UPDATE: Due to several threatening emails sent by miners (a recurrence of what happened last time I tried to host a suction dredge mining thread), I’m closing the comments on this post. Further, if I receive one more threatening email, I’m digging up the information on all of them and turning them over to proper authorities. Have a nice day.
CalTrout just issued a TroutClout Alert asking its members to write California Governor Jerry Brown in support of AB120 — a bill which enforces reasonable regulations on suction dredge mining (including a fee structure that doesn’t burden taxpayers with the cost of enforcement).
You can read CalTrout’s email here, or skip to the pointy end of things and send an automated, ten-second email to your close, personal friend Jerry Brown here.
Click to read the Trout Clout for yourself
Are you people that stupid? If we lose our dredging rights, you will be next. Since we suction dredgers not only clean out the Mercury from the rivers, but we pull out tons of YOUR poisonous LEAD weights and dangerous FISH HOOKS from the rivers.
I will personally help to lead the charge to BAN FISHING because you pollute the rivers, while we clean them up.
Wake up FOOLS!
Sorry CalTrout, but I have to disagree with your position on suction dredging. I’ve been an avid fly fisherman for 20+ years and the 2 activities are very compatible side-by-side. I’ve suction dredged many of the same waters I’ve fished and have not seen one adverse effect from dredging. If anything, the waters have been improved with silt being removed, stream bottoms cleaned, and some amounts of mercury cleaned out. I’ve had curious and hungry fish come close to where I was dredging as new food sources were made available for them to feast on. When you’re being told dredging is harmful to fisheries, you’re being lied to by those whose agenda is the elimination of anyone from their perceived “private” waters. As dredgers, we take our stewardship of this country’s waters as deeply as fishermen do. As fisherman, we welcome the cleaning and restoration dredgers do for the future of our fisheries.
First, read the mercury study to see how “cleaning out” mercury can result in some serious water quality/toxicity issues.
Second, I think saying you “have not seen one adverse effect” is a bit disingeious; dredgers regularly point to tailing piles as prime spawing habit — and another example of the benefits they provide — yet they’re too unstable to survive the high flows often associated with spawning seasons.
That you don’t see those beds disintegrate doesn’t mean the damage isn’t done, and asserting the “benefits” of suction dredging based on that level of evidence isn’t very compelling. Here’s a high non-visible impact described by Peter Moyle:
I’d like to note that the Karuk attempted to mediate impacts like this in talks with miners prior to filing their lawsuit, but were rebuffed by a New 49ers lawyer who said the idea of coldwater refugia was fiction.
I believe suction dredge mining can be conducted without undue impacts, but in certain places — like the Klamath — it needs to be regulated more than it has been, and the rejection of any regulation at all by miners seems de riguer.
So we do it the hard way.
I must agree with Gary. Fishing introduces more waste and harmful byproducts into the ecosystem than suction mining ever could. In addition, I find it hard to believe that the cost Fish and Game incurs from enforcing fishing regulations is covered by fishing license revenue.
Bottom line is that all outdoor enthusiasts must unite in order to prevent our natural resources from being taken away from us.
Wrong. (Please read the mercury study and the most recent F&G studies.)
One of the recurring problems with these discussions is how inconvenient facts are disposed of like this. First, license revenue does fund programs (in fact, money is regularly siphoned away for general fund purposes).
And second, suction dredge permit fees don’t even begin to cover the costs of the program and enforcement. Are the taxpayers supposed to foot the bill for somebody’s hobby?
This type of nonsense is just another reason I am no longer a member of Trout Unlimited. Raging torrents during spring runoff and scouring flushing flows from dams and someone says the fish are affected by a 4 inch suction tube. Yes they are, I love to watch the fish following the dredgers, sucking up the midge larvae and nymphs from their output.
Even some Fly fishers like myself are becoming fed up with the elitist attitudes of groups like yours. I know several people that do enjoy their Panning and dredging. I have fished around them and the fish actually love it. Catch and release is more detrimental to fish than simple hobby dredging. And Kills many more fish.
Here is some science. Read the whole article at the link.
“Mark Stopher
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001 dfgsuctiondredge@dfg.ca.gov
28 April 2011
RE: Comments regarding SEIR and Proposed Regulations for suction dredge mining in California in Favor of Maintaining Current 1994
Dear Sir:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the California Department of Fish & Game’s (DFG) Suction Dredge Permitting Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Proposed Regulations.
