Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
 

Miners forum discussing writer Dan Bacher and Karuk spokesman Craig Tucker in blaming mining
mid-October

Subject: Dan bacher- Fishsniffer files
To: -----------------------

Hi
 
Here is the first page of the sniffer; [my second post was on the second page which i had posted before going to sleep. i was a lil snoty in my second post; but nothing to be censored for...just tired of dan's BS>]
 I 'll attach my second post which google never had a chance to cashe so it doesn't look like some cover up when Dan insists their was racist and attacks on his firends - as to what other posts went on from 2-3 in morning til next morning at 9, I don't have, but the lonewolf and NuggetDigger at huntingforgold.com had seen what was on the second page before the entire thread was removed. Bacher had PM-ed both of them also. You can read his meassges to them here:
 
His PM's were lies; as if he didn't think we read the dang thing and would know what he was saying hadn't occurred by anyone- dah
 
3 files:
1) fishsniffers main forum page
2) zip file containing all of the images and icons etc for th forum page
3) my second posting which was not on the first page- butt the second unspidered page...
 
anyway see if you can use it anyway you would like too.

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.fishsniffer.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl?num=1192388187/13 as retrieved on Oct 17, 2007 17:21:21 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:US5KSpCsBiwJ:www.fishsniffer.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl%3Fnum%3D1192388187/13+fishsniffer+jas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted:  fishsniffer  jas 

Fish Sniffer ForumsFishing ReportsFish Sniffer ReportsFeaturesAngler's MarketplaceResources
 
 

 

 

ALL
BANNER
ADVERTISERS

 

 

Last 40 Stories Published

 

 
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
10/17/07 at 10:20am
News:
  
 Pages: 1
 
 Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging Bill (Read 169 times)
Daniel Bacher
 
YaBB Moderator





Posts: 272
 
Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging Bill
10/14/07 at 11:56am
 
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday vetoed AB 1032, the Suction Dredging bill supported by a broad coalition of fishing organizations and California Indian Tribes. This is the press release about the veto from California Trout, followed by the Governor's veto message:
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  October 13, 2007        
CONTACT:  Severn Williams, California Trout  
510-336-9566, C 415-336-9566
 
GOVERNOR PRIORITIZES GOLD MINING OVER ENDANGERED TROUT & SALMON; VETOES AB 1032
 
Sacramento, CA - It's been thirteen years since the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) updated its regulations regarding instream mining activities.  Since that time, multiple fish species, from the coho salmon to the Paiute cutthroat trout, have seen rapid declines and been placed on state and federal listings for threatened and endangered animals.  AB 1032 (Wolk), vetoed today by Governor Schwarzenegger, would have empowered DFG to take additional steps to protect these endangered fish against certain types of motorized gold mining activities in sensitive habitat.  The law would have applied only to mechanical suction dredging and would not have affected recreational gold panning activity.  
 
The endangered and threatened species that live in California's rivers and streams have faced increasing challenges over the years.  The ill-effects of irresponsible logging and mining activities, commercial dams and water diversion efforts, and polluted run-off from agriculture and other industries have all decreased the quality of the state's waterways.  AB 1032 focused specifically on the suction dredging used by gold miners for both recreational and commercial mining activities because it is one major factor known to disturb the sensitive habitat of vulnerable fish species.  
 
"Trout are the 'canary in the coal mine' of California's waterways," said Brian Stranko, Chief Executive Officer of California Trout, a major supporter of AB 1032.  "These fish are incredibly sensitive to environmental change.  By ignoring one major contributor to fish habitat degradation, the Governor has endangered the long-term health of all California wildlife."  
 
The genesis behind AB 1032 was a 2005 law suit brought against DFG by the Karuk Indian tribe over the need to protect sensitive waterways from the harmful environmental effects of suction dredging on fish habitat.  Although DFG agreed to complete an environmental assessment and revise its existing suction dredge mining regulations by July 1, 2008, funding gaps for the department have made it unable to begin this work, making it unlikely - if not impossible - for DFG to comply with the agreement by 2008.  AB 1032 would have provided stopgap measures to allow DFG to further regulate mechanical gold mining activity until January 1, 2011, with the hope that additional funding would be made available in the meantime to allow it to complete its environmental assessment.
 
"We are dismayed that the Governor caved into special interests and failed to stand up for the fish and the Karuk people. Currently recreational gold miners are having fun at the expense of our fishery and our culture. After years of fighting to protect salmon, steelhead and lamprey from suction dredging, we are back to square one," stated Karuk Vice Chair Leaf Hillman.  
 
California Trout and the Karuk Tribe of California were two of nearly thirty organizations that worked together in support of AB 1032.  
 
About California Trout
 
California Trout is dedicated to protecting and restoring wild trout and steelhead waters throughout California.  Founded in 1971, California Trout was the first statewide conservation group to focus on securing protections for California's unparalleled wild and native trout diversity.  Among its many current initiatives, California Trout is now leading the effort to save the official state fish, which is the California golden trout.  
 
