| |
scottharding
Member
|
Posted: Jun 5, 2009 Post Subject: Send a one click letter to stop suction dredging in CA rivers!
|
|
| Motorized gold mining dredges are popping up throughout the rivers of Northern California, especially on the Cal Salmon, Trinity, Klamath, and Scott Rivers. These dredges foul the rivers, kill fish, turn the water muddy brown, and stir up toxic mercury deposits.
The California Senate just voted to ban suction dredging and now the bill has to pass the Assembly. Take a minute to send a one click letter to Assembly members supporting a ban on mining in our rivers!
These dredges affect all river users! Dredgers not only harm fish and water quality but also string ropes and cables across rivers, winch around boulders, and spill fuel into the river. Learn more from Klamath Riverkeeper.
Many rivers in California are affected: the Cal Salmon, Klamath, Trinity, Scott, American, the Yubas, Feather, Cherry Creek, Deer Creek, Cosumnes, Eel, MF Smith, and many, many others.
Send a one click letter now!
Scott Harding
Executive Director
Klamath Riverkeeper
|
ratled
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2009Post Subject: A Challenge
|
|
| Scott I challenge you to post one government study that shows any harm to fish. Court case after court case has failed to do this. Hype and hate is all that has ever been shown. I can however, offer study after study has proven that dredging cause no harm to the fish or the river.
http://www.akmining.com/mine/study.htm
ratled
|
rivraton
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2009Post Subject: Re: Send a letter to stop suction dredging in CA rivers!
|
|
| | scottharding wrote: |
Many rivers in California are affected: the Cal Salmon, Klamath, Trinity, Scott, American, the Yubas, Feather, Cherry Creek, Deer Creek, Cosumnes, Eel, MF Smith, and many, many others.
Scott Harding
Executive Director
Klamath Riverkeeper |
The Eel river is and always has been closed to dredging, typical of the misinformation you spew!
|
micropedes
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2009Post Subject: California dredging
|
|
| Scott, I have dealt with your type before. You spout misinformation loudly and often enough so that those who are easily swayed are persuaded to your belief. It is better that you should temper your argument with some facts.
1. Dredges do not cloud the river. In fact, they are prohibited from creating a sediment plume that extends very far downstream. At most, it is a very localized event.
2. Surface dredges are engineered to recover materials with a higher specific gravity. Anything with a specific gravity higher than 8.0 will be captured. That includes rusted nails (sg 8), lead fishing weights (sg 11), and mercury (sg 13).
3. Fish are not captured nor harmed by a dredge. The suction is not sufficient to overpower them. Dredges are not normally present during the spawn so that fry are not harmed. At most, there is a temporary reduction in the benthic macroinvertabrate population in the dredged gravels.
Do your homework, Scott. Find the study that supports your claims. And stop the emotional appeals aimed at the general uninformed public. In case you are wondering, I have been involved with the evaluation of stream impairment before. You have found an environmentalist that also dredges!
|
dwnrivr
Member
|
| Thanks for all your hard work Scott! I am from Somes Bar and have been boating and swimming on the Klamath, Salmon, and Trinity my whole life. I cant wait till suction dredging is a thing of the past!! By the way your photos are always awesome!!
|
chris
Site Admin
|
| Hey ratled, rivraton and micropedes,
Personally, I welcome constructive input, but how about cooling the rhetoric? Thing is, phrases like 'hype and hate', or 'typical of the misinformation you spew' or 'I have dealt with your type before' aren't constructive. All that does is turn your intended audience away ... which would be a pity if all that akmining.com says is true.
If you really want to get your point across, I'd suggest you post another message, but without the rhetoric. Lay down a solid foundation for what you're saying, with more links to original sources (e.g. web sites ending in .gov or .edu, not ending in .com). I for one would welcome the education. Convincing me that dredges are a good thing will be a struggle, but perhaps you can convince me that they're not all bad  .
While you're at it, care to discuss the last two points Scott made in his post? The ones about cables across the river (which I've encountered, often), and fuel spills? And some observations of my own: dredges can be a hazard, they're an eyesore, and they're noisy, which seems out of place in a wilderness setting. Comments?
|
rivraton
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 16, 2009Post Subject: Re:
|
|
| | chris wrote: | Hey ratled, rivraton and micropedes,
While you're at it, care to discuss the last two points Scott made in his post? The ones about cables across the river (which I've encountered, often), and fuel spills? And some observations of my own: dredges can be a hazard, they're an eyesore, and they're noisy, which seems out of place in a wilderness setting. Comments? |
Cables and fuel spills are already covered under existing regulations,if you see these violations, by all means report them to the proper authorities...
