|
Post by RKC on Jan 6, 2010 15:08:07 GMT 12
Extract below from "Targeted Discussion Paper No.2 Licensing and Ground Turnover" (Victoria, Australia) ( www.dpi.vic.gov.au ) "Licence and authority types - Eductor dredging Several submissions, including the PMAV, called for the re-introduction of eductor dredging of streams, which is currently prohibited in Victoria. There was also some opposition to re-introducing eductor dredging on the grounds of environmental impact. The policy questions relating to eductor dredging, including its environmental impact on streams, impacts on other stream users and net benefts to Victoria are beyond the scope of this discussion paper. However, these matters were considered in detail by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Victorian Parliament (ENRC) in its 1994 report “Eductor Dredging in Victoria”. ENRC recommended that the prohibition on eductor dredging, which was introduced in 1990, should be maintained. In the absence of any subsequent detailed and holistic review of the merits or otherwise of eductor dredging in Victoria, currently there is no intention to overturn the prohibition. However, this policy question has not been considered in detail by DPI or other government agencies. The ENRC report noted that while the eductor dredging licence no longer exists, eductor dredging is not specifcally prohibited by the Act. In theory, it could be undertaken under a mining licence, or possibly a miners right or tourist fossicking authority. The prohibition is enforced administratively. ENRC recommended that, for clarifcation, eductor dredging should be specifcally prohibited by the Act.
Option 1: No change be made in relation to eductor dredging, thus maintaining the administrative prohibition. Option 2: The Act be amended to specifcally prohibit eductor dredging. Option 3: The policy question related to the merits or otherwise of eductor dredging be reconsidered".
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Jan 7, 2010 9:16:07 GMT 12
Looks to me that the Victorian Prospectors Association should apply for a licence to use an Eductor Dredge on a river.. as this method is not actually banned by law...., and when rejected contest the action with hard scientific evidence, If banning eductor dredging is written in the Act they will have no chance, This is not a Victorian only case as the banning of eductor dredges in Victoria was the precursor to the banning in all states in Australia a national fighting fund could be set up and advertised in all states ie Gem and Treasure ... lapidary clubs etc.
wish this was more actively advertised nationally could be a bit late now...
cheers ken
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Jan 7, 2010 10:38:55 GMT 12
G'day aucn,
I've had the same thought as you about the PMAV applying for a claim and I think I might have even suggested it in a submission back in the 90s.
The PMAV made a submission to the THE MRSDA REVIEW as follows:
"The PMAV therefore proposes that recreational dredging be allowed under the following conditions: 1. That maximum venturi size is restricted to 125mm (5 inches) diameter. 2. That dredging is restricted to a six month season – from November 1st to April 30th. 3. That dredging is restricted to designated rivers and streams only. 4. That the hours of operation are restricted to 8.00am to 8.00pm.
5. That dredging is subject to the PMAV code of practise as established in the 1980s. 6. That dredging is allowed under the provisions of the Miner’s Right".
In my submission to THE MRSDA REVIEW I proposed the following.
"As a means of suitably providing for eductor dredging in Victoria I propose that a claim system be introduced specifically for eductor dredging, similar to the Mining Permit system that presently exists in New Zealand. In New Zealand a Mining Permit can be placed over a river and the permit boundaries follow the river banks up and down each side of the river and this restricts all mining to the flowing river ... the means of mining these river claims is exclusively by eductor dredges! There are claim conditions applicable which specify the size of dredge permitted to suit the size of the river, with other conditions determined after an environmental assessment process is completed. And in Otago province, where most eductor is carried out in New Zealand's South Island, any dredges 6-inch in size and smaller are regarded as recreational and can operated on a Mining Permit under a non-notifiable consent process.