###
 
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
 
I am returning Assembly Bill 1032 without my signature.
The purpose of this bill is to protect fish and wildlife from the potential deleterious
effects of suction dredge mining. Although I appreciate the author’s intent and the need
to protect our fish, wildlife, and water resources, this bill is unnecessary.
Current law gives the Department of Fish and Game (Department) the necessary
authority to protect fish and wildlife resources from suction dredge mining. It has
promulgated regulations and issues permits for this activity. Permits for suction dredge
mining must ensure that these operations are not deleterious to fish and allow the
Department to specify the type and size of equipment to be used. In its regulations, the
Department may also designate specific waters or areas that are closed to dredging.
It is unclear why this bill specifically targets a number of specific waterways for closure
or further restrictions. The listed waterways represent only a small fraction of the waters
in our State where suction dredging is occurring. The benefit or protection from such a
minor closure is negligible and supports the notion that scientific environmental review
should precede such decisions.
 
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Back to top
  IP Logged
Lonewolf
 
Big Kahuna
*****


lonewolfoutdoor.net
 
huntingforgold.net

Posts: 2455
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #1 - 10/14/07 at 4:51pm
 
Thank Dan & I got your PM,Thanks
 
As I stated in my reply to your PM I've done quite a bit opf research for studys on this subject and couldn't find much of anything to support the fishermen or Karuk Tribe & other supporters of the bill.
 
I was wondering if you had any actual studies or research you could lead me to in support?
 
Thanks
Paul
Lonewolf
Back to top
« Last Edit: 10/14/07 at 6:36pm by Daniel Bacher »  


Lonewolf/Whitefeather on the Rhonda E

       IP Logged

Daniel Bacher
 
YaBB Moderator
*****




Posts: 272
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #2 - 10/14/07 at 6:40pm
 
Here's some info. from Craig Tucker, a scientist who is spokesman for the Karuk Tribe:
 
Facts and Myths RE: AB 1032  
 
AB 1032 (Wolk) Native Trout and Salmon Protection  
 
Myth: Opponents have asserted there is a lack of evidence demonstrating  
harm to native fish from suction dredge mining.  
 
Fact: Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies contradict the opponents'  
assertions that motorized suction dredging does not cause harm to fish or  
water quality. These studies have found that suction dredge mining can  
degrade fish habitat and water quality, and harm native species. A list and  
summary of a few of these studies is attached. One study found that suction  
dredging can adversely affect Chinook salmon by destabilizing spawning  
areas. Other studies warn of adverse affects to habitat of native trout and  
amphibian species, such as the yellow-legged frog.  
 
Declarations submitted by DFG's chief fisheries biologist in the Karuk  
lawsuit acknowledged that DFG's existing suction dredge regulations are  
inadequate and that harm is occurring to listed species including Coho  
salmon. The declaration cites numerous scientific peer-reviewed studies on  
the effects of suction dredging that have been issued since the existing  
regulations were last updated in 1994.  
 
According to respected fishery biologist Dr. Peter Moyle of the University  
of California at Davis, "suction dreding should be banned in tributaries of  
the Klamath River, 500 meters above and below cool-water refuge areas  
(stream mouths) on the mainstream of the Klamath River, the Klamath River  
from the Trinity River confluence to Green Riffle, Canyon Creek and all  
other Scott River tributaries, and the Salmon River including the north and  
south forks and all tributaries." Dr. Moyle explains that "Suction dredging  
represents a chronic unnatural disturbance of natural habitats that are  
already likely to be stressed by other factors and can therefore have a  
negative impact on fishes that use the reach being dredged.All anadromous  
fishes in the Klamath basin should be considered to be in decline and  
ultimately threatened with extirpation.Section dredging through a  
combination of disturbance of resident fish, alteration of substrates, and  
indirect effects on heavy human use of small areas, especially thermal  
refugia (side creeks), will further contribute to the decline of the  
fishes."  
 
Myth: Opponents claim that state environmental restrictions on suction  
dredge gold mining deny miners' private property rights to dredge for gold,  
and point to the 1872 federal mining law as authority.  
 
Fact: Miners do not have an unfettered right under the General Mining Act  
to engage in activities that are harmful to protected native species, in  
derogation of state and federal environmental laws. Moreover, the State of  
California acquired sovereign ownership of the beds of navigable rivers upon  
its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for  
the benefit of all the people of California for statewide Public Trust  
purposes, including fisheries and habitat preservation. No one has an  
unalterable right to suck up streambeds in search of gold if such activities  
cause harm to public trust resources. The State and federal governments  
have also taken other actions to regulate mining activities that are harmful  
to public resources, including banning hydraulic mining that was destroying  
California's farmlands and silting up rivers. Mining claims do not exempt  
miners from the Fish and Game Code, endangered species laws, or the Clean  
Water Act. Finally, AB 1032 does not regulate all types of mining, only one  
method - motorized instream suction dredging. The bill specifically  
provides that it does not apply to nonmotorized activities, such as panning  
for gold, or to dredging for navigation or flood control purposes.  
 
