May - Western Mining Alliance

Transcription

THE WESTERN MINING ALLIANCE!
MAY 2015
The Fight For Liberty
“In a world which keeps pushing me around, but I’ll stand my ground. And I won’t back down.” Tom Petty
This isn’t a dredging fight. This fight is based in the
U.S. Constitution and rights granted to us by those who
founded this country. On federal land the U.S. Congress
has said we have a right to go upon that land, explore for
minerals, and if found, to make a claim and develop those
minerals.
That’s what the U.S. Congress has said.
California, and other states, have said we may only do
this within certain prescribed limits which they find to be
reasonable. In our case reasonable means no development
of our valuable minerals unless we’re using a gold pan.
The courts, four judges now, have said California is in
violation of the U.S. Constitution because a right Congress
grants can’t be taken away by a state. Consider if
California decided the right to free speech was OK, but
only within their prescribed limits. Would that violate the
U.S. Constitution? It would, and California’s dredging ban
violates what is called the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution which says U.S. law is supreme to state law
and when the two conflict the state law must give way to
the federal law.
That’s pretty clear, and four judges have agreed with
us. Regardless, California continues to push their
unconstitutional behavior and refuses to modify their
permitting system, or to issue any permits at all which
would allow us legally to continue working our claims.
Some miners have decided to ignore the California
law, and they are within their rights to do that. The
government will take no action to restore liberty, once it’s
taken. Resistance from the people is what restores liberty.
This summer you’re faced with two choices: submit, or
resist. It’s your choice. Either fight for liberty, or submit to
tyranny.
The federal preemption win was needed, and we got
that, but as all of you know dredging is still considered by
the State as illegal, and you can still be cited, or arrested,
for dredging. We need a win in the appeals court, or we
need Rinehart to win in the state Supreme Court to
overturn the law.
Even if we overturn the law, which we need to, the
State has taken a position only dredging on federal mining
claims will be allowed, but not on private property.
MOLON LABE
We needed to win preemption, but we need two wins:
we must now win CEQA. CEQA, or the California
Environmental Quality Act, is the favorite weapon of the
environmentalists. As far as we know, this is the first time
miners have used CEQA against the state. We’ve changed
the playing field. Ironically, in the CEQA case we’re on the
same side as the environmentalists, with two very different
objectives.
We must win the CEQA case to restore dredging to
private property, and to achieve a reasonable
environmental review and regulations – although we don’t
believe we are even subject to CEQA. We charge the State
illegally conducted the 2011 SEIR and overstated the
effects for the purpose of banning dredging. We’ll argue
this in court and we believe we have a good chance of
winning.
The Western Mining Alliance will be paying the full
cost of our lawyer in the CEQA fight, and we’ll be the lead
in preparing the arguments and fighting this case. Public
Lands for the People (PLP) will be the lead in carrying the
federal preemption fight forward to the appeals court.
The New 49ers have been pushing the State back up on
the Klamath and they’ll be both defending dredgers on
citations, and pushing their own legal case for the Klamath
river region as well as defending in the preemption fight.
We run on shoestring budgets. We don’t pay ourselves
and we’re all carrying this fight. It’s been six years now
and none of us have folded. We could sure use your
support, it is costing thousands of dollars a month to pay
the lawyer bills, and thanks to all of you we’ve been doing
it. If it was a football game, it would be the fourth quarter.
We’re ahead by 2 and the other team has the ball. Help us
finish.
For the first time, this is not an endless fight. We have
a timeline which we cover in the legal update section.
What can you do to help? Send your financial support
to someone paying the legal bills. We all need your help,
and we’re all doing good work. Let’s stand our ground.
WWW.WESTERNMININGALLINCE.ORG
COPYRIGHT 2015
THE WESTERN MINING ALLIANCE
PAGE 2
MAY 2015
Dredgers Push for Injunction
Back to San Bernardino on 23 June
On June 23rd we’ll be back in San Bernardino
presenting our arguments for an injunction against
enforcement of the anti-mining laws. Judge Ocho’s ruling
on May 1st clearly stated the “extraordinary scheme” set
up by the state to ban dredging is unconstitutional; the
State has ignored this ruling and made no attempts to
establish a legal permitting system.
An injunction prevents enforcement of the antidredging laws while the case heads to the appeals court.
This means you could legally dredge until the appeals
court issues their decision on the preemption issue without
fear of being harassed.
The ruling in our favor on federal preemption allows
the judge the ability to issue a permanent injunction, or
until such time the State prepares a set of regulations
which are not prohibitory and are reasonable. Given the
State’s unwillingness to do this over the past 3 years, it’s
not likely this would happen anytime soon.
In fact we believe the State has no intention of even
trying. Instead they will appeal the trial court decision and
try to prevent dredging from beginning.
The injunction centers on a point known as irreparable
harm. We’ve attempted to obtain an injunction before,
when the cases were first consolidated in San Bernardino,
and Judge Ochoa denied us the injunction stating we
hadn’t proved irreparable harm. The State, and the enviros,
claim the environment would suffer irreparable harm if we
were to restart our dredges.
We submitted over a hundred pages of statements in
support of our request countering the State’s claim the
environment would suffer irreparable harm. Common
sense would tell you if the harm was irreparable then there
should be some evidence of harm after sixty years of
suction dredging, but there is no evidence, and they can’t
point to any.
The miners, however, are suffering irreparable harm.
The passing of Jerry Hobbs, and many other miners, since
the ban began is evidence of irreparable harm. The loss of
time and income is also irreparable, we can’t get these
years back as our dredges sit idle.
MOLON LABE
Two things have changed since our first attempt to
obtain an injunction: Jerry Hobbs, and the ruling on
preemption.
We have confidence Judge Ochoa will make the right,
and fair, decision this time and we hope we’ll be legal to
dredge on 1 July.
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 3
MAY 2015
What Size Dredge?
Attempting to Answer a Tough Question
Ahh, the age old question. “What size dredge should I
buy, and what brand is the best?”
A question with as many answers as there are dredgers,
with each dredger telling you the particular size they use is
the best, but the question is what’s best for you?
First, let’s dispense with the “what brand is best”
question, because it’s a bit like arguing over whether you
should buy a Ford or Chevy. Most dredges these days are
pretty finely tuned and it really is a matter of personal
preference. I’ve used three of the more popular brands (and
yes I do have a preference, but I won’t say what it is). For
everyone who tells you one brand is better, there will be
another to argue against it, but the reality is they all do a
good job of recovering gold so the more important
question is where you plan on working with your dredge.
Some folks want a utility dredge, one which will work
for wherever they drop it, these folks usually hop around
from claim to claim. Kind of like the old El Camino, one
dredge can’t be all things, consequently those who’ve been
dredging for a while have a number of different dredges.