During the late 1970s there was a river claim system in operation in Victoria and some claims were established on the Goulburn river that were dredged with eductor dredges. Then there was a system introduced to replace the claim system, that opened a few specifically selected rivers to an unrestricted number of miners. During the 1980s Victoria's Goulburn and Big rivers were intensively dredged by a great number of dredgers, with some of these dredgers producing enough gold to make a good living. However it was found by many miners that this system was not suitable for those dredgers who's sole intention was to make a living ... professionals obviously require exclusive title to an area to be mined. The recreational dredgers who were in the majority during the 1980s were all probably reasonably satisfied with that system and they regularly dredged at weekends and during holidays periods on the Goulburn and Big rivers until the gold price fell to a level that caused interest in dredging to decline. This system of having a government appointed committee decided which rivers to open for legal dredging resulted in nearly all of Victoria's dredgers crowding into two rivers with the inevitable negative consequences of conflict because of overcrowding.
An eductor dredging claim system is the most suitable means for government to legally provide for the dredge miners of Australia".
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Jan 7, 2010 10:57:56 GMT 12
rob They just need to rally a few people around Aus some donations etc, might have a chance basically got nothing to loose , will be over next week and looking forward to it, just got to track dgr down to see his 8 incher..and some one to show us a small floating trommel plant on the west coast,?
thanks for the info etc on the riffles etc
cheers ken
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Jan 7, 2010 12:12:44 GMT 12
G'day Aucn,
You are probably lucky you are coming over next week and did not come earlier. This summer has been the worst I can remember in New Zealand ... it might improve when you arrive but don't count on it. Earlier this week on The Coast there was so much rain even the Coasters are getting grumpy. There has been heavy rain all over The Coast with a spot a little South of me having 300 mms in 12 hours, and 500 mms in some areas. And I'm stuck indoors today with rain pouring down which will flood the already flooded rivers. And to add to the mix there is snow forecast on the tops for later today.
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Jan 7, 2010 12:37:41 GMT 12
we have had a lot of rain here flooding etc.(nsw) no good for opal mining etc,
hope some good weather follows me
cheers ken
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Jan 24, 2010 20:35:32 GMT 12
you were not wrong about the weather rkc hope it gets better of to sand fly country next week
|
|
|
Post by au on Jan 25, 2010 10:25:55 GMT 12
G'day aucn and RKC, Great ideas on re-establishing eductor dredging. I'd be in for the fight. Much to be said but a left of centre observation follows............. I haven't seen much reference or comment from those who were opposed to dredging, on environmental grounds, about the effects of post wildfire floods. The flood waters which followed the wildfires of 2003, 2007 and 2009 absolutely ripped the guts out of many rivers and creeks I have seen. It also layed down huge amounts of fine silt over the bed/banks, many feet deep, which is still evident today. In the Eductor Dredging inquiry a number of departments and leading NGO's seemed to profess to having a considerable amount of experience with stream morphology and biology. They argued the environment was fragile. They then should be asked. Were these post-fire floods and the environmental effects of those floods, natural or un-natural. If they say natural, then eductor dredging is clearly inconsequential comparatively speaking in everyway. From riparian to the middle of the waterway. Biologically, ecologically, geologically and water qualitogically ( ). If they say un-natural, you would then ask why? The answer would be fuel loads. You could then ask "Were you aware of this before the event?" The answer would be "Well I suppose we were but but but ..............." Criminal charges should follow and there true level of expertise and environmental stewardship revealed. I am positive that a full retraction could be made on the ban of EGDing. And more. With the right people and some good legal advice, we should expect an apology.
