| Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search |
 |
| 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 ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Dave_Mack Offline 145 posts Administrator  Reply |
Looking closer at the California regulations, there does remain a way for us to go down along the bottom of California’s waterways and suction up the shallower, higher-grade gravels. This is because, as defined by DFG’s own formal regulations, as long as we remove the sluice box from our motorized suction system, we are not operating a “suction dredge.” Said another way, there is an opportunity to use a motorized suction system to transfer high-grade gravel from one place in the river or creek to another location where the gravel can be more-easily processed in a separate system.
I have outlined the initial concept right here. This new idea will allow us access to submerged gold deposits that otherwise would be out of our reach until the “dredge” moratorium is lifted in California. How’s that for good news? |
|
redwood Unavailable 199 posts Reply |
Wow, thanks Dave. This will require some thought.
Mike
|
|
salmonprospecting Offline posts Reply |
Thanks a million Captain. What a way to start off the New Year! We are so lucky to have you at the helm.
How about a which and zip line combo from container dump and classifying station to final processing station? My Main stem claim is perfect for this...camp is about 200 yards up hill where I was planning on running reciculating mini highbanker...winch/zip from dump station to base of hill...winch/zip to camp for final classify and recirc sluice. I just can't Thank you enough for your hard work, persistence, and passion that continues to inspire me, excite me, and gives me hope. I saw the video of you and Alan on that 4 ounce stringer this last season...I can only hope that one day I,would have the privilege of working underwater with you and Alan on the Claim. Big John B |
|
klondike_jake Offline 85 posts Reply |
we must first think about the consequences of this new operation.we have created a loop hole in which to operate.now this may prolong the process in which we can really go dredging.they would say that they would have to go back and change the wording in the regs.
|
|
Jim_Alaska Offline 1928 posts Administrator  Reply |
Jake,
right now there are no regs simply because there is no permit. The regs only apply to a permit holder.
|
|
Oregon_Jim Offline 38 posts Reply |
Dave wrote about sniping and using a suction nozzle: "It would be one thing if we were just uncovering an occasional gold nugget or two. We would simply free those up with some hand tools and pick them out with a set of tweezers. But I have seen crevices on this particular mining claim that were loaded with a zillion pieces of gold, much of it in fines and flakes. You pretty much have to suck that up, or you will be there all year with a pair of tweezers!"
It is writings like this that torments my very soul. In my dreams I imagine such findings and I lust for that gold in a way that is impossible to describe. Slowly I am beginning to understand that insanity that caused tens of thousands to flock to the gold fields in times past. How strange it seems to be possessed by such feelings for the shiny yellow metal... |
|
robert_bacon Offline 24 posts Reply |
I scanned through the regs but did not see a definition of "sluice box". Im wondering if a jig or fluid bed would be considered a sluice or another riffle-less recovery system? Any links to a definition of the terms?
|
|
UncleMark Offline 531 posts Reply |
There are many recovery systems that are not sluice boxes.
Dave and myself have ran many alternate systems on our dredges in the late eighties and early nineties. We stopped using these systems basically because the sluice recovered so well that the losses were not enough to cover the costs to run the other systems. The thing to note here is those systems required extremely large floatation systems. Large floatation systems require lots of effort to move and are almost impossible to sample with. The concept we are all searching for is a small and easy to use system that does not use a sluice. I like the fluid bed ideas. |
|
UncleMark Offline 531 posts Reply |
:hijacked:
While searching for definitions, I noticed at this website; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placer_mining#Sluice_box That in the section on "deposits", the information contained is credited to "McCracken" :doublethumbsup: :thankyou: |
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 125 posts  Reply |
Uncle Mark,
That piece was written by a friend of mine. He was the 100% (and now 10%) owner of the Blue Ribbon Mine and I have worked that area, as his guest,for 10 of the last 12 years. The references to McCracken" and "Lawler" are mearly giving them credit for their wordage. Joe --------------------------------------------- Now, to stay focused on the topic, what actually is the DFG definition of a "Sluice Box"? >>>*If*<<< it requires a carpet and removable riffles to be a defined sluice box - HMMmmm ... Now a LeTrap has no carpet and Riffles are different than drops - right? :shrug: So, I just wonder what a steam engine with a pump would be defined as? Certainly not an internal combustion engine - right?  Sometimes stepping back is an alternate way around a current 'log jam'. :doublethumbsup: Just thinking out loud. Joe
|
|
robert_bacon Offline 24 posts Reply |
It would seem like a fluid bed system might be the most compact and simple once adjusted properly. Additional flotation would be required on a standard dredge for the extra or bigger pump/motor and plumbing but could be manageable. A reverse helix trommel would require a big platform and moving parts that can wear out or fail but could handle alot of material. Im having trouble concentrating at work with the prospect of getting back on Klamath gold.
Would i be correct in assuming that in water work times and other "dredge" restrictions would not apply to these recovery units? I would rather mod my six than the four.
|
|
Dave_Mack Offline 145 posts Administrator Reply |
I thought you guys might be interested in an official position. There has been quite a lot of debate about this "underwater suction gravel transfer" idea on the GPAA forum; and finally, someone asked Mark Stopher of DFG for the straight scoop:
Here are the official answers (2 January 2013): "I carefully read (today) the information that McCracken provides on his website. I believe Dave McCracken's description of the legal requirements and application of the regulations is accurate. If practiced as he describes, this is not a violation of the moratorium and is not prohibited. There is no specific permit required and no seasonal restrictions. Since this is not suction dredging, neither the moratorium or our adopted regulatons for suction dredging apply. It's essentially a loophole in existing law. However, as McCracken notes, Fish and Game Code section 1602 could apply if the streambed alteration is substantial, that is, you create a big hole. My guess is that such a system will be less efficient, and less excavation will occur, than if you were using a suction dredge since there is no sluice box and miners will need to use some other system to sort through the material." Mark Stopher Habitat Conservation Program Manager California Department of Fish and Game 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 voice 530.225.2275 fax 530.225.2391 cell 530.945.1344 |
|
Oregon_Jim Offline 38 posts Reply |
Thank you Dave!