Where you’re going to dredge drives the size of the
dredge. If you’re on one of the major rivers then you’re
probably looking at a 6” or up, but not so fast.
While it may sound like a great idea to buy the biggest
dredge you can afford you need to consider where else
you’re going to work. If you’re only ever going to be on
the big river then go for it, but if your operation requires
ever moving that dredge, well you may want to do a little
more thinking.
A significant percent of dredgers work alone on their
own mining claims. If you’re working alone, and packing
in equipment then you need to have a dredge you can pack
by yourself, and operate by yourself. The reality of
dredging is the gold is not uniformly distributed, especially
in the smaller creeks it tends to be spotty and you’re going
to move that dredge. A six inch sounds great until you have
to move it.
I’ve found a 5” dredge is about the biggest I can work
on my own. A 4” is more portable and more suited to the
MOLON LABE
smaller creeks. If I was forced to only have one sized
dredge it would be a 2.5”.
The 5” dredge is a great dredge for working alone, if
you’re on a stretch of river where you don’t have to move
very often. If you have to move then the 4” is better. From
a prospecting (not recovery) standpoint the 2.5” dredge is
the ideal size for one person. You can, with a little
preparation, pack one in to a remote spot in one shot, it has
enough power and reach to get you about 3’ under water
and it will process enough material to give you a good idea
of where the gold is running.
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 4
MAY 2015
What Size Dredge?
Another 5” dredge, the older style crash box. On the American
River
MOLON LABE
Once you’ve plotted where the gold is running then
bring in the bigger dredge, but use the prospecting dredge
for what it’s meant for. The 2.5” is a highly portable little
dredge which is great for covering a lot of territory. Some
manufacturers make a 2.5” which has air, but of course the
increased engine size and air compressor adds weight, and
you’re not really going to get very deep with a 2.5” so the
air is probably overkill, but it’s always nice to have.
Alternatively you can also run a small hookah system and
still maintain the light weight.
The 3” is too close in size and weight to the 4”, so
what’s the point? If you’re considering a 3” just go for the
4”.
There are a lot of areas out there to run a dredge. Each
year thousands of claims are abandoned for one reason or
another and its pretty simple to pick up your own claim. You
need to consider dredging claims as an area you’re going to
work for a few years, then move on. Don’t marry a mining
claim, use it for what it’s intended – mine it, then move on.
If you’re on one of the bigger rivers which replenishes gold
after the big floods, or has extensive deposits, then of course
you’re going to hold it longer.
If you’re working on your own, then all the gold is
yours. You add another person and now half the gold is
yours, so you have to think whether you’re actually
doubling your gold going from a 4” to a 6”. Money matters.
If adding the extra person and losing half your gold is OK,
because you’re on such a hot streak, then go for it. However,
in my experience I’ve found very few creeks where this
makes sense.
Now, in dredging, apparently, size matters. Some
believe if you’re not running a 6” then you’re not a dredger,
but I’ve had plenty of ¼ oz days with a 2” dredge, and I’ve
had some one ounce days with a 5” dredge but I’ll tell you
I’ve had more days getting a ¼ oz with my 2” than I did
getting one ounce with the 5”.
I’m not suggesting you can make a go of it with a little
bitty dredge. You can’t. But, you can find the gold with the
little dredge, then you can pack in the bigger dredge,
whether that dredge is a 4”, 5” or 6”.
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 5
MAY 2015
What Size Dredge?
It’s the difference between prospecting and mining.
Prospecting is the work required to find the gold, mining is
the work required to recover the gold.
All things being equal, you get more gold with the
more material you move, so the bigger the dredge, the
more material and the more gold. You’re not going to work
a paystreak on a big river with a little dredge.
This doesn’t mean you should run right out and get the
biggest dredge you can find. If you’re prospecting then
portability is the most important variable. You have to
move, and you move a lot. You want something which
disassembles quickly, is light enough for one trip, two at
the most, and goes back together quickly. You want a small
dredge which is easy to move.
Some will tell you that’s a 4”. I’ve run around enough
years with a 4”, and a 5” to tell you it’s easy to say when
you’re sitting on the couch reading about it. Not so easy
when you’re looking at a sheer cliff and considering how
much you really want to pack a 8hp or even 10hp engine
around that cliff on your back.
When you’re actually out on
the river, things change. You find
yourself thinking where you’re at
is probably just as good as
downstream and so you spend a
week dredging junk.
That’s where the little dredge
comes in. Within 5 minutes you
can have that thing taken apart, on
your back and be moving.
Another 5 minutes and you’ve got
it up and running again.
Sure, you’re not going to kill
it with a 2.5” dredge, but you can
find some nice gold, and you can
figure where the gold is running –
and where it’s not, then it’s time
for the bigger dredge.
The reality is you need a
couple of dredges if you’re going
to be prospecting and mining, but if you’re just starting out
you should think carefully about jumping into more dredge
MOLON LABE
than you can handle by yourself. Gold is hard to get and
when you have to split it with your buddies you’re not
going to make very much. If you’re just using dredging as
a social activity, then fine, go buy a big dredge with the
cup holders and have at it.
If you’re trying to recover gold, then treat it as a
business. Your highest expense in business is labor. If you
have to pay (split gold) with someone then you need to be
doubling what you could get on your own. Think of it this
way, if you could pack in a 2.5” dredge into a canyon and
walk out with ¼ oz, then isn’t this the same as running a 5”
with a friend and walking out with a half ounce? Not many
rivers pay a half ounce a day, but a whole lot of canyons
will pay ¼ ounce a day.
Either you’re in it for gold, or your in it for other
reasons, but bigger isn’t always better when you are trying
to find gold. The key is the right dredge, for the right river.
This may be a 8” dredge, or it may be a 2.5” dredge, it
doesn’t matter. What matters is what you’re taking home.
A 5” Dredge on the american River, fu!y decked out
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 6
MAY 2015
Micro-Midget 2.5” Dredge
At less than 50 pounds, this ultra-portable, one
piece poly float with integrated recovery tray is
tough, light-weight and compact enough to allow
you to hike into your favorite dredge spot. This
dredge is powered by the durable GXH-50
Honda mini 4-stroke engine and features the
DP75 jetting pump with cam-coupler, single
nozzle venturi barrel with twist lock, suction
nozzle, 10 feet of dredge hose, and the famous
Dahlke dove-tail riffles.
New Millennium 6” Dredge
$1,995
This powerful gold dredge is powered by a 9 to
13 HP engine and features the DP500 jetting
pump, Dahlke compressor, 20’ hose kit, a heavy
duty swivel suction nozzle and a 24” x 75”
recovery tray.
Complete 6” Dredge Package
$8,195
B Series Micro 4” XD
This tough one piece poly float design is compact
and portable. It features an integrated recovery
tray and will fit on a large pack frame for remote
location access. The Micro 4 is powered by a
5.5-6.0 HP engine and features the DP 150 jetting
pump with cam-coupler, dual-jet top eductor with
an auxiliary flusher water port. It comes with 15’
of dredge hose and a two stage recovery tray
with Hungarian primary and dovetail finishing
riffles.
