Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hoser John

Ochoa Lowers the Boom on Dredging

Recommended Posts

No nothing in injunction topic as all thrown out. All hearings cancelled, trial Jan 20,2016. Judge po'd as made to look a fool as for a year as he asked for "MANDATORY ARBITRATION" and not done. Some even refused to participate and some tried to promote racial genocide as a viable answer for gods sake IN A HEARING. The insipid letters and net postings "Come on up and dredge as we make our own regs/rules" threw fesces in the judges face and he retaliated by signing a order banning Cancers lawyer from defending ANY dredgers in Siskiyou county and the requested injunctions. YAAAAAA team. A redux of stupidity as all he wanted was very simple-Show me the irrevocable damages and not a single person presented a single case just the same old stupidity. Well we got dredgers 15 more years out of the 94 EIR and your heros flushed it all down the toilet through incompetence, ego, ignorance,beligerance and by god there'll be hell to pay come next January. fini....John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the vector tries to maintain hero status.........my dredge is gonna get wet no matter what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAH ETOO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have links to this info, John..?

Talk about wasted time & $$s.. :2mo5pow:

SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Law..? We don't heed no steenking Federal Law..!

Did someone introduced the judge to Threatgate..?

Are we bearing witness to Conspiracygate..?

Petroglyphs at eleven..

SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No just ignorance, insane ego, gross incompetence and brainwashing of newbies to believe that the 1872 Mining laws relate to HOBBY AND RECREATIONAL mining which is 100% absolutely wrong. It says not a single word about within and confers no rights. Drink the koolaid and pay the price. I hosted a court mandated arbitration meeting at my home, invited all my hated enemies in and spent many 100s of hours working with Keith Walker and the WMA on every legal aspect imagineable for months. MUCH progress was made in Dec. and January 2 meetings with the Karuk and Erick rocked with a monumental effort(WMA) but ALL shot down at the Fish/Wildlife conference room with racist rants. John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ochoa !!! Bought & Paid for. What an injustice to the rule of law. Come Jan. same outcome. AMRA called fox news about some coverage, said it was not news worthy. I'd say in Jan. or before, maybe we should make it news worthy. Pretty sad if it has to come to that. Same as Obummer Care & same sex marriage. Supreme court , corrupt ???? Government gone wild. Wait till Obummer makes Happy Camp & that whole area a National Monument or Park. Problem solved. No Dredgeing or anything else except for the I TRIBE raping the land ie. fish netting. We shall see? Hope I;am wrong. Sorry for the rant.I feel better now. :grr01::cry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...to believe that the 1872 Mining laws relate to HOBBY AND RECREATIONAL mining which is 100% absolutely wrong. It says not a single word about within and confers no rights... John

Seems to me I posted on this forum a while back about how I 'believe' or 'think' the word "recreational" came into being when referring to small-scale mining in the western states.. To paraphrase, it went something like: Small-scale miners/prospectors began using the word "recreational" as a catch-all means to avoid needing to answer questions from non-miners about the occupation -- mainly because they themselves didn't know the answers.. Ergo, as a way to cut conversation off they would reply with something along the line of: "Hey, I just do this for recreation;" which was to be taken to mean: Since I don't do this full time I don't have the answers to your questions, further meaning: I don't KNOW the answers to your questions..

Sooo much of one of the current headaches being faced in this ongoing battle could have been avoided if those folks had simply said they were small-scale miners, the true term for what they are, instead of saying they were doing it recreationally, as though they were embarrassed by being associated mining.. It's actually harder to say recreationally than it is to say small-scale, but by using their new term flippantly I believe they felt they were distancing themselves from the activity/occupation.. The term caught on, and it's proven to be nothing but a headache and nightmare ever since..

It bothered me that at a point about a year ago Ochoa (or possibly even the previous judge) extended the hearing due to the use of the word recreational.. But it bothers me even more that he tossed that word back in our faces on 23 June when he said most of us were recreational anyhow.. What the hail did he mean by that..?? -- especially considering everything he's heard on the occupational subject since it landed in his courtroom.. I'm fairly certain it wasn't he who engineered that reverse spin on the word.. So who did..?