Myth: Opponents of this bill have argued that it will have a negative  
economic impact on some counties that receive some limited revenue from  
suction dredge gold miners.  
 
Fact: The economic harm alleged by mining advocates has been greatly  
exaggerated since the bill was considerably narrowed. More to the point, it  
is undeniable that the decline in the population and health of our once  
abundant salmon fisheries has had a devastating impact on local economies,  
on the livelihoods of commercial salmon fishing families, and on Native  
American tribes that rely on these resources for subsistence fishing. DFG  
issues approximately 3,000 suction dredge permits per year, compared to over  
1 million sport fishing licenses and stamps. The combined economic  
contributions of sport and commercial fishing to the state and local  
communities far exceeds the economic contribution of suction dredge mining,  
which is why Humboldt County supports this bill.  
 
Myth: Motorized instream suction dredge mining benefits the environment by  
helping to clean-up mercury left in streams from the Gold Rush era.  
 
Fact: A 2003 study conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board  
found that motorized suction dredging exacerbates, and does not alleviate,  
mercury contamination of rivers and streams. The water board found that  
instream mining is an unacceptable means of recovering mercury lost to the  
environment from gold mining because the dredges release too much mercury  
back into the environment. Mercury concentrations in the sediment released  
by the dredges were more than ten times higher than that needed to classify  
it as a hazardous waste. Dredging actually makes the mercury contamination  
worse because it atomizes the mercury, releasing floured mercury back into  
the environment where it is then carried and distributed more broadly  
downstream. This process also contributes to methylation of mercury which  
bioaccumulates in fish making it toxic for human consumption.  
 
S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D.  
Klamath Campaign Coordinator  
Karuk Tribe of California  
office: 530-627-3446 x3027  
cell: 916-207-8294  
ctucker [at] karuk.us  
 
http://www.karuk.us/
Back to top
  IP Logged
Lonewolf
 
Big Kahuna
*****


lonewolfoutdoor.net
 
huntingforgold.net

Posts: 2455
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #3 - 10/14/07 at 7:36pm
 
Thanks Dan,
It looks a lil prejusted to me,but for fairness to all I'll reserve my opionan till I have time to look into this study more.Which unfortunally well be another day do to my getting older & the things the doc gives you Wink GrinI think I know what Jefferson Airplane were talking about w/a pill fer this & pill fer that Wink Grin
I look forward to discussing this further.
Thanks
Paul
Back to top


Lonewolf/Whitefeather on the Rhonda E
jas
 
Rookie
*


Check Your Sources!

Posts: 1
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #4 - Today at 3:48am
 
hiya Dan,
 
I am wondering if you formed your own opinions from the opinion of the karuk opinion?  
The fact myth response you posted is not actual studies or research as requested, it is simply a quite biased 'opinion' only.
Do you know of, or have, 'actual studies or research' of scientific evaluation that small scale dredging has a significant delterious impact on salmon?
 
jas
Back to top  
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member
****




Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #5 - Today at 7:17am
 
most of you probably dont know who i am, but i was a moderator here for a long time, and now have my own website ( a gold prospecting/dredging website)
 
Actually, there are no reliable studies proving that gold dredging has a negative effect on our states fisheries whatsoever.
 
oh, i take that back, there is a report that states that it DOES have an effect, but the effects so neglegable that it is actually IRMESSURABLE.. the absolute only reason that this bill was introduced was to circumvent the already court ordered enviromental impact study,and now that the bill has been vetoed, that has been publically stated. fact is its got nothing to do with any sort of negative impact on this states fisheries, it has to do with the fact that the karuk indians feel that because that area up there was home to there ancestors that they own everything. The reason that the karuk and the dfg were so up to circumvent the court's order is not to protect the fisheries in the klamath and surounding waterways, but to cover up and circumvent the impending enviromental impact study...why you might ask?...because an in depth enviromental impact report would show once and for all and forever that they ( they being the DFG and the karuk tribe) were WRONG. Because the original karuk court case had such a public interest that a study showing that dredging has a neglegable effect on this states fisheries would esentually change our dredging regulations extensively. the judge ordered that report for a reson. they presented alot of evidence in the court case, but very little of it was verifiable. they made alot of statments without the evidence to back them up. if the study is completed, it will show forever that the DFG has misregulated gold dredging for years and years.
 
you know what we found funny is that whist all of this was going on about how bad dredging was , there was a large story that was written and published in the redding paper whilst this was all going on that was good reading. funny thing is that the DFG and karuks attempted to SUPRESS this story from being published. heres the story and link to it:
 
Close to 130,000 tons of gravel will be sifted along the Trinity River over the next three years to find the right-sized rock for salmon and steelhead rearing habitat.
 