$3,750
www.dahlkedredge.com
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 7
MAY 2015
The Dahlke 2.5”, The Ultimate Prospecting Dredge
Dahlke has just released the 2.5”
mini mid-jet in black. That’s just way
too cool, especially when you
consider the unconstitutional activity
of our law enforcement agencies.
With the upcoming dredging
season it was time to replace the old
2.5” and upgrade to a Dahlke. Erich
Lessing, who is the sole manufacturer
of Dahlke dredge’s shipped me the
first black mini from his production
run.
Why a 2.5”?
It’s the ultimate prospecting
dredge. Professional dredgers use
much bigger dredges, at least a 6”,
but they’re on the big rivers, and
usually on a pay streak where they
can run the big dredge and make pay.
Not all the gold is in the big
rivers. Some of the best gold in
California has come out of the
smaller gulches and you can still hit
some really nice gold in these small
gulches. With the water levels way
down over the past couple of years
it’s time to consider changing the way
you think. You’ve heard of the big strikes, but they were a
lot of times in the small canyons such as Shirttail Canyon,
Poormans Creek, Nelson Creek and numerous other small
gulches through the motherlode where you’d never get a
big dredge into.
Even on the big rivers the areas which were too deep
to hit with a small dredge are now shallow enough to reach
with a smaller dredge.
The portability and access a small dredge gives you is
a great way to check out new ground, or run in the smaller
gulches and creeks where you could never get a bigger
dredge.
MOLON LABE
1st off the production line. A Dahlke 2.5” mini dredge in
black. Weighing in at less than 44 lbs.
The Dahlke 2.5” is designed for portability
Weighing in at a total of 44 lbs, complete with engine,
it’s one of the lightest prospecting dredges around, but
there are a whole lot of features which enhance this little
dredge’s prospecting utility.
The mini uses the Honda GXH50, which is a real nice,
lightweight engine which you can carry with one hand, and
importantly, it’s very quiet and sips gas. Two gallons will
run you all day.
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 8
MAY 2015
The Dahlke 2.5” Prospecting Dredge
dredge, or in my case, for attaching backpack straps. They
are also useful for attaching the hoses so you can pack both
the single pontoon and hoses on your back in one trip, if
you carry the engine and the gas you can move this little
dredge in one shot (assuming you stow your wetsuit and
tools on your back with the dredge.)
If you’re going to use this as a prospecting dredge,
which I am, then the ease of setup and breakdown is really
exceptional. The Honda engine is attached to the engine
mount which simply slides onto, and off of, the engine
frame on the dredge. To remove the engine you just loosen
two thumb screws and slide it off.
The front 4 riffles are traditional Hungarian style riffles, but
note the decreasing angle as you move from the 1st riffle to
the 4th.
The pump is 75gph and is easily powered by the
Honda at ¾ throttle, it has plenty of suction to power the
2.5” nozzle using the mid-jet inductor. The pressure hose
comes off the pump and runs to the mid-jet and uses a 12.5
degree jet to create the venture suction at the nozzle, the
short pressure hose and jet create excellent suction for such
a small dredge.
The Dahlke mini is a flare jet, but the innovative
design hides that from you. The flare is actually integrated
within the floatation system which also doubles as the
sluice box. The tough poly-dredge floatation system uses a
ribbed carpeted mat and a highly innovative riffle design
which was originally designed by Bob Dahlke to capture
fine gold. If you look closely at the riffles you’ll notice the
first, second and third riffles all have different angles, then
dovetail riffles are used which have a flat surface, with a
reversed angle for catching the fine gold.
The pontoons and sluice are integrated into one system
with cleats on all four corners for either tying off the
MOLON LABE
The 2nd set of 4 riffles are dovetail riffles, which lay down
almost flat for fine gold recovery.
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 9
MAY 2015
The Dahlke 2.5” Prospecting Dredge
There is no adjustment to the dredge’s sluice. The
angle on the sluice is set by positioning the engine which
provides the desired angle on the sluice. You simply slide
the engine forward or backwards to adjust the angle of the
sluice.
The power jet is attached by sliding it into the pontoon
system and then twisting a quarter turn and a quick tighten
of two nuts and you’re ready to go. Standard is also the
quick connect coupling for the suction hose and the dredge
uses an actual valve on the foot valve to ensure priming the
dredge is a snap.
If you plan on doing some prospecting dredging this
summer you may want to consider a highly portable dredge
such as the Dahlke mini. Easily carried and run by one
person this little dredge is a great way to sample your
claims and find out where the gold is running. Once you’re
on the gold, then bring in something bigger for recovery,
but you’ll have a blast running the little Dahlke and you
won’t wear out your back.
Priced at $1,995 the Dahlke 2.5” mini is a great deal.
That’s less than two ounces of gold you need to recover
and based on the fine gold recovery you’ll more than pay
for the dredge your first summer by catching gold other
dredges would have lost.
Whether you want to use a big dredge, or little dredge,
for prospecting I just hope you’ll get out there and do it.
Let’s get them dredges back in the water, but don’t think
you have to have a big dredge to get good gold, just think
differently about your prospecting and use the small
dredges for what they were meant for – prospecting.
If you want to learn more about the Dahlke 2.5” mini,
some folks in South Carolina shot a great video of it you
can watch on Youtube.
A 12 ounce Yuba River cleanup using a Dahlke Dredge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3kdDKf2-jc
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 10
MAY 2015
Claims Update
Over 2,000 Forfeited Claims in California
June 7th is our last day for shipping out the Professional
version of the Claims Report. This version which is issued in either
Northern or Southern California, contains all the California mining
claims which were either closed in 2014, or are pending closure.
We will continue to ship out the “Official” version of the report
through mid-July. This version only contains the officially closed
claims by BLM.
So what’s the difference? Big difference. The professional
version is meant for people who know what they’re doing and how
to research. It provides a listing of claims which haven’t been
officially closed yet by the BLM, but are heading towards closure.
This means the general public doesn’t have access to this
information. This also means you’re going to pay more for the
information, but it’s only $100, and if that gets you a mining claim
you’ve always wanted that’s a pretty good deal.
This is also how we fund the lawsuit, so your payment to us
isn’t being used for a new sports car (at least not for us) but the
money is going to pay the lawyer to restore our dredging and
mining rights. So you can do something for yourself while also
helping us out.
We’ll probably quit offering the 2014 Claims Report by the
end of July, then we’ll start working on the 2015 Claims Report.
For our Claims Report (both versions) we have 96% coverage
of all dredging counties in the Northern and Motherlode. This
means we are providing you information on almost every mining
claim in the northern part of the state and we provide the specific
river, gulch, stream or ridge – by name – that the claim is on. This
saves you an enormous amount of time, and it’s worth the $100 to
get this level of detail.
