New 49er     


:: :: Update from PLP
Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search



Make a donation to our message forums through Paypal


Make a donation to our Legal Fund.

 

Photobucket

Welcome, Register :: Log In Welcome to our newest member, hubberjonas.

people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 34 at 15:22:43 Fri Sep 10 2021)

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

colo_nuggets
Offline
453 posts
Reply
Update from PLP ( 22:59:21 MonAug 10 2009 )

We have to get this complaint against the state in federal court correct. I look for 2 to 3 weeks to file it and then maybe 3 months to get it heard in court. We have been working on the Federal suit for a couple of weeks already
We are also still attempting to raise the funds to pay for this suit and the appeal on the Hillman Karuk Injunction

I think this year is done but feel we can have suction dredging back for next year.

Jerry


  
MojaveJoe
Offline
61 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 23:19:04 MonAug 10 2009 )

Thanks for the update Jerry.

Makes planning my summer trip to the motherlode a lot simpler knowing I won't need my dredge. Now to just figure out if Booming is legal? "But officer this is not a suction dredge":confused:

It takes time to get these cases heard folks. Lets help Jerry with the costs, and Iam sure he will do right by us. :doublethumbsup:


  
HeavyHaulTrucker
Offline
17 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 17:14:34 TueAug 11 2009 )

No, "booming" is still dredging. And I think we can kiss the California mining industry good-bye. By the time the ban is lifted or overturned, the dredge industry will be next to non-existant.

When I was up in Auburn last week (before 670 was signed), Frank Sullivan at Pioneer Motherlode Mining told me that if it was signed then he was closing the doors -- he didn't see any other alternative. At least 75% of his sales are dredges and dredge parts -- and he isn't the only one.

My prediction is that, by the time the ban is lifted or overturned, 90 to 95% of the mining shops and dredge manufacturers in California will be out of business. And with no place to get dredges or replacement parts for ones that have been "moth-balled", then the industry is in the toilet.

John Smith
[1 edits; Last edit by HeavyHaulTrucker at 17:17:14 Tue Aug 11 2009]

  
ratled
Offline
462 posts
Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 23:16:06 TueAug 11 2009 )

John really now, I know SB 670 is a set back. But that's just what it is, a set back. I can understand your frustration but with single digit posts maybe you should be asking what can I do to help rather than the chicken little rant in all of your posts.

There are way too many people behind this, way too may folks getting involved, way too many people leading us to victory after victory to have this to roll over just like that. SB 670 was political. We'll have our day in court and I'll put my stock in our track record in court.

ratled

  
HeavyHaulTrucker
Offline
17 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 23:34:13 TueAug 11 2009 )

Quote: ratled at 23:16:06 Tue Aug 11 2009

I can understand your frustration but with single digit posts maybe you should be asking what can I do to help rather than the chicken little rant in all of your posts.

Ratled, just what in the heck does how many times I have posted have to do with anything???

There is a lot that you don't know about me. Like the fact that I have been a Certified Paralegal for over 20 years. Like the fact that I have filed cases in the Ninth Circuit, and have a bit of experience dealing with this particular Court. Just because I have not actually posted on this board a large number of times has nothing to do with anything.

Quote: ratled at 23:16:06 Tue Aug 11 2009

There are way too many people behind this, way too may folks getting involved, way too many people leading us to victory after victory to have this to roll over just like that. SB 670 was political. We'll have our day in court and I'll put my stock in our track record in court.

ratled

The truth of the matter is that the victories won so far were against an ignorant, poorly prepared and poorly financed opponent with very little experience in litigation. When it was just the Karuks you were fighting (more properly, defending yourselves against), that was one thing; they were often their own worst enemy in the courtroom and in the media. But now you have the Sierra Club and thier affiliated organizations as an opponent as well. And they are infinitely more knowlegable, prepared and financed than the Karuks ever dreamed of being. And the Sierra Club has a huge amount of experience in the environmental litigation arena -- which, if we aren't careful, is exactly where they will try to keep the whole matter.

John Smith

  
Au_Seeker
Offline
98 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 02:56:21 WedAug 12 2009 )

John,

I agree with your assessment that "booming" is dredging, but SB670 only pertains to "instream" dredging, but booming is not done "instream", thus should not be affected by SB670.


Skip
[1 edits; Last edit by Au_Seeker at 02:57:19 Wed Aug 12 2009]

  
HeavyHaulTrucker
Offline
17 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 03:17:16 WedAug 12 2009 )

Wouldn't the proximity prohibition preclude most booming, since you have to have a water source? Of course, I guess you could truck it in yourself or pump it from further away than that distance.

John Smith

  
ratled
Offline
462 posts
Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 03:25:24 WedAug 12 2009 )

This will be the last post to you on this as not to highjack the thread... I'd be happy to PM you if you would like. (no need to lock it on my account AK Jim)

You are right, I don't know you. Having posted a little more let the rest of us get to know you and your experiences. Were you here for AB 1032? Terry McClure? Lex/Waggner? Waldo stuff? What about the guy who got his nozzle hacked off by the ranger and still hasn’t gotten it back? What about the 1994 EIR? What do you know about it? Have you been around for years and donated money all this time?

So when you post with a single digit post record and tell me that it’s all but over I can only base your wisdom on the few doom and gloom posts.