"It's quite a lot of material," said Ed Solbos, engineering branch chief for the Trinity River Restoration Program.
 
Workers are looking for rocks between 3/8 of an inch and 4 inches in diameter, and hope to end up with 60,000 tons of it, he said. The rock will be spread back along the riverbank, making a new, lower flood plain that will give young salmon places to rest during their big swim to the ocean.
 
In places, the flood plain will be lowered 7 feet, Solbos said.
 
The project, which looks like an active gravel quarry and started Aug. 1, is visible to motorists on Highway 299 at Douglas City, he said. Workers are using front-end loaders, excavators and other heavy machinery to move the rocks.
 
The cost of the project is $1.9 million, with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation covering $1.2 million, state Department of Fish and Game paying $500,000 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adding $200,000.
 
The work is part of an ongoing effort by the restoration program, which is overseen by the U.S. Department of the Interior, to revive the river's salmon and steelhead fisheries.
 
Dredge mining and then damming of the river in the mid-1900s changed the flow of the river, making it more of a channel, said Doug Schleusner, program executive director.
 
Some of the tailings left by the mining is "fish gravel," or the optimum-size rock for rearing and will be used in the project. Silt pulled from the gravel will be piled up and washed downstream during high winter flows.
 
Adding rock to the river's banks is meant to restore the waterway's natural, historic flood plains.
 
"We kind of take the handcuffs off the river," Schleusner said.
 
the link
http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/08/fishing-for-rocks/
 
one thing we found fairly catch 22 is the statment
"Some of the tailings left by the mining is "fish gravel," or the optimum-size rock for rearing and will be used in the project. Silt pulled from the gravel will be piled up and washed downstream during high winter flows."
 
but yet there whole thing was based on the fact that they say that gold dredging screws up the river, making it dangerous for the salmon fry, but on the same note the states collecting gravels from gold dredging to use as there optimum for fish spawning?>.......doesnt make a whole lot of sense
 
 
anyway, if you guys and gals want to do some more reading,or your interested in gold prospecting, you can come visit us at http://www.huntingforgold.net/
 
Back to top
 
« Last Edit: Today at 9:11am by Daniel Bacher »  


Admin www.huntingforgold.net
View Profile   IP Logged
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member
****




Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #6 - Today at 7:22am
 
heres why the salmons on the decline, and it has nothing to do with dredging
 
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA254.html

 #254            
 July 1999
 
Nature, Not Man, is Responsible for West Coast Salmon Decline
 
by John Carlisle
 
On March 16 1999, the U.S. Commerce Department's National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS) added nine populations of West Coast salmon to the endangered species list, bringing the total number of federally-protected salmon subspecies to 24. The recent designations are especially significant because for the first time federal protection has been extended to salmon inhabiting streams located in a heavily-populated area of the Pacific Northwest, namely Seattle. Seattle now has the dubious distinction of being the first large city to come under the strict regulatory scrutiny of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
 
Listing these salmon as endangered is certain to inflict significant harm on the region's economy, causing billions of dollars in losses for a broad range of industries including those involved with timber, housing, recreation and agriculture, among others. Additionally, the listings will force federal, state and local governments to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a multitude of salmon-restoration programs that will require increases in taxes for such basic services as water and sewer. Individuals will also feel the pinch in the form of intrusive regulations governing routine water use, lawn care, car washing and any other activity that can conceivably create water runoff problems for fish.
 
The NMFS insists that these huge regulatory burdens are necessary. Federal officials and environmentalists claim that a precipitous decline in the population of West Coast salmon that has been occurring since the mid-1970s is attributable to human activities such as over-harvesting, habitat destruction for development projects, hatchery and dam operations, and land-use and water project development that degrade stream conditions vital to salmon survival.
 
But the premise that human actions are responsible for the decline of salmon, thus justifying sweeping regulations against development, is erroneous. The NMFS's ESA listing ignores a rapidly accumulating body of scientific evidence showing that changes in the natural climatic conditions of the Pacific Northwest are largely responsible for the low numbers of salmon. Specifically, a naturally-occurring increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coast has caused a sharp decline in salmon by destroying most of the salmon's food supply and increasing the number of fish that prey on salmon.
 
It is these ocean conditions, not man, that play the preeminent role in causing fluctuations in salmon population levels. The federal response of placing more salmon under ESA protection and imposing additional regulatory burdens on businesses and property owners in the region will do nothing to counter the adverse natural forces that harm salmon but will needlessly hurt the economy. Most importantly, the oceanic phenomenon that has been so detrimental to salmon survival operates on a 20-to-30 year cycle, and there is evidence that the ocean cycle is entering a phase that will stimulate a major rebound in the salmon population, making cumbersome government mandates unnecessary.
 
