignug
05/10/09 13:59:11.
Edited 2 times.
|
||||||||
jjbond |
||||||||
|
Bighug to Bignug.... thanks so much for that... I asked for this info at the Minerals office when I got my FMC etc but obviously I was in the wrong place (not
DFO)...thanks so much, going back to read now.
Jen
Jennifer E-Trac and GPX-4500 (and one in the oven, not sure if it will be an Excalibur or Infinium for rainy days). VE7OTH, KB6JEN, formerly VK2WD
Last Edited By: jjbond
05/10/09 06:02:07.
Edited 1 times.
|
||||||||
jjbond |
||||||||
|
Ok, done reading... sigh... great info but doesn't really make me feel comfy working a creek with a hose...(It's within 100' of a bridge/view) and
an invitation for trouble if I do anything wrong..
Thanks for the help... hoping to find cold hard laws.. I appreciate that dredging can be good (mercury etc) but hope to find 'laws'... Thanks again Jen
Jennifer E-Trac and GPX-4500 (and one in the oven, not sure if it will be an Excalibur or Infinium for rainy days). VE7OTH, KB6JEN, formerly VK2WD
|
||||||||
john6574 |
Re Dredging | |||||||
|
Hi Jen,
As stated by others in the previous posts there are all the definitions and such. There is however section 78.6 of the Fisheries Act the "due dilligence defense". If you have done your research and your actions were to the best of your belief not causing harm then this is your only defense in the Fisheries Act. There is a lot more info for you to read about this if you want to give yourself a project. I have a back ground in law enforcement and do want to fight this stupid regulation. Any regulatory offence is what is called an absolute liability offence. It is the same as speeding get caught (found commiting) and you get charged. No Fisheries Act offenses are criminal, the DFO may say they are, this is not the case. The DFO must FIND YOU COMMITING the act " gravel must be going through the sluice when the DFO arrive on the seen to get a conviction for the charges. If caught with your dredge in a stream and it is not running gravel, do this in these circumstances, REMAIN SILENT, SAY NOTHING, ADMIT NOTHING!! Another DFO request is to show them how it works, DO NOT DO THIS tell them how to start the dredge and let DFO do it if you do it your charged. The enforcement officer must see the gravel running through the sluice and you operating the sluice to get a conviction. More information regarding this is available from Brenda Dunbar the CMA sectretary. Sorry Brenda I put your name in without asking! I would also be able to explain what I intend to do regarding the use of dredges in BC. If you are interested in this, talk to Brenda and she can give you my contact information in Vancouver. Cheers Jen, John PS: I just got a 4500 and have yet to go and use it there was too much snow on my claims. |
||||||||
bignug |
||||||||
|
Great stuff Jen and John 6574 For a "civilian" like me, it's encouraging to hear you two past members of law enforcement discuss these points of law and regulation. It makes me feel that us miners and prospectors aren't all alone, up against the mighty wall of the law. There's hope, when even you two miners, are as concerned with the regs, as the rest of us. I'm sure your continued involvement in this forum and behind the scenes, will produce many positive results for BC Mining. Thanks.
bignug |
||||||||
jjbond |
||||||||
|
Thanks Bignug...