So, in your opinion, any thing one group finds personally distatefuly should be banned?
|
chris
Site Admin
|
| | rivraton wrote: | | So, in your opinion, any thing one group finds personally distatefuly should be banned? |
In general, no. As you imply, one person's love is another's pet peeve, so everyone's chosen recreational activity becomes a potential target. If we collectively ban enough recreational activities (or allow them to be banned), eventually we'll end up with nothing for anyone. So no, I'm definitely not in favor of banning something just because some group doesn't approve.
On the other hand, if an activity is truly destructive, something needs to be done about it, right? Debating this point was the main thrust of Scott's post and the counter arguments. However, I'm not qualified to enter open discussion at that level. My experience and knowledge of dredging are mainly limited to passing them on the river, which brings me back to my observations on hazards, eyesores and noise ... I'd still like to hear your comments. Granted these topics are a sideshow in the grand scheme of things, but still part of the landscape, and of interest to me as a river runner.
|
ratled
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2009Post Subject: Follow up post
|
|
| Chris – First off great site, I use it often. I debated as to weather or not to post but felt deeply that a reply was needed. Had Scott not posted I would not have put this here. I tried to be very careful with my words as NOT to start a war here. I’m sorry if I offended anyone but there has never been one piece of evidence presented of harm in any of the court cases that have been going on over the last several years to take miners out of the water - Hence the use of the word hype.. So now it comes down to just we don’t like you so you need to go. The rivers, and all public lands, are for all of us to use and we can use them together.
Cables are supposed to be at least 10’ above the water when stretched across the river – this is the dredging regulation so others can use the river too. A polite “ hey how’s it going, by the way could you please lift your cable up” would probably work….
Fuel spills - I use a fuel tank that I take home and refill every night.
they're an eyesore, and they're noisy, which seems out of place in a wilderness setting.
That is an opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t mean they cause harm to fish or the river. Again, “we don’t like you so you need to leave” thinking….. What makes one group any better than another?
I listed that link to make it easier for one stop shopping for those that would like to read what has been done in terms of looking at this. There has never been one study that shows harm that has been presented in court – that’s because dredges don’t cause harm. The last Environmental study did in 1994’ish even stated that there was a noticeable and positive improvement to the river and fish habitat!
There is a very good court declaration on the New49er site from an EIR biologist that breaks down all of the studies to date. It’s a worthy read. . You can read it here and make your own opinion http://www.goldgold.com/legal/greenedeclaration2.pdf You can find all of the court documents from the various court cases here for you to read.(I know it's a .com link but I'm not savy enouh to be able to post links to the courts records). Also, not all of the studies are available on line but can be obtained from the sources listed in the study. They were posted on line by AMD for easier reference for all.
Scott made some serious charges “These dredges foul the rivers, kill fish, turn the water muddy brown, and stir up toxic mercury deposits.” I was just asking Scott to support his statements. and to show the harm that should make the dredges illegal.
Chris – Again great site. It was not my intent to offend. It’s just that the original post was –in my own opinion –not true or a fair statement and asked for some follow up from the original poster. I also included the link to show why I thought this. If you would ever like a close up and personal look at this I would be happy to spend the time with you- off the web and in the river and show you first hand. Just let me know
See everyone on the river
ratled
|
chris
Site Admin
|
| | Quote: | | I debated as to weather or not to post but felt deeply that a reply was needed. |
Thanks for doing so ... the only way to have a dialog is for both parties to talk, right?
| Quote: |
That is an opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t mean they cause harm to fish or the river. Again, “we don’t like you so you need to leave” thinking….. What makes one group any better than another? |
Well, in my previous reply I tried to make clear that I don't see my personal peeves about noise etc as valid reasons for a ban. The reason I brought these topics up was that I had a real live dredger on the line, and I wanted to see what you had to say about them. Perhaps there's a way to reduce their impact. A fisherman might put me in the same sort of position, by mentioning how little he enjoys having a bunch of rafters or kayakers come whooping and hollering past him as he's trying to enjoy his solitude. We all have our impacts; I agree no-one's superior or has a greater right to the river.
Interesting article, especially about how and why the stuff being sucked up doesn't pass through the impeller. Who would have thunk? And yes, I appreciated his comments about ill-considered regulations; plenty of bad science in our world, and plenty of unscrupulous (or at least uninformed) application of it.
| Quote: | | If you would ever like a close up and personal look at this I would be happy to spend the time with you- off the web and in the river and show you first hand. |
Let's take this off line.
| | | |