Now, to add a bit of further twisting in the wind on the subject of that word, I'm going to do a copy and paste of how this conversation is going on an eastern US prospecting forum.. Sorry if doing so makes this post long, but I believe it's in everyone's best interest for those of you in the west to be aware of what we in the east are dealing with in relation to the word "recreational" and it's entanglement with the mining laws of 1872:

---begin paste:

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:33 pm
Even though I was planning on doing an individual post about this subject matter, I'm adding a comment here because loki used a "word" that Dixiedredger as a board member of PLP will verify is eventually going to come back one day to bite us in our collective azz:
We MUST stop referring to ourselves as "recreational" prospectors / miners and instead begin using the term "small scale" prospectors / miners..
Simply by it's definition, the habit most of us have of using the word "recreational" because we don't mine / prospect full-time / for a living very nearly single-handedly doomed the California dredging battle.. I won't get into details since if you're really curious it's easy enough to find that legal sparring online..
What I will say though is this: If we don't take ourselves seriously enough to use the proper definition of what we're doing, how can we expect those who don't want us muddying up THEIR streams and rivers in the first place to even begin to understand it is WE who are actually the stewards of THEIR waterways..?
The term is "small scale," not "recreational.." Use it or we eventually lose it all..
Thanks for your ears,
SA
==
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:59 pm
I absolutely agree with what Al just said, The 1872 mining law makes no mention of the word recreation. Therefore, if we use that term to classify what we are doing, then we are not protected by that law.
PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE Never use that word and prospecting / mining to describe what you are doing.
You are Prospecting or Mining, whether it be small scale. large scale, Corporate etc.
Thanks for reading. Dickb
==
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:08 pm
I do agree with AL and Dick that the term "recreational" should never be used to describe our activities. However, it should be pointed out that the 1872 mining laws have no "teeth" on the east coast. They were designed to promote western expansion and were never intended to be used east of the Mississippi.
That being said; the laws that do protect us on the east coast (common law and navigable waters law) provide protection for recreational and profitable activities. But, most states have their own versions of mining laws and most of them have provisions stating that permits are not needed if no profit is being made.
So the term "recreational " becomes a double edged sword. Using it provides protection from state mining laws that require permitting and statements of intent and mitigation. Not using it provides protection from federal and state laws that are designed to protect corporations. So, it becomes a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
It would seem to me that the safest place for us to be classified would have to be "small scale miners who have lost our ass for the last twenty years". That way we can be afforded the protection of the largest number of laws.
John
==
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:17 pm
For what it's worth, this is the ONLY reference to the dredge laws in Va....And it's well hidden in other legislation....
7. Recreational gold mining, provided that (i) a man-portable suction dredge no larger than four inches in diameter is used, (ii) rights of riparian property owners are not affected, (iii) the activity is conducted without adverse impacts to instream beneficial uses as defined in § 62.1-10, (iv) the activity is conducted without adverse impacts to underwater historic properties and related objects as defined in § 10.1-2214, and (v) the activity is not defined as mining in § 45.1-180.
==
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:52 am
Dixiedredger wrote:
I do agree with AL and Dick that the term "recreational" should never be used to describe our activities. However, it should be pointed out that the 1872 mining laws have no "teeth" on the east coast. They were designed to promote western expansion and were never intended to be used east of the Mississippi.
John
--
NCDENR and SCDHEC both cite the 1872 Mining Law in interpreting NC and SC mining permits, as do most NC County Zoning Boards. Irrespective of the intent, the Mining law is very much in play on the east coast.
The Mining Act was intended to protect the mining industry, not "recreational prospectors", yet another reason to stop using the term.
Sam
==
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:43 pm
The only problem with most of us dropping the use of "recreational" in NC is that at least in the context of dredging, "recreational" use of public waters and the land beneath them without permit is protected. since most of us are NOT commercial operators, being labeled commercial and needing permits would add a significant cost and burden.
==
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:24 pm
The laws that protect us in the waterways of NC and SC protect for "all uses weather for pleasure or profit". It is much better to align yourself with professional miners than pleasure boaters.
If your operation affects less than one acre and you do not make a profit, it is considered to be "exploratory excavation" and no mining permit is needed because by the legal definition of "mining"... you are not mining. But an "exploratory excavation" would be done by any commercial miner before applying for any permits he would need to go into production. There is no law that says we ever have to proceed from "exploratory excavation" to full blown production. It's not our fault we are bad enough at mining that we can't find good enough ground to put into production. That doesn't mean we don't have the right to continue exploring.
==
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:59 pm
kruzman wrote:
The only problem with most of us dropping the use of "recreational" in NC is that at least in the context of dredging, "recreational" use of public waters and the land beneath them without permit is protected. since most of us are NOT commercial operators, being labeled commercial and needing permits would add a significant cost and burden.
--
This is about as perfect an example one can find for NC as far as the 'double-edged sword' John bespoke..
Right now, at this time in history, usage of the word "recreational" included in describing what you are doing as you go for the gold in NC seems innocent enough.. After all it's there in the laws and rules, right..?
Do not be deceived..! With a simple stroke of a pen Lloyd, Lucky Strike and the few other Pay To Play already established places could easily and quickly turn into all that's left at that moment in NC where one can "recreate" for gold..
Those folks are in it for the long game east of the Mississippi.. And unless we can successfully reverse what is happening / has already happened in some of the western states, well, I don't even like to think about how easily we'll go down if those who actually do this for a living fail to prevail..
We're all in this together.. All I'm saying is be aware of what's going on out west and try to tailor your missives based on their trials instead of on what appears to be our apparent 'freedoms' this side of the Mighty Miss.. We're built to spill, and they're just waiting to knock us over..
SA
==
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:47 am
If you disturb the ground in any capacity, you are mining. Recreational prospectors get around that by digging within the high water boundaries of the stream.
If you step out of the high water boundary and dig a hole, you are officially in violation of NCDENR and SCDEHC guidelines and subject to fine and forfeiture.
They will not require a mining permit until your running area of disturbance exceeds one acre, but they do require notification.
In their eyes, if your equipment is big and sophisticated, you are approaching commercial status. No one on the forum should be concerned if Wardens or Sheriffs run you off, but if NCDENR or MSHA rolls up on you, you’re in big trouble.
John: I handled one incident involving a miner and the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept, but after I explained to them they had no jurisdiction, nicely, they admitted they should not have excluded the miner. He still had to stop, but we have not had issues in the same area of the Uwharrie since.
Sam
--end paste.
I hope this in some small way helps to clarify what a truly double-edged sword the word "recreational" is when taking the entirety of the United States of America into consideration as far as mining/prospecting is concerned..
SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will the lesson ever be learned....the old saying of follow the money is what should be done. This whole fiasco started near Happy Camp by pissing of some Karuk Indians. That little band of Indians got their rich tribal brothers to join the fight. Along came Wolk's AB 1032. Fortunately that was vetoe'd by the Gov. Well negotiations started between the tribes that had casinos and the state. All back door crap. Then now Wolk introduced SB670 and the Gov signed it into law. Guess what happened next? All the tribes agreed to pay up a higher royalty to the State amounting to millions of dollars each year. No matter what science is no matter what the mining law says, as long as the Indian casinos pay all that money to the State, dredging will never be allowed. Plain and simple. The people fighting the cause are trying to use good science to prove dredging is not the monster that it is made out to be. A waste of time that only enriches lawyers. Please note it's always the same two lawyers over and over.......Ochoa, even with all the best of intentions never had a chance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Ochoa, even with all the best of intentions never had a chance..