I, Claudia Wise, and Joseph Greene are retired U.S. EPA Scientists and invited members of the CDFG SEIR Public Advisory Committee. During the PAC meetings we presented two science based PowerPoint presentations to the committee “Selenium Antagonism to Mercury, Does Methylmercury Cause Significant Harm to Fish or Human Health?†and “Turbidity and the Effect of Scaleâ€.
Claudia Wise is a retired Physical Scientist previously employed at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. I have 29 years experience in chemical and biological instrumentation methods. I spent 8 years with the Western Fish Toxicology Station coauthoring journal articles dealing with bioaccumulation in Invertebrates and Fish exposed to chemical toxiciants. I have contributed to many projects and coauthored numerous journal articles for the Watershed Ecology, Terrestrial, Ecotoxicology and Freshwater Branches where I researched toxicity in soil and the effects of toxicants on plant growth. At the time of my retirement, I was with the Watershed Ecology Stable Isotope Research Facility. I am a recipient of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Bronze Medal for Commendable Service.
Joseph Greene has over 30 years of national and international professional experience including consulting, research, and teaching for industry and government regulatory agencies. Activities included project management, contract administration, experimental design, preparation of research reports and technical documents, laboratory supervision, statistical analysis of data, computer simulation, development and application of biological methods, and performance of algal growth potential and aquatic and terrestrial toxicity tests.
Continued;
http://miningrights.org/joe-green.html
First, I appreciate the civil tone of your comment, but feel compelled to point out this stuff has been making the rounds for years, and I’m afraid it’s so selective as to be laughable.
As I’ll note in my post below (the one that ends this thread), Ms. Wise repeatedly cites a mercury hotspot recovery study as proof that suction dredge mining is a tenable way to recover mercury (and as proof of suction dredge mining’s harmlessness in terms of water quality), yet the study itself reaches the exact opposite conclusion.
I didn’t have to dig very far to uncover a couple other similar discrepancies, and in that light, how exactly am I supposed to interpret Ms Wise’s support of mining as other than a pretty clearcut case of researcher’s confirmation bias (she wants to support mining, so she cherry picks the data that supports her case, leaving the rest behind).
I’ve never supported an outright ban of suction dredge mining, but I think viewing the less-favorable data in the same light as the favorable stuff is the only way to arrive at livable regulations — an approach which has seemingly been entirely rejected here.
Total nonsense … Suction dredging does no harm to fisheries, the waterways, or the
environment at all . Yes, you are being lied to .
I am, and have been since I was a small child a trout fisherman, and would in no way
support any activity that would be harmfull .. Don’t be fooled by this bogus attempt
to take away our rights to use our public lands and waterways .. We as outdoorsman,
and women, need to stand together on this assault on our rights ..
Say no to ab 120 …
The latest F&G study suggests somebody’s lieing…
i had land owners/fisher men ask me to dredge out their choked off streams because of silting so they can resume fishing in their favorit location! whenever im out dredgeinf in Wyoming and come back to my dredgeing operation, theres always someone fishing where i dredging and commented about all the fish in that location. ive NEVER EVER seen a fish go up my dredge intake,ive seen countless underwater videos of how fish react around/in front of dredge nozzels. and you couldnt get a fish near enough to it to be sucked up. there has been countless enviromental studys done by every government agency (BLM,COE,DNR,USFS) that have been compiled and they say in their report that dredgeing dosent do any harm to the fish or the health of a stream and these studys have been done in many different states.these are factual/sceintific study and not any “maybe,could be,might be” scenarios that someone is trying to scare you with!
I hate to disagree, but I’m looking at two studies that conclude dredging is very hard on water-borne species, typically due to water quality issues. I appreciate the fact that suction dredge mining doesn’t impact adult fish directly, but think that stopping the argument there is somewhat specious; mercury upsets, unstable tailing piles and disruption of fry/spawning beds remain very real issues — which could be handled by regulation.