Jennifer E-Trac and GPX-4500 (and one in the oven, not sure if it will be an Excalibur or Infinium for rainy days). VE7OTH, KB6JEN, formerly VK2WD
|
||||||||
john6574 |
Re Dredging | |||||||
|
Hi All,
Dredging is a sore point with DFO. DFO wants the miner to do studies and other details that falls way outside the afordable range of my wallet. The DFO refuses to use the EPA Studies and demand you do your own. No specific regulations exist in the Fisheries Act for placer mining there are regulations for hard rock, pulp mills and sewage treatment plants. We placer miners whether or not you are full time or recreational miners have to unite and start demanding that our needs be resonably regulated. As it stands now I have an application in for a "permit to dredge". To date it is being bogged in with the demands for scientific studies that I cannot possibly afford. This is how the DFO plans to stop the application. Bury them is BS, red tape and demands for expensive reports. The case for dredging can be won but we miners have to form a unified front to do it. All those that have an interest in dredging should unite and apply for the authorization to dredge. If we unite we do stand a better chance of success. I plan to jump through there hoops and then invite them to charge me. I plan to take it to court and with some luck I could win. I know this sounds far fetched and a bit off the wall but this is how case law works in order to change the laws you must be prepared to go to court. A decision from a court that ends in a not guilty verdict will help change the law. Being placid ensures the DFO a strong position, fighting them can weaken their hold. Perhaps a new forum topic specific to dredging might aid in this effort? I am on the road as I write this but I plan on being at the gold show in June hopefully I will meet with some of you there. Regards to All, John |
||||||||
bignug |
||||||||
|
Thanks, again, John
Talk about a CURRENT ISSUE ! Here's a post from a very clever lady, from BC. From another forum. A great heads up for us and a lesson on how the "game" works in the US. The US miners certainly pool their resources and launch formidable legal defenses. We have to do the same in Canada. NolaM's Post :
|
||||||||
john6574 |
||||||||
|
Hi,
Lots of good info here but it is only somewhat helpful with dredging in BC. The Fed Fisheries Act has one defense to an accused person in it sec 78.6 of the act. If you read that section in the act and take action toward doing your due dilligence (submitting applications and the EPA studies etc) a person would (may) fall within that defense. This is in part what I am attempting to do but explaining the plan here would take too much writting. I have submitted my documents and am now drafting a work plan for the DFO at their request. There is only one problem no applications for work exist on the federal side. If anybody is interested in my plan I would explain it to them. I plan on getting charged in order to test the law after I have done my due dilligence. It has been my experience that sometimes a bit of civil disobediance is in order. As it stands now I think it is the only way that anything will change for dredging in BC. I have also just heard that the DFO have revolked/withdrawn all of the letters of permision to the Similkameen and Tulameen dredgers. No regulations for placer mining exist in the act or its regs, section 34 and 35 are blanket catch all charges. Dredger are looking for regulations governing dredging. The definitions sections of the act defines "altering", "deliterious substance" etc.. All of these charges as far as I see have to show that a person added, removed, or altered the stream materials in a way that causes harm. Dredging does none of these things provided a dredger remains whithin the wetted perimeter of the stream. Adding sand or soils to the stream from the bank will silt it up, but is it harmfull? I don't know but there is a study done by UBC and copied to the DFO that has very specific limits on what is and is not harmful turbidity. Just my thoughts on this topic. Cheers, John |
||||||||
jjbond |
||||||||
|
(Pushing my soapbox up onto the stage and getting on to it)....
Well this is a bit of a pi&&er, revoking licenses to top it off... you know earlier this week I saw this article in the paper about how the private hydro dams are in the process of causing untold damage to numerous rivers and fish habitats (check out this link with map of damage http://www.ippwatch.info/w/ a direct link to the map is here: http://www.ippwatch.info/gmap/map.php one of them is right on the Yalakom where my claims are) and thought to myself, how hypocritical, I can't put a small dredge in the water yet they can run Cat 325L long boom excavators in and rip up the river.... nice... now they're revoking dredge permits... well screw em... I own approx 15 claims and if all I can do is pan or run a high banker on them and they can pull permits after the fact then they can take their fee's back... I had no intention of doing any "work in leu of payment" for them and in fact just paid almost $200.00 to renew one that I just bought last month so they'll lose at least $3,000.00 from me next year. I'll work mine with my detector this year then dump them all and take my money to Arizona or Australia. I'm not about to invest a ton of money in "other than detecting" equipment to have DFO change the rules and regs when ever they see fit. If that's the case I'll save my money and use it for airfare. There's no point having a bunch of claims that I can't use to the fullest potential. I wonder if the Minerals and Claims office even realized the
money they're losing or could lose due to stupid DFO rules, not to mention the thousands of tourist dollars that areas lose from us (hotel, restaraunts,
gas etc)... oh well..... the recent claim jumper drama helped me decide not to buy a claim on the Fraser that I was about to but (to close to the highway and
people already talking about claim jumping that area)... these stupid DFO rules (which we aren't even able to get clear and solid answers on) will save me
a lot of money..... I'm not about to risk getting dragged into court over some vague rule that some newbie DFO Officer cites me for.... what a bummer, I
use to work with DFO (mind you that was salmon poaching enforcement division), I don't remember them being so finicky about stuff...
Jennifer E-Trac and GPX-4500 (and one in the oven, not sure if it will be an Excalibur or Infinium for rainy days). VE7OTH, KB6JEN, formerly VK2WD
Last Edited By: jjbond
05/20/09 20:46:18.
Edited 3 times.
|
||||||||
livinintheGVRD |
||||||||
|
Hi John ... have you moved forward in your plan to test the law?. ... do you need any help? ... as I also have some claims that need serious clarification in
regards to dredging activities.
|
||||||||