Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Know anyone cited for dredging in CA that can help PLP


Oakview2

Recommended Posts

Has anyone in CA been cited for Sution Dredging?
I just got a call from David Young, PLP's attorney and he wants ANYONE who has been cited for suction dredging to contact him ASAP. Call him whether or not you case has been heard. He needs to talk to you ASAP!!! His contact info is: 310-575-0308 or you can email him at dyounglaw@verizon.net - He needs to talk to anyone who has been cited, by June 14.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think David Young could simply call, email or write to CA-DFG (law enforcement) for info or documentation on anyone cited for suction dredging by DFG.

If I was a legal wizard, thats what I would do 1st day I wanted the info.

If DFG would not cough up, present them court order or FOIA request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder

I believe their hearing for injunctive relief is quickly approaching, and this is something that has been dropped on them last minute and it sounds like they have four days to provide discovery to the court. This is just my guess as I am not attorney and was posted by Miner Rick from Western Mining alliance.

This was WMA response to this Emergency Rules Farce yesterday. Thanks to Hefty on TNET

Sent electronically and via registered mail
10 June 2013

Dear Mr. Bonham and Mr. Stopher;

We are in receipt of your letter dated 7 June 2013 indicating your proposed emergency rulemaking.
We are disappointed you did not consult with us during this process as we requested in our Petition dated 28 March 2013 of which we have provided the relevant request below:
“In light of the existing regulations under Section 5653 and the Center’s proposed amendments, the Western Mining Alliance respectfully requests that any such rulemaking and consultation of any proposed amendments necessarily include the Western Mining Alliance as an affected party.”
Pursuant to Section 11346.45 of the California Government Code the Western Mining Alliance is providing you notice that as an affected party to the proposed rulemaking, we hereby request discussions with the Department prior to the rulemaking.”

THEWMA.ORG - PO Box 33218, Reno, NV 89532 – PH. 916-813-0104

Director Charlton H. Bonham
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. Mark Stopher
Senior Policy Advisor
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

Mr. John Laird
Secretary for Natural Resources
California Natural Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. John Mattox
Senior Staff Counsel
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. Thomas Howard
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100

Our interpretation of the word “shall” in Section 11346.45 would indicate it is mandatory. We find it surprising and disheartening you would spend so much effort consulting with anti-mining interests yet would fail to consult with the only mining organization that explicitly expressed an interest in your proposed rulemaking.
We advise you again the situation you describe does not meet the criteria of an emergency and it appears you are only using the emergency rulemaking set out in Section 11346.1 to merely avoid public discussion. We’re sure you are well aware of the requirements of this section as you have chosen to cite this section for your rulemaking thus eliminating any public discussion, but we choose to remind you of the definition of an emergency:

“A finding of emergency based only upon expediency, convenience, best interest, general public need, or speculation, shall not be adequate to demonstrate the existence of an emergency. If the situation identified in the finding of emergency existed and was known by the agency adopting the emergency regulation in sufficient time to have been addressed through nonemergency regulations adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Article 5 (commencing with Section 11346), the finding of emergency shall include facts explaining the failure to address the situation through nonemergency regulations.”

It is clear you were aware of the alternative methods of mining as early as last summer and have responded to public inquiry in regards to this in written and oral communications. You received two requests for rulemaking in regards to this in March 2013. You have certainly had sufficient time to involve the public in your rulemaking yet you disregard the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act in favor of responding to a small minority of vocal activists.
While the presence of miners and businesses attempting to salvage the summer mining season may annoy you and the activists you are supporting, it does not reach the level of emergency and you have demonstrated no harm or no imminent danger to the public, fish or wildlife. The report you are basing your “emergency” on merely documents miners on Federal mining claims – it does not document harm. As stated in Section 11346.1
you may not use speculation as the basis for emergency rulemaking. Lacking any documentation of harm to the public or fish and wildlife it is sheer speculation that mining has caused any harm.
The “evidence” you refer to in your notice is merely the observations of anti-mining activists of miners on the rivers. They are observations of people mining but lack any statements of harm to fish, wildlife or the public.
We don’t believe miners’ presence on the river constitutes an emergency. We’re unclear when the very act of mining became illegal. We don’t read Section 11346.1 as allowing emergency rulemaking to include an agency being annoyed that miners have figured out how to continue to mine despite the complete prohibition on mining in violation of Federal law and Congressional intent. (See South Dakota Mining Association v. Lawrence
County, 1998)
Again we advise you that the existing regulations and any amendments qualify as “Major Regulations” as defined in Section 11342.548. "Major regulation" means any proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation subject to review by the Office of Administrative Law pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 11349) that will have an economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals in an amount exceeding fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), as estimated by the agency.”
It is our opinion the emergency rulemaking is a clear violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, especially in light of our request nearly two months ago to be involved in any proposed rulemaking. Why the Department chose to ignore the miners’ request and honor the activists’ request is beyond us.