In southern California we have 86% coverage of San
B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y, a n d 3 4 %
coverage of Inyo County. Those are
two huge counties by the way. Again,
this means we are providing you with
specific location information for
where the claim is, including what
USGS map sheet it’s on, and the
location date. In the southern part of
California the majority of the claims
are lode claims, but there are about
3,000 claims right now pending
closure in the southern part of the
state.
We continue to watch claims
which are being forfeited. As of last
week there were over 2,000
MOLON LABE
California claims which have been closed by BLM. We expect over
5,000 total claims to be forfeited in California this year, or about
20% of the total number of mining claims.
Pending closure doesn’t mean the claim is officially closed,
and a closed claim doesn’t necessarily mean its available for
refiling. There are a lot of reasons claims could be closed, and its
also possible someone has already filed on it.
As we’ve been working the data on claims, and counties with
mining claims what strikes us is how few actual dredging claims
there are. There are about 25,000 mining claims in California, with
nearly one quarter of those in San Bernardino County, and the
remainder concentrated in a handful of counties.
The vast majority of California, at least 90% of the land mass
has no mining claims. So it’s all the more surprising when the
environmentalists try to push us off such a very small fraction of
the total land, and that land is specifically designated for mining –
federal land.
Our research shows there are thousands of claims available for
filing on for a variety of reasons, literally thousands of acres. Some
of these areas may not be worth claiming, but from what we’ve
seen there are a huge number of very nice looking areas available.
There are more claims available than there are people available to
claim them.
This doesn’t mean every claim is worthwhile claiming, and
you have to do your own due diligence, but a really good indicator
is how long a claim was held prior to lapsing. In some cases we’ve
seen claims which were held nearly 100 years, and this year they’re
available for filing on.
WWW.WESTERNMININGALLIANCE.ORG
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 11
MAY 2015
SUPPORT THE WESTERN MINING ALLIANCE
We’re one of three organizations in the legal fight, and we
have been for three years. Each day it seems as if there is
another threat and we spend a lot of time trying to keep
you informed and trying to provide information of use to
you.
Please consider joining the Western Mining Alliance in
our fight to restore your liberty. As we move forward with
the trial case on CEQA, we’re going to be the ones in the
forefront, which means we’ll be paying the full cost of
our lawyer bills from now on.
We are an organization which fights for your rights in
Washington, DC and the state. We’ve been active
lobbying against anti-dredging legislation, and we’re now
working with Congressional staff to make some much
needed reforms to federal law which will be beneficial to
not just miners, but ranchers and loggers.
You get a lot for your membership. You get a voice in
trying to change laws and you join the fight to overturn
the dredging moratorium. There’s not many of us in this
fight as plaintiffs, and we’re not saying to not support
someone else, the fact is we all need your support to
continue doing what we’re doing, and we’re all doing
good work, so take your pick and write out a check to
help us pay the lawyers.
The WMA Website
www.westernminingalliance.org
We’ve been busy the past month, but we’re trying
to get the website updated again. We’ll try to get
all our backup information up on the web so you
can download it.
Be sure to check out our online store
which is
www.sierrarivers.com
We make our money to continue this fight by
selling stuﬀ to pay the lawyer. Everything we make
goes right back into the fight. Please help us fund
our la st trip to Wa shington DC to brief
Congressional staﬀ and to help us fund the lawyer
and repeated trips to San Bernardino.
We’re not asking for a handout. For your $50 membership
we provide you with the Claims Report which provides
you with the full listing of all claims officially closed by
the BLM. As of today that’s over 2,000 claims which may
be available for new filing.
If you don’t want to join, but would still like to help, go to
our online store and buy some gold. Yeah, it’s above
market price, but you’re getting real Yuba River gold
donated by a dredger to help support the fight. We don’t
claim to sell gold the cheapest, but we’re paying lawyer
bills and we could use some help.
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 12
MAY 2015
The Micro-Sluice utilizes a feed hopper into which
water is automatically added. The resulting slurry exits
through drain holes in a consistent manner. The material
then passes over a classifier plate with small holes to
capture the finest materials. Then the slurry passes over
a riffle system that utilizes a v-grooved rubber mat
pioneered by Micro-Sluice Gold Products to capture
even the finest gold. A built-in angle indicator
guarantees the correct angle of the sluice and repeatable
results.
The Micro-Sluice Concentrator is based on the Micro-Sluice 2 and
uses a “double-deck/high banker” design and will accept any size
material and retain the gold from 4 mesh (1/4”) down to 200 mesh.
No pre-classifying or pre-screening is required! This unit is highly
portable with a size of 12” x 25” (folded up) and a weight of only 14
pounds. The Micro-Concentrator will process up to 300 lbs per hour.
The accuracy is typically 98% for visible gold and 60-90% for subvisible (free) gold, down to 200 mesh. The heavy duty HFBE vibrator
is recommended for those difficult jobs with micron or flour gold.
The Micro-Sluice 1 is an easy to
backpack and ATV friendly with the
new high impact flat bucket. It’s ideal
for dry or desert use as a wet recycle
unit where water is limited.
Only 12lbs and 25” long the Micro-Sluice 2 processes
wet or dry concentrates at a rate up to 1/3 cu/yd an
hour. The innovative and unique 4 stage water
recycling system uses a float mounted pump to provide
a consistent flow of water to the hopper and sluice.
MOLON LABE
An integral 1 quart feeder hopper
features a unique wash down system
that automatically regulates the rate of
pre-screened material being classified.
The tailings filter bag ensures no lost
gold, as tailings can be run again to
check for proper operation.
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 13
MAY 2015
Legal Update
Overview
Our challenge is trying to describe what’s going on to
where we can all understand it (in less than 5 pages). A lot is
happening and we’ll try to summarize the background, where
we’re at, and where we’re going, and what all this means.
Of all the questions we get, the most common is “What’s
going on in the legal case, when can we dredge?”
After a year of attempting to work out a reasonable
settlement deal with the State and the enviros its becoming
increasingly clear settlement discussions have essentially been
scuttled with the recent introduction of SB 637. If ever there
was a bad faith gesture that has to be it. When in the middle
of settlement discussions the opposing side loads you up with
yet more litigation, it’s pretty hard to see how we could
negotiate any type of agreement with them.
We have already begun the legal work to take the CEQA
case to trial with the submission of our Statement of Issues
which outlines are legal issues with the dredging EIR.
The dredgers will be back in court on the 23rd pushing for
an injunction to provide us with some type of legal summer
mining season, but the reality is many of you have already
decided the State’s actions are unconstitutional and are
pushing your rights. Not being lawyers we can’t advise you
on what you should do, or not do, this summer, you may want
to consult with an attorney on what all this means, or simply
go dredge and be prepared to defend your rights.
