>>>> Public Meetings on New Dredge Regs start 3/23/11

[mojavejoe]

The last three Public meetings start Tuesday 3/29 in Sac.

If you support mining at all you should do everything in your power to attend a meeting. You do not have to give a 3 minute talk. Just being there amongst your fellow miners, will make a difference in showing how many folks are objecting to the New Regs. So far there has been about 100 miners at each of the first two meetings, so you won't be there alone. As a plus, you will undoubtedly learn quite a few things about the process and get some good ideas for writing a letter(s) to DFG as to why they need to change the proposed regs, or go back to the 1994 Regs.

If we don't all do our part there is no way DFG will back track on some of these unwarranted changes.

Do your part and take a friend with you!

(John...check your PMs )

[DJR]

The main reason there are no greenies there is that their position is indefensible. Major research about the disappearance of the fish (manly Salmon has been done by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and it shows that it has to do with the raising off the ocean temperatures not dredging and now they are just trying to save face.

[ROKONRANDY1]

Welcome to the real world of politics people. Be sure to add Please respond in a timely manor, to your comment. Gather names. Tree huggers dont have to be there to win. rokonrandy1

[Reno badboy]

We got about 6 going from our club here to Sac.. I really hope this helps!! Are they acting like it will be back?? Ihope so or become a criminal again!!! I'll be the big guy in a black hoodie from comstock gold prospectors. Come say "Hi!"!

[Bluebeard]

Just got back from the Sacramento Meeting, my estimate is there were over 350 people there. I spoke about modifying the BMP's to address the concerns of all the stakeholders in the watersheds, in lieu of locking us down with a litany of new regulations. As I was speaking, I was looking at Mark Stopher, who looked bored as he could be. He seemed to care less what anyone said. Either way, it appeared to be a huge showing, so for everyone who came, thanks for taking time out of your busy day to be there. I didn't get to stay too late as I had to drive home for an early meeting tomorrow, but it appeared there were a lot of interesting comments. One guy suggested the whole DESIR was outcome based - in such that they knew what they wanted to be done to regulate the dredgers, they then just needed the justifications to do so.

One more thing, I talked to one of the representatives of the firm who did the EIR and I asked him why did they select the dredgers as the bad guys when the whole watershed (not to mention the whole world's) environment is constantly being influenced by acid rain, nuclear fallout from Japan, Industrial & agricultural pollution in the rivers, the sun's increasing intensity, etc. His response to me was that Alameda judge directed them to find a way to regulate the suction gold dredgers, and there was no other mandate- such as "find better ways to make the watershed healthier", so their mandate from the beginning was to find reasons to further limit the dredgers. I found that to be a rather honest (and repulsive) answer. So, outcome based dredging regulations is exactly what the process was.

Then the EIR guy went on to tell me that when this is all over, he hoped that some miners would take him dredging as that is something he always wanted to do. I hope he doesn't hold his breath on waiting for that invite .

[russau]

thankyou BlueBeard for your report on this meeting! im really suprised the he said that the judge directed him to "find a way"!! sounds like it was biased. ive heard the mark s. had his mind madeup way prior to these meetings to fullfill his requirements. i wish someone would have asked him if he was board with listening to the comments because of his expressions he had.mark already has his mind madeup on the outcome! even the judge has his mind madeup on this!!

[AuTSaurus]

(Quote), "... His response to me was that Alameda judge directed them to find a way to regulate the suction gold dredgers, and there was no other mandate..." (end quote).

Hmmmmmm..., Judicially mandated discrimination.... Oh yeah, uh-huh, just and fair, legal, too... riiiight...

Greg

[Hoser John]

Read the proposal first LEGAL ALTERNATIVE IS Return to the 1994 regs as the only viable option as stated in the proposals--everything else--bs--bravado and ignorance---John

[Reno badboy]

I was there last night also. The term Kangaroo court was totally abundant!!! Mr. Stopher is a idiot along with all his cronies. Not one of those guys could give a straight ,honest answer about anything!!!!! My feeling is their minds are made up,and these meetings are in place to make us feel we have a chance. I study body language and this was a JOKE!!!!! I was there when that idiot made the comment about wanting to go out dredging,I asked how he could judge us without knowing what he was talking about. His answer???? A shoulder shrug and "I don't know." with a laugh. I'm the ex-biker that spoke last night. Get ready guys. There is a war comming!!

[cobill]

Quote: His response to me was that Alameda judge directed them to find a way to regulate the suction gold dredgers, and there was no other mandate..." (end quote).

So, should we waste our time reading all the 897 pages of "insufficient scientific-based, none peer-reviewed evidence" to write Mr. Stopher a letter or not. I have spent many hours and finally worked up some stuff on the BIO-FISH sections...bottom line: Section 228 of the DFG proposed regulations related to suction dredging, it states "the Department finds that suction dredging...will not be deleterious to fish"

The whole report is outcome based. I think they first determined what restrictions they wanted and then created the report to "support their findings".

Bill