CA dredge ban nears deadline Nothing much has changed in Disneyland North
#1
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:20 AM
Prospecting success, be it for HEARTS, TRUTH or GOLD, takes COURAGE and HONESTY to penetrate through the appearance of things, plus PATIENCE and FORTITUDE to work through the many layers of things of which both nature and human nature are composed.
#2
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:35 AM

Both Rush and Glenn are right.
#5
Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:01 PM
#7
Posted 06 August 2009 - 05:48 PM
Simple Simon, is now the dredge of choice.
I'd like to thank all the @#$%!$@ that voted A.S. in office.
Thanks too for all those ^&#% who voted for B.O.
Good-bye America. It sure was nice, while it lasted.
#8
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:20 PM
Matt
wspa #008
#9
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:34 PM
Prospecting success, be it for HEARTS, TRUTH or GOLD, takes COURAGE and HONESTY to penetrate through the appearance of things, plus PATIENCE and FORTITUDE to work through the many layers of things of which both nature and human nature are composed.
#10
Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:15 AM
Matt
Matt,
For what's it worth, I sent big Gov.S another email letting him know the small time prospectors from California and others across the US think little of his signing SB 670, and not to expect their vote should he run for reelection. I don't think the average Karuk give a hoot about prospectors dredging at all. It's the Council that needs big S. in their back pocket, and big S. needs their money to keep the state he has bankrupt, afloat. It has never been proven that dredging endangers the fish habitat. If it did, then all the tribes of Northern California would be complaining they can't net or whatever procedure they use, to take fish all year round and probably don't pay for the privilege since the white man. Wasn't California the property of Mexico when all the atrocities were committed against the American Indian by the US? Enough is enough. We need to live in the present instead of the past.
h20prospector
PS: I'm sure American Indian's who belong to this forum will post hate comments for what I said. Sorry if I offended you. Go Stanford Indians!
#12
Posted 08 August 2009 - 06:27 AM
#13
Posted 09 August 2009 - 01:32 PM
Matt
Hey I know nothing about no stinking new law till I recieve a letter saying my dredge permit is revolked
I have heard nothing about this new law as far Im concerned.My dredge will be back in the water very soon
and my sluice will be full of gold.
To get back to the indian tribe that has beat us,I posted before that they had support from other tribes that are
in gaming I just dont know which ones.I think we hit back at their pocket books by handing out flyers in the parking lots
of the casinos showing people where their money is really going.
#17
Posted 02 September 2009 - 11:36 AM
I will always stand behind my belief that our rights have been taken away. It is criminal that those of us that paid in full for a permit are not going to be reimbursed an amount equal to the amount of days days left in the calendar year. I own three dredges which, in total, cost over 10K. What are they worth now?
Matt
wspa #008
#18
Posted 03 September 2009 - 07:53 AM
#19
Posted 03 September 2009 - 07:42 PM
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1032 without my signature.
The purpose of this bill is to protect fish and wildlife from the potential deleterious
effects of suction dredge mining. Although I appreciate the author’s intent and the need
to protect our fish, wildlife, and water resources, this bill is unnecessary.
Current law gives the Department of Fish and Game (Department) the necessary
authority to protect fish and wildlife resources from suction dredge mining. It has
promulgated regulations and issues permits for this activity. Permits for suction dredge
mining must ensure that these operations are not deleterious to fish and allow the
Department to specify the type and size of equipment to be used. In its regulations, the
Department may also designate specific waters or areas that are closed to dredging.
It is unclear why this bill specifically targets a number of specific waterways for closure
or further restrictions. The listed waterways represent only a small fraction of the waters
in our State where suction dredging is occurring. The benefit or protection from such a
minor closure is negligible and supports the notion that scientific environmental review
should precede such decisions.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
What is the difference between the 2 and WHY the change of mind?????

Sign In
Register
Help



MultiQuote