The New 49ers have already taken this approach, and
several members have been cited, and in one case even
arrested after refusing to sign the citation. He was later
released.
The organizations in this fight include the Western
Mining Alliance, Public Lands for the People and the New
49ers. There are also some individual plaintiffs with claims
against the State for illegal takings, and Keith Walker who is
currently not represented, but is pushing a case against the
state for passing the dredging ban in violation of the
California constitution.
If settlement discussions break down, all these cases must
head for trial, so here’s a quick summary:
There are, in general four major issues: Federal
preemption; the alleged illegal environmental impact report;
MOLON LABE
the illegal takings claims and then the New 49er suit which
has requested a restraining order and an injunction on the
Klamath River against enforcement of the anti-dredging laws.
Public Lands for the People has carried the bulk of this
fight, and expense, and on May 1st officially won the first of
two major victories we need: federal preemption. This win
will now go the appeals court to be reviewed. That’s not to
say the WMA and the New 49ers haven’t expended
considerable money as well, we all have. We’re all bleeding
money. Six years of litigation has now cost the mining
community well over two million dollars.
Now that we’re heading for trial it’s in our best interest to
make this trial as speedy as possible which we’ll push for.
We’ll attempt to hold to the timeline, resist delays and push
for a quick judgment and appeal.
Rinehart Case
People v. Rinehart, Case No. S22620, California Supreme
Court
Attorney James Buchal submitted his response to the
State’s briefing to the California Supreme Court. No further
scheduling is available at this time.
Rinehart continues to be the most important legal case out
there. Please support this critical case by donating directly to
Rinehart’s lawyer, James Buchal. You can send donations to:
Brandon Rinehart
c/o James Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100
Portland, OR 97214
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 14
MAY 2015
Legal Update Continued
The CEQA Lawsuit
The CEQA fight will largely be carried by the Western
Mining Alliance. Phase II is the CEQA case where we charge
the State illegally conducted the suction dredging EIR and we
allege they deliberately withheld data to make environmental
effects from dredging appear more severe than what they
really are. The CEQA case begins on June 23rd. We’ll then
have 47 days to submit our opening arguments (likely due
August 15th), the State will have 30 days to respond
(September 15th), then we have 20 days (October 5th) to
respond to the State’s response, we’ll then have the in-court
briefings and then the judge will issue a decision, this will
likely be December. Until then we’ve asked for the injunction
to allow us to get back to dredging while all the legal cases go
forward.
The Preemption Lawsuit
PLP still must defend the preemption win, and the current
case, in both the trial court and the appeals court, and they are
also plaintiffs in the CEQA case. It does us little good to win
preemption in the trial court if we can’t fund the lawyers to
take it through the appeals process, and then possibly the state
Supreme Court.
We’re working together to give us the best possible use of
our legal resources. There’s no point on having two different
lawyers duplicating effort, so we’ll have one lawyer focused
on preemption, and one lawyer focused on CEQA.
There are still other cases out there, including Keith
Walkers. The WMA has supported Walker to the degree we
can, and our attorney, James Buchal has been supporting
Walker to the degree he can.
Walker has some very powerful arguments which need to
be tried. If you want to support Keith, you can send him a
check direct, or you can send us a check and we’ll dedicate it
to helping pay for his bills, and hopefully obtain him legal
support.
State Tries to Block Miners Right to Due
Process
In Siskiyou County miners have been operating their
suction dredges on New 49er controlled claims since April.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has been issuing
citations and in one case making arrests.
On April 29th the State submitted a request to Judge
Ochoa which would have barred miners from even having a
hearing in Siskiyou County, with a duly elected judge of
Siskiyou County, and sought to bar attorney James Buchal
from being able to represent any miners in Siskiyou County.
This request is fundamentally unconstitutional. It denies
miners their right to a fair trial in Siskiyou County and instead
would move any dredging related case to San Bernardino
county.
The cases currently being heard in San Bernardino
County are from specific plaintiffs, and were consolidated
with the consent of the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Miners
who are not part of this lawsuit are not under the jurisdiction
of the San Bernardino court, they are under the jurisdiction of
the local court, and they have a right to be heard by a local
elected judge.
Why is the State afraid of miners being heard by a local
elected judge in Siskiyou County?
New 49ers Push Back on State in Siskiyou
County
The New 49ers have issued, to their members, a statement
they consider suction dredging to be legal under the May 1st
court order and their members may dredge on the Klamath
River. The statement also provides for the legal defense of
any members who are cited.
The New 49er action has been successful in pushing the
court to hear our arguments for an injunction. With numerous
citations, and even an arrest, being issued the number of cases
the State had to prosecute was piling up and taking away their
time to prosecute Rinehart, and to defend themselves in the
San Bernardino cases.
Through sheer numbers of citations, if the dredger pleads
not guilty and elects to go to trial, dredgers can overwhelm
the State prosecutorial apparatus and this is the approach the
New 49ers have taken.
In an extraordinary move the State Attorney General’s
office has requested Judge Ochoa prevent attorney James
Buchal, and miners, from seeking justice in Siskiyou County.
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 15
MAY 2015
Legal Update Continued
Sugar Pine Mine
On the 20th of May a federal administrative law judge
issued a stay on the BLM’s stop work order for the Sugar Pine
mine in Josephine County, Oregon.
The Sugar Pine mine gained national attention after BLM
issued a stop work order and attempted to shut down the 100
year old gold mine by claiming the mine was subject to the
1955 Multiple Use, Sustained Yield Act which removed many
of the rights a miner had, as well as requiring a plan of
operation prior to commencement of mining.
The owners of the Sugar Pine mine disputed the claim
had changed hands after 1955 and provided documentation of
this fact. The BLM issued a stop work order and moved to
enforce this order through armed enforcement activities.
Local and national chapters of the constitutional group
The Oath Keepers stepped in to provide security and ensure
the mine owners were afforded their constitutional rights of
due process, not just arbitrary agency determination outside of
the constitution.
There is no section of water in California they’ll find to
be suitable for dredging. Every river, puddle and lake in
California is polluted with something, a lot of that is runoff
and drift from agriculture, but we’ll be the price for it.
We’ll fight SB 637 when the time comes. For now you
need to watch it, and be concerned with it. We are. This fight
has been coming for six years, if they wouldn’t have picked it,
we would have, but it was going to happen.
John Godfrey Heads for Trial
Miner, John Godfrey, who was convicted of illegally
operating a sluice box and cited for illegally cutting brush will
be in the Appeals Court in Sacramento on Tuesday, 2 June.
John could use some support from other miners, so if
you’re able please attend John’s hearing:
The Federal Courthouse Building, 501 I Street
Courtroom 6 1:30 pm
Sacramento, CA
SB 637, The Next Lawsuit
SB 637 wasn’t unexpected. We’ve said before we
expected the fight with the Water Board to come eventually.