Salmon Have Declined Despite Conservation Efforts and a Better Environment
 
The number of salmon entering the Columbia River has fallen dramatically from a high of 2.03 million in 1970 to a low of 673,000 in 1995.1 By the mid-1990s, the salmon population had dropped by at least 70%. Naturally, this decline is an issue of grave concern to fishermen and government leaders given the great importance of salmon to the Pacific Northwest economy. Because the salmon catch had been at record high levels prior to the sudden decline, it was assumed that the only explanation for this sudden precipitous decline in the salmon population had to be due to human activities. Fish biologists and environmental activists argued that a combination of overfishing, land development near streams and rivers, dam operations and other human factors combined to deprive salmon of the natural habitat necessary for them to swim and procreate without hindrance.
 
The Pacific Northwest's rivers and streams are important to the ecological cycle of the salmon because it is where adult salmon migrate to lay their eggs. After hatching, the young salmon make their way to the ocean where they spend one to three years before returning to the rivers to procreate, or spawn, thus beginning the cycle again.
 
Since 1978, at least $3 billion has been spent to increase, or at least maintain, the West Coast salmon population.2 Fishery managers have mainly used this money to operate hatcheries that breed salmon, monitor harvest levels and restore salmon habitat. A broad range of other policies has been implemented to enhance salmon survivability rates.
 
Because salmon lay their eggs in shallow, cool pools that are often found along the banks of streams, forestry practices have changed in recent years to protect salmon from harm. For example, buffer zones - areas directly adjacent to stream banks where activities that might disturb breeding pools or other vital habitat are prohibited - are now required. Buffers mandate that no construction or other development take place within a specified distance from a stream bank to prevent harm to breeding pools or other vital habitat.
 
Other land-use laws have also been implemented to severely restrict development near rivers and wetlands. This is the reason why there have been no new dams built in Washington in the past 35 years. Dams can block the migration routes of salmon and dam turbines can pose serious hazards to salmon survivability. As a result, existing dams now have fish ladders that allow salmon to swim past the dam as well as fish-friendly turbines that prevent salmon from being harmed.
 
Citizen groups have also organized to clean many streams while agricultural land-use practices and wastewater treatment have steadily improved over the last 25 years.3 Together these efforts have helped Pacific Northwest streams become significantly cleaner than they were in the 1970s and thus more ecologically amenable to salmon. A federally-funded 1991 study by the Battelle Marine Science's Laboratory, for example, concluded that Puget Sound - home of the Puget Sound chinook salmon that was recently listed by the NMFS - is the cleanest it has been since before World War II.4 Nevertheless, the salmon has not rebounded.
 
Despite billions of dollars in expenditures, widespread implementation of policies to aid the salmon and a cleaner environment, the salmon population continues to decline. The NMFS and environmental activists insist that more stringent regulation, more restrictions on development and additional spending is needed. But if the previous efforts could not halt the salmon decline, it is doubtful that doing more of the same will yield better results.
 
Warmer Ocean Temperatures Have Been Killing the Salmon
 
Until recently, fish biologists assumed that only changes in the freshwater habitat of salmon could explain the variability in the salmon population. Scientists were thus quick to conclude that human modification of this habitat was the reason for the salmon population decline. Implicit in this assumption was the rejection of the possibility that other factors - such as natural oceanic cycles - played a significant role in salmon survivability. It was assumed that the ocean was simply a stable, benign force that could be discounted in assessing the fortunes of salmon populations.
 
This turned out to be incorrect.
 
The marked decline in the salmon catch beginning in the mid-1970s corresponded to an increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. This warming has had a most detrimental impact on salmon survival rates.
 
When the water warms, nutrients needed for the production of phytoplankton (algae) - including phosphorous, nitrogen and silicon - drop. When phytoplankton production decreases, tiny invertebrate organisms called zooplankton which feed on the phytoplankton also decreases. Since 1976, zooplankton levels have declined by an estimated 70% due to ocean warming. Because salmon feed on zooplankton, they have suffered accordingly.5
 
Dr. Victor Kaczynski, a fish biologist and consultant on fishing issues in the Pacific Northwest, says that "per classical ecological theory, a 70% decline in zooplankton biomass results in a 70% reduction in predators dependent on zooplankton directly and in their food chain (such as coho salmon) while an 80% reduction would result in a food supply that could only support 20% of the prior predator biomass (such as coho salmon)." With a reduction in zooplankton levels by more than 70% in the past two decades, West Coast salmon have declined by at least 70% as well.6
 
In addition, the salmon numbers are further reduced because the warmer water attracts predators such as mackerel and Pacific hake. These fish doubly threaten the salmon by consuming the reduced zooplankton food supply and by eating the salmon themselves.
 
Salmon are not the only marine animals affected by warm water conditions, however. The populations of the California Murre seabird and the Washington Murre have fallen by 50% and 80%, respectively, since the 1970s. Oysters, Oregon pink shrimp, sole and other fish have experienced dramatic declines similar to the salmon.7
 
An examination of the survival rates of young salmon, or smolts, further illustrates how the unfavorable ocean conditions can have a negative effect on salmon. For the coho salmon population (a federally-protected salmon group) to remain stable, the minimum marine survival rate required is an estimated 2.7%. The survival rate is the percentage of salmon that make it to adulthood.
 