So far, miners equate any kind of regulation with a ban, or even more irritatingly, label everyone who supports intelligent regulation a commie or the like. Screw that.
wake up people! we all want clean water, air and land !and we all want public land we can enjoy and leave it for our next generation to enjoy also. its the slobs and people that dont care for the land that are the problem and it seems most people overlook this problem.and they are across the board and in every walk of life. dont look around! look in the mirror!
up here in the soviet socialist republic of oryganistan non slip felt soles are now banned because of rock snot, boats and trailers must be washed between lakes to curb the spread of mil foil weed. and soon mark my words youe fishing lures will be “water body specific” once used in lake, stream “A” they will not be allowed in any other water body. a fish biologist told me hook and release has a 90% mortality rate, dredging has a 0% fish mortality rate. so using this info just what should these epost card really say?
maybe …. dear governor
please reign in your commy/greeny rights denying Politburo
thank you
an outdoorsman
That’s laughable. Numerous studies show that C&R mortality is typically 2%-10%, with the higher numbers the result of improper handling.
All you river rapers with your cute anecdotal tales of the benefits to fish achieved by sucking up and running the river bottom through a machine crack me up: talk about the foxes guarding the hen house. Under the most common justification (sucking up the bed is somehow good for the river) one has to wonder how the river environment ever evolved without dredgers around to steward the process with their two stroke motors.
Read the CA DFG study that came out months ago if you want the real science on this. Bottom line of the study is the most enviromentally sound dredging program is NO SUCTION DREDGING.
Beyond the harm of suction dredging are the characters that do it: while some may be fairly normal most are dirt bag crank heads and/or wing nut armegeddon types who have no concern for anything but their own agendas.
Andy – You sound like you must be related to another Marx, maybe Karl or perhaps Groucho, Chico, and Zeppo. “Dirt bag crank heads”, “wing nut armageddon types”? Screw you, Joker. US Coast Guard 4 years, Bachelors Degree in Bus Admin, MBA, 30 years in financial services, former member of TU – until they started getting stupid. The CA DFG report arrived at their preconceived foregone conclusion against dredging – circular logic to arrive where THEY wanted, not where scientific truth actually resulted. Go back under the government-provided rock you crawled out from.
The karyuk tribe started this mess. This was reported to be a dispute over land to build a casino and rights to the river. Support came from the Indian casino;s and Indian gaming commission with over $5 million in funds. Their liberal doses of dollars into the Sacramento legislature and other organizations such as friends of the river has greased the rails of their cause. A report from the Fair political practices commission said that the casino’s have spent over $600 million lobbying and providing incentives to the California legislature to either pass of fail legislation. They have been very good at this and have swayed the voting in their direction in all cases. The FPCC said that Casino dollars has drowned out the voters voices. This brings us to friends of the river. They want the state to buy 9 million dollar cutter head dredges and give them the contract to remove mercury from the rivers, the dredges are made in Canada. This will be at taxpayers expense.
In the Suction Dredging Environmental meetings the Friends of the River reported the following. “There are 3,000,000 fishermen in California and they each lose an average of 4 pounds of lead per year in the rivers and streams. Their goal is to either abolish fishing in California or outlaw the use of lead weights. You can bet your last dollar that this legislation will be passed as they have the blessing of the Indian gaming commission.
When in doubt, blame the indians. Except this isn’t true. In fact, this “mess” was really stirred up after a couple Riverkeeper organizations went to mining organizations (The New 49ers chief among them) to talk about specific exclusions in areas of the Klamath considered to be coldwater refugia for salmon and steelhead.
By way of reply, the New 49ers filed a going-nowhere-fast lawsuit attempting to end tribal fishing rights, and their attorney famously said that the whole idea of coldwater refugia for salmonids was something cooked up by the Indians.
Wrong.
The problem is that Fish & Game has not provided the required reviews of regulations (or the impacts of mining), and blaming it on the Indians is pure folly (albeit an attractive way to displace any blame from miner organizations who have acted stupidly).
As for lead, perhaps you could provide a cite for your FOR statement; I think it’s bullshit. Further, this is a fly fishing site, and fly fishermen almost wholly abandoned lead in favor of non-toxic substitutes years ago.
Honestly, almost everything in your comment smacks of paranoia or moral equivalency arguments, which don’t cut it here.
I wondered how long it would take this time. First, to the suction dredgers who have posted with some level of courtesy, I appreciate your participation. I believe there is room for some level of suction dredge mining in California, but don’t believe the peer-reviewed evidence supports contentions that mining is uniformly “good” for the environment.