Respectfully,
Craig A. Lindsay
President, The Western Mining Alliance

Copy Furnished to Others, including the following:
(See next page)

Congressman Doug
LaMalfa
506 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Congressman Tom
McClintock
333 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Senator Ted Gaines
State Capitol, Room 3070,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Senator Tom Berryhill
State Capitol, Room 3076,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Senator Bob Huff
State Capitol, Room 305,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Senator Jim Nielsen
State Capitol, Room 4062,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Assembly Member Frank Bigelow
P.O. Box 942849, Room
4116, Sacramento, CA 94249

Assembly Member Brian Dahle
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2174,
Sacramento, CA 94249

Assembly Member Beth Gaines
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2130,
Sacramento, CA 94249

Assembly Member Eric Linder
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2016,
Sacramento, CA 94249

Assembly Member Dan Logue
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4158,
Sacramento, CA 94249

Assembly Member Mike Morrell
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4144,
Sacramento, CA 94249

Colin Hayes
United States Senate
Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
304 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

Kathleen Benedetto
House Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral
Resources
1333 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Pete Obermueller
Executive Director,
Congressional Western Caucus
113 Cannon, HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Public Lands for the People
7194 Conejo Dr.
San Bernardino, Ca. 92404

Attorney James Buchal
3425 S.E. Yamhill, Suite
100, Portland, OR 97214

Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mountain States Legal Foundation
2596 South Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80227

Defend Rural America
DRA@DefendRuralAmerica.com

Attorney David Young
11845 W Olympic Blvd .
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me, what happened was somebody wasn’t prepared for the hearing, or raised an issue, without anything to back it up. Or, was caught by surprise by something. None of which is smart, because it leaves you with your pants down, unprepared to deal with the circumstance, on a moments notice.

Most often, for injective relief, you have to show “harm” that needs to be stopped. Then, prove the harm exists. If you cannot, you are SOL

More than likely, whoever was dredging by some method they believe is outside DFG reg’s & allowable without a permit was doing it on the Salmon or Klamath rivers in northern CA. Or, possibly on the Feather river. Which is all USFS administered lands.

CA- DFG most often works with USFS and or USF&G, if their activity involves something occurring on USFS lands. Generally, when CA-DFG is about to cite someone for illegal dredging. Before doing so, they will contact and consult with local federal authorities.

CA-DFG would think that some wildcat placer miner, doing something they perceive as illegal, might be crazy, and possibly armed. So, before they attempt to cite the person, or persons, they will want as much back-up as possible.

Suggest someone call USFS and USF&G in those areas, and ask their law enforcement if they have been involved in any recent situations where a dredger was cited by CA-DFG.

Also, although I dislike the New 49ers for causing all the BS, that initiated all this litigation & resulted in CA-DFG involvement, resulting in suction dredge ban in CA. It may very well be, it was a New 49er admin, or member that is doing the wildcat dredging & was cited. So, New 49ers may have pertinent info and/or know who was cited (if, anybody even was).

Suggest a call be made to New 49ers seeking info. Best of luck in this quagmire of fecal matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't disagree about the 49er problem. Dave picked a fight he was unprepared to wage. And then when the workaround became apparent they couldn't keep their mouths shut and just work. As far as I know ,only DFG has issued citations in CA. I have referred the two known recipients that I know of locally. As far as what are the particulars, it is over my pay grade, but it is no conincedence that this Emergency Rulemaking issue came up just as the decision in the San Bernadino case is about to decided. These are handrdened community organizers, litigators and as radical a bunch of enviro wacos you would never want to meet.They know are resources are limited. The Center for Bio Diversity already has close to 30 million dollars in settlements from the Feds. Basically they are beating us to death, with our own club... Good health and good hunting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at a few of the CA-DFG public scoping meetings. What I saw was, miners were placed in a position akin to Jews in the midst of WW2 in Germany, trying to persuade Hitler extermination camps are a crime against humanity. End result, 6 million Jews were gassed alive & their bodies incinerated in factory like crematoriums.

That is the same stance enviro-wacko’s take towards miners. CA-DFG isn’t that overt, but certainly follows their lead. The whole regulatory process was absolutely unlawfully prejudicial against miners.

CA-DFG was presented with volumes of comprehensive, peer reviewed studies that clearly proved reasonably regulated suction dredging had no harmful affects on fisheries & removed mercury from stream or river beds. CA-DFG ignored them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What always boggled me is CA-SMARA permitting exempts removal of 1000 yards on any one acre or less for mining purposes & has a MOU with USFS & BLM over mining.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Regulations/Documents/mou%2092.pdf

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/regulations/Pages/regulations.aspx

That certainly contradicts CA-DFG regulations.

So, I gather using a dragline is okay, but a little suction dredge is not.

That is bizarre.

That’s an example of Californication.

Edited by elder-miner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...