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Jan 30, 2010 14:22:27 GMT 12
G'day au, An apology is probably a bit too much to hope for … well, for now anyway! Politicians like Joan Kirner, who was the Environmental Minister in the Victorian state government when the eductor dredging license was removed, will probably go to her grave believing she did a commendable thing by getting dredging banned. And there are many more additional politicians and numerous bureaucrats, who ignored the evidence ... but because they achieved the outcome they wanted, the evidence probably does not matter in the least to them. When big government wants to achieve an objective it appears they just go ahead no matter what. The recent events in California are a classic example of government simply ignoring evidence to achieve the PC outcome. All they had to do to ban dredging, when no evidence was available to them, was to claim dredging needed to stop until an environmental study was completed. And, does anyone actually think that dredging will ever be allowed again, whatever the environmental study eventually says (or if they will even actually get around to doing a study). Big government is corrupt and arrogant by its very nature and its only when the big government steam-roller that has got bigger and bigger over the last 30 years, is halted, that environmental issues will again be argued on their merit. People are starting to wake up in America www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJ6dSyohCcwww.youtube.com/watch?v=emaeln--tzo… but whether they will have the numbers to force a return to small government financed by sound money only time will tell. www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_4ZfV5awmA&NR=1In Australia, in the mean time, the best I believe we can do is to keep the issue alive and keep reminding the establishment that its an issue that won't go away. However … when you compare the lies that big government has said about dredging it is a minor inconsequential issue compared to the lies told about man-made global warming. Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Jan 30, 2010 14:23:25 GMT 12
G'day aucn,
Summer has finally arrived in “sandfly country” (aka paradise, aka The Coast) and February is looking good!
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by au on Jan 31, 2010 1:09:29 GMT 12
Rob,
How you goin. Thanks for the reply.
My names Stewart. I met you way back sometime Rob, over here in Victoria. I think it may have been at a gold expo.
I’m fairly up on the politics of EGDing in Victoria and have been reminding many, politicians, beauracrats and certain NGO’s, of their lack of evidence and the corrupt process they employed ever since. I worked closely with (under) John Winter and others throughout the Parl. Inquiry, taking a special interest in the environmental side of the debate.
Later, myself, Fred Ward and others, formed a lobby group called the Wildfire Taskforce. The aim here was to educate the public on the woeful management of our forests regarding the build up of forest fuels and the lack of appropriate cool burns to control it, which in turn was creating the foundation for catastrophic, high intensity wildfire, which was not only a threat to humans but also to the very ecological values that the government pretended to manage. The Wildfire Taskforce ran from 1997 to 2008.
One of the things that has become quite clear to me and which the issue of EGDing, wildfire management and in fact, the AGW scam all have in common, in the least, is a total absense of a proper peer review process of the science or evidence. As you indicated, they simply ignore what they don’t want to hear.
Instead, it’s corrupt politics at it’s best and it runs all the way the UN, I’m sure.
I believe (and I could be wrong) that the ‘administritive’ ban that stops us dredging in Victoria is based on Kirner invoking the UN’s Precautionary Principle, to which Australia signed up to in Rio De Jieniro (?).
I reckon the Victorian government and their environmental departments would be on tender hooks at the moment with recent environmental events, that is the 2009 wildfires and the subsequent and on-going Royal Commission, along with the unravelling of the AGW scam and the exposure of the corrupt scientific processes.
I think people are starting to get sick of the self righteous attitude displaying by some environmentalists. I think people are aware of the cosy relationship between the greens and the media. People are becoming sceptical of environmental politics.
From what I explored during the EGDing inquiry, some of the evidence presented by govt. in conjunction with certain NGO’s bordered on fraud and 'in trading' of information.
When it comes to observational evidence, lets face it, what better evidence is there than the fact, that not one sign or trace of an EGDing operation can be found today in Victoria.
The mercury is still there though.
Bye,
Stewie. (au)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Feb 2, 2010 14:21:02 GMT 12
G'day Stewie,
It was at one of the Gold Expos in Victoria a few years ago that we meet.
The invention of the "Precautionary Principle" is a classic example of the arrogance of Big Government and how it will use any means to achieve what they have already decided is right. When I read in your post the reference to the "Precautionary Principle" it reminded me that this came up in the Eductor Dredging Inquiry. I wanted to look through my copy to see exactly what they said but I can't seem to find it. I know I had a look through it a few months ago so it can't be far away. When I find it I will see what they had to say back then about how the "Precautionary Principle" should be applied to the banning of eductor dredging and then post again.