|
|
jcazgoldchaser Offline 1 posts Reply |
What a good idea... everybody poopooed it in April:
http://bb.bbboy.net/thenew49ers-viewthread?forum=2&thread=881 Only use a fluid bed,.. |
|
Rod_Seiad Offline 376 posts Reply |
Not exactly, several people were whispering about the perceived "loop hole" but nobody knew where we stood legally. Dave has quietly explored the fringes and has come down with a solid understanding. Better safe than sorry. Leadership is a responsibility which Dave epitomizes. |
|
Rod_Seiad Offline 376 posts Reply |
Thanks for this official word Dave. And to think that back in August 2010 I pulled my entire dredge from the Klamath River when actually all I needed to do was remove my sluice. My 2013 resolution will now include a stronger opposition towards rampant environmentalism that manifests from within a state government. :beatingadeadhorse: |
|
UncleMark Offline 531 posts Reply |
Understand that this whole issue has not happened until now because the wording contained in the NEW CDF&G DREDGING REGULATIONS that clearly states the three items that have to be used together to be in violation of those regulations was not available to us when the moratorium was first created in 2009.
Since CDF&G officially adopted new dredging regulations in 2012, for the first time since this all started we finally have very clear wording. That is something that we have not had before. As far as the "sluice box" issue, we all know what a sluice box is, and there is plenty of historical use of mining equipment of all types and makes that in court, a sluice box is a sluice box and a jig is a jig etc etc etc. As has been stated many times, if you do not want a citation, do not have these three items together within three hundred feet of a closed waterway. I would caution the idea of placing a sluice three hundred feet away from the flotation but still connected by that much hose. If it is connected in anyway, it will not matter how far each piece is from each other, they are attached in one working unit and my bet would be an officer would cite you and have you argue your point to a judge. Also, he could confiscate your equipment. KLAMATH RIVER GOLD 2013!!!!!!! :doublethumbsup:  :thankyou: |
|
steveauwright Offline 0 posts Reply |
I think we are all capable of working through the gamut of rules to suck up material from the creeks and rivers but I have two thoughts/concerns:
1. Discharging any material directly on to the bank would cause your runoff water to go directly back into the stream. As we all know, any water taken out of the creek/river and pumped on to the bank cannot freely flow back into same. 2. Depending on your location and time of year there is a possibility of fish eggs. I would recommend using the old time lines for dredging so as not to make this an issue. |
|
Gary_Standefer Offline 2 posts Reply |
Not to be a glass half empty but how long will it take the state to change the wording. If you think back to the excuses they used to ban dredging. Making a flume, disturbing mercury, Salmon eggs, etc. All this is created with the suction nozzle not the sluice. With this system nothing will change. I think we may get away with it for a while until they close the loop hole.
That said: A trommel with a catch container under it in the location where the sluice normally is. With this you could operate normally. The trommel will clasify most of the over burden leaving the concentrates. The concentrates can be transfered to the bank for processing through a high banker style seperator. More negative: A one man system will now be a two man. A two man, a three man |
|
ratled Offline 462 posts Reply |
Gary I look at it as what was one man was no man and now it's now a 2 man. Last year nothing in CA. This I am back and getting wet!
ratled |
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 125 posts Reply |
Well, Gary,
You seem to have a really "down" outlook on the current in-water situation and it's hard fought work-around. As a personal matter of interest to me - what are (or have) you personally done, if anything, to help 'properly' correct the situation (as you see it, of course.)? If, in fact, you have not come up with anything to help permanently correct matters on your own, then possibly you should back off on the negative 'stuff'. In fact, it seems to me that, if that is the case, (you don't have a better plan of action), then you really should begin to support those who have devoted so much time and effort into handing you (and others) a work-around, in-water solution to this situation. At this point I suggest that you do a bit of soul searching and either present a new, better plan of action or support the plan that has been handed to you on a silver platter. .................. OH, as an aside, it's a 'plume' and not a 'flume'. The removal of even the sluice box (or any other defined component(s) ) from the dredge assembly makes what's left NOT A DREDGE. The same situation as a carburetor, a fuel tank and an engine hooked together do not make an automobile. That is the whole thrust of this work-around. It's a pretty narrow line for everyone to walk here, so no room for any errors! All the best! Joe
|
|
Gary_Standefer Offline 2 posts Reply |
Joe
Actually I have done quite a lot in the battle of the dredging ban. It's not a matter of being negative. It's looking at the pros and cons. I look at dredging as a business venture not a hobby. Before you invest time and money you need to consider profit. If your interest in dredging is recreational (nothing wrong with that) then all you need to consider is the ability to get in the water. I more than most hope that this will work but I think there will be opposition and this should be considered. Nothing ventured nothing gained so I'm all in. |
|
scooters Offline 193 posts Reply |
Is this video an example of a Fluid Bed System in miniature? Are there larger examples of a fluid bed?
http://vimeo.com/34977104 |
|
Jim_Alaska Offline 1928 posts Administrator Reply |
Type this into Google; fluid bed gold recovery
You will find a whole lot of different fluid bed types.
|
| Pages: [ 1 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Total Members: 4903 | Register :: Log In :: Administrators The time is 09:07:59 Mon Jul 4 2022 |
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/tny_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
|
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)