The environmentalists, led by the Sierra Fund, just pulled the
trigger on this one earlier than we thought.
We’re dealing with one lawsuit at a time, but SB 637 will
be the next lawsuit, after enactment. Some have asked us if
we can’t sue now – no we can’t. We have to wait until it
becomes a law, then we’ll sue.
SB 637 grants the Water Board with the authority to ban
suction dredging for water quality related effects. Remember,
the Water Board is the one who told Dr. Alpers how his study
on dredging would come out. If you think for a second the
Water Board is going to help us dredge again you’re mistaken.
The Water Board is largely responsible for the suction
dredging ban. They wrote the Water Quality section of the
EIR and they pushed for the dredging ban. Make no mistake,
they want dredging banned. This time they’ll ban us through
the imposition of regulations and permit requirements so
difficult and expensive no one will be able to afford a permit
or to meet their requirements.
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 16
MAY2015
Pacific Legal Foundation Supports Miners
Pacific Legal Foundation issues statement on the dredging ban
California Can’t Arbitrarily Ban
Mining
By Jonathan Wood, Staff Attorney with Pacific Legal
Foundation
The California Supreme Court is considering an
important case concerning whether a state can frustrate
federal law and deprive people of their livelihoods for no
good reason. PLF filed this amicus brief in the case,
joined by the Western Mining Alliance and Siskiyou
County. If you’re a regular reader, you can probably
guess which side we took. Of course the government
can’t act so arbitrarily and lawlessly!
California bans miners from using “suction dredges”
— which I gather are like mining vacuums — in any
stream in the state. California has a problem, however.
Federal law expressly encourages this mining. Under the
Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, state law that frustrates
a federal law must yield. Since numerous federal mining
claims are located in stream beds that can only be worked
with a dredge, the state has set up a clear conflict with
federal law.
The state’s ban is surprising because the federal law
goes out of its way to accommodate state interests. The
state may require a permit for mining and regulate its
environmental impacts. Thus federal law balances its
encouragement of mining with state interests.
Apparently unsatisfied with this balanced approach,
California decided to topple the scales, like a child (or
attorney-blogger) who upends a board game when it’s not
going his way. It banned suction dredge mining entirely,
citing environmental concerns. However, it’s admitted
that this mining can be environmentally beneficial
(depending on when, where, and how it’s done) and its
impacts regulated in other circumstances. Nonetheless, it
MOLON LABE
has chosen not to regulate these impacts, even though
federal law would accommodate such regulation.
It has instituted a permanent ban that can’t be lifted
until a state agency adopts regulations to mitigate this
mining’s impacts. The agency has told the legislature that,
although it would love to adopt the regulations, it doesn’t
actually have the statutory authority to do so.
Naturally the legislature promptly gave the agency
the authority and everyone lived happily ever after.
…
Just kidding. It did nothing. For reasons known only
to it, the legislature has never bothered to give the agency
authority that it demands the agency exercise before
miners can get back to work. Not only is that
preposterously silly, it’s unconstitutional. Federal law
can’t be toppled quite so easily.
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 17
MAY 2015
A Desert Cat Tale
Another prospecting adventure from Bill Southern
Encounter with a wild cat
This is a little story I wrote a few years back after a close
encounter of sorts….
I’ve been living in the great Southwestern deserts a long
time now, 35 years or so, and you know I thought I’d seen
most every dangerous critter close up that the desert has to
offer, today though I found out I was very wrong.
I was hunting in the Weaver Mountains working my way
up a small gulch with my detector. This year has been worse
than usual for rattle snakes with all the cover left from the
spring rains. I have seen more snakes this year than I can ever
remember seeing in years past. So while working I was also
keeping my eyes on the ground cover to avoid those nasty
reptilian surprises.
I got a good signal in the lower edge of the bank and
begun the task of recovering my target. While digging I heard
a strange deep growling sound mixed with the normal sounds
in my headphones. The first time I didn’t pay attention, but
when I heard it again I stopped digging and stood up
removing my headphone as I rose up. It was at that moment
that I realized the sound was not unlike the sound a mad Tom
cat makes and it was coming from directly above me.
When I looked up , there looking down at me from a large
pile of granite boulders was a rather large mountain lion!!!
I did not know what to do and we just looked at each
other for what seemed like an eternity. All I could think of
was all the TV shows I’d seen where the lion was sure to
pounce on the poor victim below to tear him to shreds.
Fortunately this did not happen and the cat slowly backed of
growling as he or she left.
I decided not to finish digging the target, nugget or not
and moved out of the area. I have no idea where the cat went
it just seemed to vanish. I had never seen a mountain lion in
the wild although I have seen signs of their presence in other
mining areas. I always assumed they avoided humans,
perhaps this one had young and was willing to stand it’s
ground.
Needless to say at the time I was writing this I was and
still am a bit shook up, I made a half serious attempt to
continue detecting, but all I could think of was that big old cat
jumping me from behind and ripping out my juggler.
Sooooooo I called it a day and will try a different spot
tomorrow. Well I guess what I am basically saying here is that
I prefer the threat of snakes over cats.
MOLON LABE
Let me tell you , the thrill and excitement of that few
moments was quite the experience and I am thinking I was a
little lucky today
Good Hunting and be careful out there….
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 18
MAY2015
WMA Updates
WMA to Washington DC
On May 15th the Western Mining Alliance briefed the
Congressional Western Caucus on issues affecting small
miners and provided some recommended changes to
environmental laws which would
benefit not just miners, but all
rural Americans.
We have been working with
Congressman McClintock’s staff
to introduce some legislation
which would benefit small
miners and we believe we’ll be
able to push this legislation
forward over the next few
months.
We also met with the staff of the
House Subcommittee on Natural
Resources and the House
Subcommittee on Oversight to
work with them on some issues significant to miners.
This was our third visit to Washington DC and we feel
we’ve made some important contacts on Capitol Hill and we
should be able to introduce some significant reforms in the
next year which will not only benefit the current dredgers, but
also the next generation of dredgers.
WMA Director Rick Eddy at the California capitol,
working to defeat SB 637
WMA in Sacramento
Our lobbying effort in Sacramento continued with
attendance at the Senate financial committee hearing on SB
637 which would provide authority to the Water Board to
impose permitting requirements on suction dredgers,
duplicative to the permitting requirements required by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. We oppose this
bill and we have the support of all Senate Republicans in
opposing this bill. This meeting was followed up with a
personal conversation with Senator Nielson and Senator Allen
where we explained why this is a bad bill.
It’s likely this bill will pass the full Senate vote, but we’ll
be preparing further opposition to the bill for the full vote, and
then we’ll try once again to stop the bill in the Assembly. This
bill was sponsored by the Sierra Fund, and environmental
lobbying organization out of Nevada City who has claimed
credit for the previous anti-dredging legislation.