Now if you where new to the forum or been around and your posts included something like“ I was at the pot luck last Saturday and here is what Dave had to say” or “As a PLP member I asked Jerry Hobbs about XXX and this is what he had to say”. Even something like “I remember when we went through this back with XXX and this why I think the best we can do is…” then we could understand your position. Having only a few posts and the theme is the “end is near” it puts more than a few of us off who are trying to rally the troops in a time of need.

The EIR process is in motion already. There are bench marks that must be met. The previous science is ALL on our side. Suction dredging hasn’t changed since the last EIR. Just because a fish has been listed as threaten or endangered doesn’t change that fact that the Army Corps of Engineers and the DFG still say we DO NOT harm fish (listed or otherwise). Add to the fact that the agency responsible for the fish states that the decline for the salmon on rivers that are dredged and not dredged is from “an undetermined oceananic source”.

Also consider what the other side says the reason is we need to make dredging go away “...they’re big, noisy machines that should have been outlawed decades ago”.. no wait that the Coho Salmon on the Klamath River, and the Shasta and the Sacramento (wait there is no dredging on the Sac) I’m mean the Eel river (wait no dredging there either) , ok all fish on the water ways… no, all animals on or near the river. Well I hope you get the point they are trying to make.

Am I mad that I had to pull my dredge last Saturday and come home when I had a month of dredging planed – Yep. Am I mad that I have to send it yet more dollars to fight the stupid stuff when my kids school could certainly use the money better– yep.

Do I think I’ll be dredging next summer in CA – YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ratled

(sorry about the rant)

  
HeavyHaulTrucker
Offline
17 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 03:41:50 WedAug 12 2009 )

You're right, ratled... we are dangerously close to hijacking the thread, and that wasn't my intent either.

And you're right, of course... I see your point about the number of posts. Sorry to jump in there like that with my own opinions -- and I am perfectly willing to let go of this controversy.

I think that we can simply agree to disagree -- I owe you a beer next time I get up there, ok? No hard feelings here! Lets hope that everything turns out like you say, and that I am all wet -- and I think we can agree on that hope!

:doublethumbsup:

John Smith

  
socalgold
Offline
701 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 17:45:32 WedAug 12 2009 )

Booming is not considered dredging as it is conducted out of the waterway and up on "dry" land. Water has to be pumped up until you can get below the water line. Make sure no effluent is going back out into the waterway!
That is what a game warden named Steve from CA F&G told me a couple of years back up on the UK claims.
Having said all that; the Q&A section on SB670 gives a different scope on it:

Vacuum or suction dredge equipment must be removed from the water pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 5653, subdivision (d). This provision of the Fish and Game Code makes it illegal to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters that are closed to the use of vacuum or suction dredges. Because SB 670 prohibits instream suction dredge mining in any river, stream, or lake in California, suction dredge equipment must be removed from the water even if the equipment is not in use.

Techinally speaking, driving down hwy 96 with a dredge in your truck can be cited because you are within 100 yds of the river.
Reminds me of that joke about a warden trying to ticket a lady out in a boat relaxing and reading in closed waters. The warden said because there are fishing poles in the boat that she may start fishing.
She said if he wrote her a ticket based on that then she would file "rape" charges against him. He was flabbergasted as he had no intention of doing it, she replied "but you have all the equipment with you".
Or something like that. So if any of you ladies happen to get ticket for any reason, then keep that in the back of your mind.:doublethumbsup:

considering a lot of CA is gay, even us guys might remember that hee hee
[4 edits; Last edit by socalgold at 18:18:20 Wed Aug 12 2009]

  
Au_Seeker
Offline
98 posts

Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 00:05:24 ThuAug 13 2009 )

I would like to expand on the "100yd" rule, technically the rivers and streams that dredging "was" allowed are not closed to dredging, but due to the moratorium you are not allowed to use your dredge at this time, so the way I see it the 100yd rule does not apply, because technically the rivers and streams or not "closed" only a moratorium is in effect!

Jerry and or Dave could you get the legal interpretation on this from your attorneys??

Skip

  
jerhobbs
Offline
76 posts
Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 15:38:11 ThuAug 13 2009 )

Technically your correct but it doesn't need an attorney to say yes or no when the interpretation of your law lays in the hands of an incompetent agent. If he sites you, right or wrong, you still end up with a ticket in court.

I have had over 200 calls this week with questions and problems. Threats to miners about citation and comfiscations for not having the equipment out yet, officers trying to apply the new dredging rule to highbankers and 2 threats for someone using a sucker tube and stating, because you use it as a suction device it can be considered a suction dredge. You will have to be the judge on what you want to do.

It is great that all are looking for ways to circumvent this disasterous moatorium bu tin the end you can be cited by a rogue agent for his interpretaion and still end up in a court battle.


  
chickenlip_willie
Offline
706 posts
Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 16:50:15 ThuAug 13 2009 )

jerhobbs : When does PLP plan to file this Federal Court injunction to overturn SB670 ?? ...... Jim Yerby ...:shrug:

  
jerhobbs
Offline
76 posts
Reply
Re: Update from PLP ( 05:36:39 FriAug 14 2009 )

Jim

The time frame is in the first post at the top of this link. Our goal at this time is about 2 weeks, atleast by th eend of the month.

We have to file the complaint first and then the Injunction in Federal court.

  

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

 Total Members: 4903

  • Can't start a new thread. (Admins Only)
  • Can't start a new poll. (Admins Only)
  • Can't add a reply. (Admins Only)
  • Can't edit your posts.(Everyone Registered)
  • Register :: Log In :: Administrators

    The time is 21:51:41 Wed Oct 5 2022

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]