Dr. Kaczynski notes that this ocean survival rate directly corresponds with the salmon population levels. For example, between 1965 and 1975, the coho salmon survival rate was 6.7%. This was significantly above the minimum 2.7%, which explains why the salmon catch reached record levels in that period. After 1975, the coho salmon survival rate started falling. Between 1991 and 1997, the coho's survival rate was a mere 1.2%, nowhere near the level to maintain a stable population. Dr. Kaczynski concludes that "coho marine survival was so poor in 1976, 1983-84, 1986, 1989, 1991-1997 that coastal coho salmon populations would have declined naturally even if there were no salmon fishing seasons."8
 
In another indication of the negative impact of the warmer ocean conditions, body sizes of surviving salmon have fallen from an average of 8.2 pounds recorded between 1970 and 1975, to only 6.2 pounds today. The reduction in body size means that females lay fewer eggs in the freshwater spawning areas, further reducing the population.
 
Another climatic event that affected the salmon population was the West Coast drought extending from the mid-1970s to 1993. The years 1987 to 1992 were the second driest in recorded California history. This is significant because when stream levels are lower, salmon survivability is reduced.
 
Rapid growth of the salmon population following the drought offers evidence of the drought's adverse effects. Two years after the drought ended in California in 1993, chinook salmon returned in remarkable numbers in several of the state's rivers. For example, the natural salmon population in the Klamath River is 97,000 adults. But by 1995, the population had soared to 200,000 - levels not seen since the 1960s.
 
Dr. Kaczynski concludes that the, "triple negative" of "adverse inland freshwater survival, estuary survival, and ocean survival... since 1976" explain the dramatic decline in the salmon population and man's unsuccessful efforts to reverse the trend 9
 
20-to-30-Year Cycle Controls Ocean Temperatures and Salmon Populations
 
Historical records provide powerful evidence that the 23-year decline in salmon is natural and not the result of human activity. Salmon populations oscillate every 20-30 years and correlate precisely with rises and drops in ocean temperatures. Furthermore, the same cyclical changes in the ocean's temperature that reduce West Coast salmon populations significantly increase the population of Alaskan salmon. In fact, the Alaskan salmon catch has been at record levels since about 1976.10
 
This inverse correlation between West Coast salmon and Alaskan salmon is hardly new. It has existed for at least as long as fishing records have been kept. For example, in 1915, the Pacific Fisherman magazine reported that the Alaskan salmon catch was so low that "salmon packers returned to port" early. Yet, the publication also recorded that "The spring (chinook salmon) fishing season on the Columbia River (Washington and Oregon)... proved to be one of the best for some years." Twenty-four years later, however, the situation was reversed. The 1939 Alaskan salmon catch "was regarded as the greatest in history" while the Pacific Northwest salmon catch was "one of the lowest in the history of the Columbia." Then, just as dramatically, the situation again reversed. National Fisherman magazine reported that the 1972 Alaskan salmon catch was a "disaster" while the Columbia River salmon catch was the largest "since counting began in 1938."11
 
The current cycle benefits Alaska. While Alaska was experiencing its biggest salmon catch ever in 1994, the salmon numbers in the Pacific Northwest were so low that the Columbia spring chinook fishery had to be shut down and west coast troll fishing banned. So productive has the Alaskan salmon fishery been in recent years that during some years, millions of salmon were not even harvested because there was no market for the fish.12
 
Not surprisingly, politicians have been debating the periodic plight of Pacific Northwest salmon for at least 100 years. In his 1899 State of the State speech, Washington Governor John Rogers said, "The salmon fisheries of the state have, in the past, been wonderfully productive. Of late, however, evidence of a decrease in the run is apparent, and all are agreed that something ought to be done to prevent the final extinction of a great industry."13
 
The cyclical warming and cooling of the Northeast Pacific Ocean that governs salmon levels is the result of a phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO is an atmospheric event that occurs every 20 to 30 years in which the wind circulation patterns in the Northeast Pacific Ocean shift, thereby changing ocean temperatures and the climate in Northwest North America. The oscillations are precipitated by the Aleutian Low, a quasi-permanent atmospheric pressure cell that covers much of the North Pacific from late fall to sprin
Back to top



Admin www.huntingforgold.net
 
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member
****




Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #7 - Today at 7:36am
 
one more thing that i find sort of hilarious is that as soon as this bill came up, alot of "fishing guides" jumped on the band wagon talking about how bad that dredgers were screwing up the waterways and fishing. i fish 5-6 days a week,and guide quite often. i am also an avid gold prospector ( you find alot of great places to dredge when your fishing). i know that one of the gudes inpeticular who brought the issue up in a newspaper article i have had contact with in the past. funny thing is his motivation was completely off from what he said. i have personally been dredging in one location when he was drifting down the river with a couple of his "clients". he was preturbed as he had to wait to get by long enough for me to hold one of my tieoff ropes down so he could float over it. we as gold prospectors have just as much right to do what we do as he does in taking people fishing.
Back to top



Admin www.huntingforgold.net
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member
****




Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #8 - Today at 7:50am
 
Quote from Daniel Bacher on 10/14/07 at 6:40pm:
 
Here's some info. from Craig Tucker, a scientist who is spokesman for the Karuk Tribe:

Facts and Myths RE: AB 1032

AB 1032 (Wolk) Native Trout and Salmon Protection

Myth: Opponents have asserted there is a lack of evidence demonstrating
harm to native fish from suction dredge mining.