What pizzez me off more than anything about passage and implimentation of the "temporary dredging moratorium act of 200X" is regardless how many $$s the tribes are 'kicking back' to CA gov't they don't hold a candle to the amount of revenue that had been being generated & pouring in by/from out-of-state dredger tourist $$s, losses in permit fees, loss of revenue from in-state miners sales taxes on daily/monthly/yearly necessities associated with dredging, loss of revenue that had been being paid by the hundreds if not thousands of Mom-and-Pop businesses now no longer in existence, etc., etc., etc..
No one with the capacity of rational thinking can say what happened / is happening is a good thing.. Therefore it must be peverse thinking.. No one gives up money for nothing.. Which to me means they're willing to "take a loss" in the present at our expense in order to reap a greater return in the future, even if it isn't they who directly reap the benefit..
Their entire point is control over other people's lives.. Sorry, that isn't the rock upon which this country stands..
SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YAHOO once again Thursday we got the shaft. Not even 1% of the fantastic points of the Keith Walker defense were used and by god with a NO SHOW by Buchall NOW the judge is REALLY pissed-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when the moratorium was issued, I gave up my claim & sold my equipment...my plan of supplementing S.S. by dredging flew out the window. I still don't hold any hope of ever being able to legally run a suction dredge in my lifetime...darn commies!!! :grr01:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when the moratorium was issued, I gave up my claim & sold my equipment...

I can understand selling the dredging equipment.. What I don't understand, without additional information, is giving up the claim..

While dredging may be the quickest way to go through underwater material, it isn't the only way.. Plus what about the rest of the claim..? Was in the water the only place gold was to be found..? I guess I just need more information is all.. We can make it a given dredging was the easiest method of recovery.. But if the claim was gold rich, just because every other method of recovery would be harder work while yielding less Au if based on total volume processed only, welll, that just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me as the reason for giving up the claim.. Would you be kind enough to expand your reasoning for doing so..? Tnanx..

Swamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×