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 19
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
MAY 2015
PAGE 20
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
MAY 2015
PAGE 21
MOLON LABE
WWW.WESTERNMININGALLINACE.ORG
COPYRIGHT 2014
MAY2015
PAGE 22
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
MAY 2015
PAGE 23
MAY 2015
FROM THE WMA PRESIDENT
Dr. Charles Alpers belonged to the
environmental group which wrote the
language, and lobbied for, the dredging
ban. He was a member of the Board of
Advisors of this group, the Sierra Fund out
of Nevada City.
As best as we can determine the Sierra
Fund consists of two people, but has been
enormously successful in lobbying. Their
whole business model is based on lobbying
for funds to support what they’re doing –
which appears to be the systematic
destruction of rural economies.
They don’t litigate. They leave that to the
wreckage of what they’ve created. They
slip into the capitol building, hand off their
We’ve spent a lot of time preparing for the legislation to friends on the legislative
CEQA case. While the federal preemption staff, then they sneak back to Nevada City
case centered on federal mining rights, and and watch the litigation begin.
your ability to mine on federal mining
It’s not just dredging. The Sierra Fund is
claims. The CEQA case covers all property
within California and challenges the attacking surface, and underground
mining, through their attempts to remove
State’s determination that dredging has a
the local counties jurisdiction over mining,
significant impact on the environment.
and instead establish a state agency which
We must win CEQA. To prepare for this would regulate all mines throughout the
we read all the prior CEQA appeals court state. They have also attacked ATVs and
rulings going back to 1972. We have read off-roaders by claiming these vehicles stir
all the reports the suction dredging up “toxic dust.”
Prepare for Trial
environmental impact report was based on,
and then we read the reports the reports
were based on.
We’ve come to one conclusion: the game
was rigged. In February we informed you
the lead mercury scientist, Dr. Charles
Alpers, was told by the California Water
Board that dredging would not be the
solution to mercury, and in fact, they
wanted to ban dredging. The California
Water Board told him this prior to
conducting the study, and the Water Board
was funding the study.
MOLON LABE
CEQA challenge will be brought against
their activities. Some would call this
extortion or racketeering, but it has
become the norm. Simply look at the
“sponsor” list of the of any supposed
environmental group and you’ll see a list
of companies who are mining, but for
some reason aren’t involved in
environmental lawsuits. Try it, just pull
any environmental groups forms you want
and find out who the donors are, then see if
those donors have been challenged for
their environmental impact. Big money, no
lawsuits. So, that only leaves us to stand on
our own.
CEQA is enormously complex. You can’t
argue the science in a CEQA lawsuit, you
can only argue the process. Even if the
agency used science which was completely
wrong, it doesn’t matter, the law says as
long as they had something, anything, to
back up their decision, then they followed
the process.
So you have to attack CEQA in a
completely different manner. You must
show where they didn’t follow the process.
According to the courts, an environmental
impact report is an “informational”
document. It only serves to provide
decision makers with information upon
Meanwhile they have no problem
which policy decisions are made. So what
supporting their own pet dredging project
happens when the information is wrong?
on Lake Combie because it means millions
That brings us back to our lawsuit.
of dollars in grant money to study, and
advise, the Nevada Irrigation District.
If you have any hope of dredging again, on
both private and federal land, then please
CEQA is the tool these groups use to attack
support us in our efforts over the next eight
mining and all outdoor activities. CEQA
months to fight the State. Let’s not back
has been the favorite tool of
down.
environmentalists since 1972, but its rarely
ever used by folks like us. The large
companies, just pay off the environmental
Molon Labe
groups with large donations ensuring no
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 24
MAY 2015
THE 2014 WMA CLAIMS REPORT - ONLY 2 WEEKS LEFT TO ORDER!
ORDER YOUR COPY FROM WWW.SIERRARIVERS.COM
The 2014 Claims Report
We’ve been shipping the Claims Report, there were over 5,000
claims pending forfeiture. The report comes in two versions: Official
version which lists officially closed claims (over 2,000) and the
Professional Version which lists all claims pending forfeiture (over
5,000).
Based on the data we’re looking at a huge number of claims which
may be forfeited this year, largely due to the increased maintenance fee
which many claim owners forgot about. Thousands of claim owners
forgot the fee went from $140 to $155 so for lack of $15 their claim
could be forfeited. Realistically there are too many claim owners for us
to contact, if you know of someone who may be at risk, contact them.
We’re currently shipping the official version, and the Professional
Version. This copy will provide you full river by river listing of claims
which have been forfeited. There is likely no better resource for finding
your own claim.
Sierra
Plumas
Nevada
Yuba
Del Norte
Siskiyou
Trinity
Amador
Full Coverage of most dredging
counties
Alpine
Calaveras
El Dorado
Tuolumne
San Bernardino
Kern
Fresno
Monterey
What People are Saying About the Claims Report
“I just wanted to say thanks for the book! It was great. Four of my friends went in on two claims and we got the ORMC #’s
yesterday!...your heads up information was awesome. I look forward to next years book.” John from Oregon
“[The Claims Report] is great.” Susan From Oregon
“I just wanted to thank you and tell you what a great and unique thing you have produced. I have seen nothing like this anywhere
else. Not even close.” Gus, California
“This report has been a game changer…we picked up two dream claims today…” S. from California
MOLON LABE
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 25
MAY 2015
THE CLOSING STATEMENT
“Free people, remember this maxim: we
may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered
if it is once lost.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Tyranny of the Executive
Branch
To restore liberty you must know
your Constitution. I know this is a bit of a
dry read, but follow it if you want to learn
why the agencies are behaving as they do.
The real power of the Congress of
the United States is in its ability to
appropriate funds.
No Money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a
regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public
Money shall be published from time to
time.
Article I, Section 9 U.S.
Constitution
As we all know, our government is
made up of three branches of
government: the legislative; the executive
and the judiciary. The role of the
legislative branch is to establish the laws
which govern the country; the role of the
MOLON LABE
executive branch is to merely implement
the laws which the Congress has passed.
The power of the people is vested in
the House of Representatives; the power
of the sovereign states is vested in the
Senate. Limited power is provided to the
executive branch which includes the
implementation of the laws which have
been passed.
It’s a bit nuanced, but the thought of
the drafters of the Constitution was each
state would have equal footing, but
representation in Congress of the people
would be through the House of
Representatives, this is why you often (at
least on Capitol Hill) hear the House of
Representatives referred to as “The
People’s House.” When on Capitol Hill
you’ll notice there is a definite class
distinction between the House and the
Senate.
The real power of Congress is in its
power to tax, and appropriate those funds
to accomplish the laws they have
established. A law can be passed, but
without funding it has no effect. Each
year two bills are passed to fund an
agency: an Authorization Bill and an
Appropriations Bill. So each year an
agency must be re-authorized by
Congress, and it must be funded by
Congress. Without both of these the
agency ceases to exist.