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by Dredger89 on Feb 2, 2010 18:23:37 GMT 12
Hi Stewie!, I also did meet up with yourself at the gold exlpo a few years back. Had a guess that could have been you! You have a way with words, could tell after reading some of your submissions on ED & wildfire public land issues etc. If only the pollies and greenies had listened and we may not have had to endure the fires of last summer, heaps of fuel in the national parks! I sent you a private message.
Rod ;D
|
|
|
Post by au on Feb 3, 2010 1:32:01 GMT 12
RKC, Without to much investigating I figure they must have used the Precautionary Principle as they had no clear evidence for a case based on environmental grounds. They would need to have some reason to withdraw licences. With the environment all they had was innuendo and potentials but no empirical evidence. Although it should be said, that really, they did have empirical evidence but it was in favor of dredging. They just chose to largely ignore it. The removal of metallic mercury is one of them. However, they carefully crafted (well it was amauterish really) their reports to raise doubt about the environmental integrity of EGDing. This was enough to invoke the Precautionary Principle. To be picky for a moment though, the Precautionary Principle (PP) is supposed to be applied to ‘new’ activities. EGDing as of 1990 was far from a new activity. It had been carried out for many years. Was the PP applied improperly, making it invalid? If we assume on the other hand that the weight of environmental innuendo was considered evidence, then that’s different. I strongly believe they would not get away with it today. The two main thrusts of their case were essentially stream bed stability and the effects on flora and fauna. In simple terms, stream bed (and bank) stability is easily proven to have maintained it’s integrity following EGD by simple observation today. Also we can look at the effects of the post fire floods. We can look at the floods and the effect on the waterways in their own right, as well as look at the effect these floods had on historic EGDing sites. Then there are the flora and fauna ‘experts’. We can start to get really suspicious here I reckon. Especially some of those who were under the employ of Kirners government. Some flora and fauna experts rose to prominence under Kirner and cut their teeth on oppossing EGDing and have now gone onto become senior managers (what a coincidence!), who since that time have significantly influenced wildfire policy. The people we are talking about here are the more deep green variety, who seem to not like fuel reduction burning or in the least, seem to have thrown so many spanner in the works via flora and fauna management plans, that the perception could be that they’re against it. I believe these people work quietly in the background, as they do not want to have to much attention drawn to the veracity of they’re ‘scientific’ findings or process. These people don’t want the public to start seeing the formulas used to determine such things as threatened species. They, the public, given to much insight, might realise how much computers are relied on or maybe how vast, rugged and remote some areas are in which highly elusive species are found. They can’t risk the public doubting or questioning such things as the accuracy of species population counts. Such information contributes significantly to the granting of threatened species status. This is ‘holy grail’ information. Threatened species status is a powerful way to manipulate attention, funding, status and ultimately government policy. I believe Black Saturday, unfortunate as it is, has opened the door for a more honest appraisal of the environment, essentially because certain ‘experts’ aren’t going to take a chance on misrepresenting the environment and interactions with it. Of course initially they will act as normal but suitable pressure should change their minds. Quickly. Misinformation and faux experts used yesterday over an incidental issue like EGDing, could mean big time backfire today, on far more serious issues, like wildfire. That’s the interesting thing with ecology. Everything is inter-dependant. Even the smallest thing can be very important in the overall scheme of things. The suggestion of the PMAV applying for permission to dredge is an interesting one. Easier said than done but interesting nonetheless. Anybody know a good environmental lawyer? Over and out , Stewie.
|
|
|
Post by au on Feb 3, 2010 1:33:30 GMT 12
G’day Rod,
How you been?
I assume that the private message you sent me was meant to be an email. If so, I never received it. If not what’s a private message?
Await your reply.
Stewie.
|
|