Fact: Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies contradict the opponents'
assertions that motorized suction dredging does not cause harm to fish or
water quality. These studies have found that suction dredge mining can
degrade fish habitat and water quality, and harm native species. A list and
summary of a few of these studies is attached. One study found that suction
dredging can adversely affect Chinook salmon by destabilizing spawning
areas. Other studies warn of adverse affects to habitat of native trout and
amphibian species, such as the yellow-legged frog.

Declarations submitted by DFG's chief fisheries biologist in the Karuk
lawsuit acknowledged that DFG's existing suction dredge regulations are
inadequate and that harm is occurring to listed species including Coho
salmon. The declaration cites numerous scientific peer-reviewed studies on
the effects of suction dredging that have been issued since the existing
regulations were last updated in 1994.

According to respected fishery biologist Dr. Peter Moyle of the University
of California at Davis, "suction dreding should be banned in tributaries of
the Klamath River, 500 meters above and below cool-water refuge areas
(stream mouths) on the mainstream of the Klamath River, the Klamath River
from the Trinity River confluence to Green Riffle, Canyon Creek and all
other Scott River tributaries, and the Salmon River including the north and
south forks and all tributaries." Dr. Moyle explains that "Suction dredging
represents a chronic unnatural disturbance of natural habitats that are
already likely to be stressed by other factors and can therefore have a
negative impact on fishes that use the reach being dredged.All anadromous
fishes in the Klamath basin should be considered to be in decline and
ultimately threatened with extirpation.Section dredging through a
combination of disturbance of resident fish, alteration of substrates, and
indirect effects on heavy human use of small areas, especially thermal
refugia (side creeks), will further contribute to the decline of the
fishes."

Myth: Opponents claim that state environmental restrictions on suction
dredge gold mining deny miners' private property rights to dredge for gold,
and point to the 1872 federal mining law as authority.

Fact: Miners do not have an unfettered right under the General Mining Act
to engage in activities that are harmful to protected native species, in
derogation of state and federal environmental laws. Moreover, the State of
California acquired sovereign ownership of the beds of navigable rivers upon
its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for
the benefit of all the people of California for statewide Public Trust
purposes, including fisheries and habitat preservation. No one has an
unalterable right to suck up streambeds in search of gold if such activities
cause harm to public trust resources. The State and federal governments
have also taken other actions to regulate mining activities that are harmful
to public resources, including banning hydraulic mining that was destroying
California's farmlands and silting up rivers. Mining claims do not exempt
miners from the Fish and Game Code, endangered species laws, or the Clean
Water Act. Finally, AB 1032 does not regulate all types of mining, only one
method - motorized instream suction dredging. The bill specifically
provides that it does not apply to nonmotorized activities, such as panning
for gold, or to dredging for navigation or flood control purposes.

Myth: Opponents of this bill have argued that it will have a negative
economic impact on some counties that receive some limited revenue from
suction dredge gold miners.

Fact: The economic harm alleged by mining advocates has been greatly
exaggerated since the bill was considerably narrowed. More to the point, it
is undeniable that the decline in the population and health of our once
abundant salmon fisheries has had a devastating impact on local economies,
on the livelihoods of commercial salmon fishing families, and on Native
American tribes that rely on these resources for subsistence fishing. DFG
issues approximately 3,000 suction dredge permits per year, compared to over
1 million sport fishing licenses and stamps. The combined economic
contributions of sport and commercial fishing to the state and local
communities far exceeds the economic contribution of suction dredge mining,
which is why Humboldt County supports this bill.

Myth: Motorized instream suction dredge mining benefits the environment by
helping to clean-up mercury left in streams from the Gold Rush era.

Fact: A 2003 study conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board
found that motorized suction dredging exacerbates, and does not alleviate,
mercury contamination of rivers and streams. The water board found that
instream mining is an unacceptable means of recovering mercury lost to the
environment from gold mining because the dredges release too much mercury
back into the environment. Mercury concentrations in the sediment released
by the dredges were more than ten times higher than that needed to classify
it as a hazardous waste. Dredging actually makes the mercury contamination
worse because it atomizes the mercury, releasing floured mercury back into
the environment where it is then carried and distributed more broadly
downstream. This process also contributes to methylation of mercury which
bioaccumulates in fish making it toxic for human consumption.