Unfortunately, your civil efforts are regularly poisoned by the folks among you with apparent anger management issues; I’ve already received six emails from dredgers, two of which of threatened to find me and my family and give me what I deserved, and three of which were spittle-filled diatribes bordering on threats.
And yes, the somewhat paranoid, borderline racists “the Indians are doing it to us” memes are reappearing, and I have little desire to see those flair up again.
So here’s the deal:
1) Like the last suction mining thread, I’m going to close this one. Everybody loses because an unhappy number of miners would rather substitute threats for discussion.
2) If I receive another threatening email, I’m going to locate the senders of all the threatening emails (it’s not hard), and turn the information over to the cops. I hope you enjoy their attention as much as I enjoy threatening emails.
I’m also going to make a few points.
1) AB120 doesn’t attempt to ban suction dredge mining as many allege, but among other things, it does require a permit structure that doesn’t burden taxpayers with the costs of enforcement. One commenter erroneously stated that fishing licenses don’t pay for the cost of fishing programs, but he’s dead wrong (like so many others). Why shouldn’t miners pay for the costs of keeping the lawbreakers among you in check?
2) CalTrout’s comments on the EIR didn’t call for banning of suction dredge mining, but did say that restrictions should be developed on a river-by-river basis, the idea being some areas are at far greater risk — especially those containing ESA species (like the Klamath’s salmon). If you equate any regulation with a “ban,” then you’ve probably already lost.
3) The concept that dredging is beneficial to the environment simply isn’t true in many cases — an assertion backed by several peer-reviewed studies. Mercury is an example; miners repeatedly point to a study that showed that 98% of the mercury from a hotspot was reclaimed by a suction dredge, using that study to bolster claims that suction dredge mining actually cleans the environment.
Yet proponents always fail to note the study also found that suction dredging emitted a highly volatile/transportable/toxic waste of “floured” mercury prone to methylation, which results in dangerously toxic substance.
Despite claims by miners, the report concluded that suction dredging was an untenable way to reclaim mercury in streams and rivers.
To prove I’m not cherry picking, here are the first three points from the study’s summary:
Note that the above was conducted by users targeting a known mercury hotspot; miners aren’t trying to recover mercury like the study parcipants, and lesser contaminated areas would be dredged with less focused care, and the cumulative effect of all that mercury disturbance — resulting in “floured” mercury becoming available in the water column — is likely significant.
Further, in prior local/statewide mercury reclamation programs — where suction dredge miners were the key target group for “don’t ask/don’t tell” mercury surrender programs — they almost never participated (most of the reclaimed mercury came from abandoned stockpiles, e.g. dentists, basements, etc). In fact, one study noted that miners contacted wanted to purchase mercury. Ouch.
So where is all this mercury reclaimed by miners? I’m afraid I know, and the news isn’t good.
So is mercury reclamation a “benefit” of suction dredge mining? Apparently not in most cases. Given those documented realities, how are we supposed to interpret claims by miners that they cleanse the environment of mercury?
Other claims are that miner-created tailing piles offer ideal spawning habitat, yet a Moyle-cited study suggests they’re too unstable to survive the high flows often associated with spring spawning species.
Claims that fish are hardly ever sucked through dredges are essentially strawmen; the problems are far more complex than direct damage, yet miners pretend they don’t exist.
For example, Moyle talks about coldwater refugia areas (often the mouths of streams) which harbor salmon when Klamath River water temperatures exceed 65 degrees. Yet when the Karuk approached the New 49ers mining group about voluntary restrictions in a small handful of refugia areas, they were blown off by a lawyer who told them refugia were fictional ideas invented to attack miners.
Way to go. The New 49ers just bought all of you a nice, shiny lawsuit.
In a similar vein, I’d support granular regulations on a more regional/local level (just like I supported refunds to miners who paid for permits prior to the ban), but after yet another trip through the wringer — where my family and I are personally threatened, I’d say that a sizable percentage of miners can dispense with the “commie pinko” conspiracy/victimization theories whereby they’re targeted for whatever reason.
Pretending there aren’t any issues with mining — and threatening those who disagree even on the finer points — leaves you without allies.
Enjoy the lawsuits, and remember that at least some of you asked for it.