The President is required each year
to submit a document known as The
Presidents Budget, or simply the PB. This
budget is due in January of each year and
provides the Executive Branch’s request
for funding for the various executive
agencies. This budget is submitted to
Congress which then reviews the budget
and can “mark” or “add” funds to an
agency for specific purposes. They can
also completely wipe out funding and
authorization for an agency.
Since President Obama took office
the U.S. Congress hasn’t passed a single
budget. In fact the Congress hasn’t passed
an actual budget since 1997. An actual
budget means the passage of all thirteen
appropriations bills. That’s 18 years since
the last budget was passed.
It is one thing for us to wring our
hands as we watch the tyrannical actions
of the agencies, it’s quite another to do
something about it. The check and
balance of the executive agencies is
through the budget. There was always a
fear if they stepped out of line their
funding would be cut, withheld or wiped
out and thousands of jobs would be lost.
It was quite the incentive to behave
within the bounds of the Constitution.
That check and balance has been
removed when there is no budget. But
wait, you say, how do they operate year to
year if the Constitution requires Congress
pass a budget? Good question. They
operate through a process called “The
Continuing Resolution.”
It’s the Continuing Resolution
process which has removed the power of
the people to hold the agencies
accountable. A Continuing Resolution is a
law passed by Congress which says we’ll
just fund government what we did last
year, plus a certain increase such as 2%
per year. If that increase is below what
the economists predict inflation to be,
then they call it a budget cut even though
in real dollars its more money.
Once you have established the
Continuing Resolution as the mechanism
to fund the agencies, then the agencies are
only accountable to the Executive
Branch.
How did this happen? If you’ve been
watching the news you already know. If
Congress moves to cut a program, then
the opposing side refuses to vote for it so
only the side with the majority will pass
the budget. If the president is on the
minority side, as now, then he’ll veto the
budget and then Congress needs a 2/3
vote to override the veto, which neither
side has.
So both sides have essentially thrown
in the towel and said “Last year plus 2%.”
Which is just fine with the executive
branch because our Congress just handed
over their most important power to the
president – the power to defund.
This is how you create a dictatorship.
Molon Labe
COPYRIGHT 2014
PAGE 26
MAY 2015
Pacific Legal Takes on the Endangered Species Act
Attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) have
just sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for
illegally designating tens of thousands of acres in New
Mexico’s Hidalgo County as “critical habitat” for the
jaguar even though the species has not been sighted in the
county, or anywhere else in New Mexico, for years;
indeed, the state doesn’t even have any environmental
features that are essential to jaguar recovery.
Donor-supported PLF is a watchdog organization that
litigates nationwide for limited government, property
rights, and a balanced approach to environmental
regulations. In asking the court to overturn the designation
of jaguar critical habitat in New Mexico, PLF attorneys
represent three broad-based organizations with members
who are harmed by this reckless and unjustified expansion
of federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations in
the region — the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau,
New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, and New
Mexico Federal Lands Council.
PLF represents these organizations free of charge, as
with all its clients.
Reckless regulating: Roping off “critical
habitat” for a species that isn’t there
The jaguar’s global population is estimated to be at
least 30,000; 90 percent live in tropical, jungle, and swamp
habitats in Central and South America. According to the
FWS Recovery Outline for the species, there are no jaguar
populations in New Mexico — or anywhere in the United
States.
The jaguar has been listed as “endangered” under the
ESA since 1972; but the FWS did not designate any terrain
as “critical habitat” for the species until more than 40 years
later (in 2014), and then only in response to a lawsuit by
environmental activists. This long practice of not
designating jaguar habitat reflected a basic biological
reality, at least in New Mexico: The state has not been
occupied by jaguars in many decades, and it is not home to
any environmental features that are essential to the future
of jaguar recovery. Indeed, the closest jaguar population to
New Mexico is a small one (100 animals or fewer) living
MOLON LABE
fully 130 miles south of the border, according to the FWS’s
Recovery Outline.
Hurting landowners and wasting
environmental resources
“Habitat designations mean significant — sometimes
crippling — restrictions on property owners and managers,
both private and public,” said PLF Senior Staff Attorney
Tony Francois. “They also compete for the limited money
and resources available for environmental protection.
“Clearly, the government doesn’t have the luxury of
careless overreach when it comes to roping off property as
critical habitat,” he continued. “But that’s exactly what we
see with the jaguar habitat designation in New Mexico.
The bureaucrats have cordoned off tens of thousands of
acres for a phantom species. This amounts to reckless
regulating, and a heavy-handed power play against
landowners.
“At most, only two jaguars have been credibly sighted
anywhere in the state over the past four decades,” Francois
noted. “There are no breeding pairs or evidence of resident
jaguars in the state. This species’ connection to New
Mexico is a matter of distant memory, not recent reality.
There is no justification for bringing down the regulatory
fist on property owners, and wasting scarce environmental
resources.”
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico, the lawsuit is New Mexico Farm & Livestock
Bureau, et al. v. Jewell. More information, including the
c o m p l a i n t , m a y b e f o u n d a t P L F ’s w e b s i t e :
www.pacificlegal.org.
About Pacific Legal Foundation
D o n o r- s u p p o r t e d P a c i f i c L e g a l F o u n d a t i o n
(www.pacificlegal.org) is the leading legal watchdog
organization that litigates for limited government, property
rights, and a balanced approach to environmental
regulations, in courts across the country.
COPYRIGHT 2015
PAGE 27
MAY2015
MAY 2015
MAY2015
MAY2015
SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT MINING
We think the first dredging season in six years is coming up. Support those who’ve been supporting the fight and
holding onto their mining businesses. After six years you’re due for a new dredge so check out the specials Dahlke has
for this spring’s season. Whether you buy a dredge or a hat, you’re helping all of us who’ve been keeping the fight going.
MAY2015
SOME PARTING SHOTS
This is some awesome country we choose to spend our time in. In all the time I’ve been running around these mountains I’ve
never seen one of these folks who claim they’re saving the Sierra. I have to wonder - what or who are they saving it for because
there is never anyone out there. The area I’m in seems to be doing just fine without their help.
Pictures of gold, that’s what everyone wants to see.
The pictures to the right are courtesy of Kirby
Jackson. The pictures below are courtesy of Erich
Lessing.
MAY2015

May - Western Mining Alliance

Transcription

Similar documents

REPSA Dredging Work Plan Introduction REPSA proposes this plan

Brochure

Rehabilitation of mining areas in Durango, Mexico

IN REVENUES - SNC

Santiago, Chile - Motion Metrics

View Sample PDF - IRMA

Building what matters - SNC

Nordic Mining Day