S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D.
Klamath Campaign Coordinator
Karuk Tribe of California
office: 530-627-3446 x3027
cell: 916-207-8294
ctucker [at] karuk.us

http://www.karuk.us/


 
funny thing about this statment by the karuks is that 90% of it is bogus and/or trumped up. why do you think it is that the courts ordered an envirometal impact study to lay this all to bed once and for all?.. because 99% of the karuks case was either dismissed as bullsh*t or totally lies..i especially like the part about the mercury. there have been thousands of studies that have stated that free mercury has absolutely no effect on fisheries or people. if mercurys such an issue, why dont they go and do a bit of investigating around oroville california?....that area has had thousands of pounds of mercury in the ground and waterways since the 1800s. i can show you places where theres so much mercury its pooled in places ( ive personally collected pounds and pounds of it myself). orovilles main water supply drains right over the top of it. that same waters draining right into orovilles drinking water, draining right into the lake, the forebay and afterbay,and right into the feather river...you dont hear or see anything from anyone about how "unsafe" it is. people arent dropping dead right and left, and orovile is one of the states premere fisheries,including the lake and river where thousands of people come each and every year to fish for salmon and steelhead. you dont see any signs posted about how dangerous it is to eat the fish do you?.....the greenies have stateed for years that it takes only a drop or two of mercury to completely taint a waterway the size of lake oroville.  what a crock. mercury is a naturally occuring element and its everywere. another thing i like is the statment about the mercury and fish making them poisonous for human consumption. must  be just a karuk thing as i have relative and know people who live right on clear lake ( one of those mercury lakes) that eat fish out of them 4-5 times a week, and havent died or gotten sick, had there teeth and hair fall out,etc. the mercury in clear lake is from the old cinnabar mines in the area, and its not just in the lake up there, its everywere up there, even in peoples back yards.if you check it out, you can drink pure liquid mercury and have no ill effects whatsoever.
 
i think that theres alot of opinions on both sides

Back to top

Admin www.huntingforgold.net
IP Logged
drstressor
 
Big Kahuna
*****




Posts: 9077
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #9 - Today at 8:10am
 
Your mind is a dangerous thing Catbuster. Shocked
Back to top  
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member
****




Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #10 - Today at 8:10am
 
oh, and one more one more thing
 
if the karuk tribes want to improve the fisheries up there, they need to do a few things that dont include trying to circumvent a court order.. one of which is get in DFG's ass and make them have game wardens patrol the areas more often. hundreds of thousands of fish are illegally taken each (INCLUDING salmon and steelhead ) and every year, mostly by viet namese who dont know the laws or flat out ignore them. as an example, here locally just a month or so ago a crew of 12 viet namese were busted fishing illegally with goldfish for crappie. they were catching there 25 fish limits, and then taking the buckets full of fish back up to there van and dumping them in 50 gallon drums. they were caught with something like 2500 illegally caught crappie. i know that the indians in that area have taken fish illegally themselves, and allowed there friends to also do so.
 
the justification for not completeing the study and trying to circumvent it is money,so dfg says. well, if they can spend almost 2 million bucks hauling out dredge tailings to use to IMPROVE salmon spawning habitats, im sure they can muster the monies somewere. the reason that they dont want the report ddone is because it will show that dfg has completely mismanaged dredging regulations for years, and it will force them to open up millions of acres of this states waterways to mineral exploration and dredging year round.
Back to top  
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member



Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #11 - Today at 8:16am
 
Quote from drstressor on Today at 8:10am:
 
Your mind is a dangerous thing Catbuster. Shocked


probably so, but fact is i probably know more about this one single suject than alot of the xperts. ive been dredging 30+ years, own several large placer mining claims,etc and have been involved with this sort of stuff now on a daily basis for about 10 years. ive dredged in areas that were almost completely void of fish, and came back to the same holes in the summertime to find fish and fry in areas that were virtually devoid of them just a year before. dredging creates places for these fish to drop in and weather out those hot summer days. it creates habitat in areas that would any other time be completely devoid of fish and water. ive had trout line up on the edges of my dredge holes whilst dredging and had them dart in and out of the dredge hole and eat the helgramites and bugs i kicked up,just to go back and take there position on the edge of the hole and wait for another. shoot, one summer the darn fish acted like they couldnt eat unless i was working. there wouldnt be a fish around in site, and the second i started my dredge, they would come from all over and hang out eating what came out of the hole and the tailings.....ive had as many as 25 at one time surounding the hole, and ive watched these fish grow from fry to adult.....
 
oh, and i was going to mention and comment on the 'soft" gravel thing that they talked about,refering to dredge tailings. anyone whos dredged will tell you that yes, when the gravel is first deposited it may be soft (i.e. not compacted" but within a week or two max that gravel is so tight from the actions of the waves and water moving thigs about you darn near have to pry it apart with a bar to move it.
 
see, its like this. alot of these people are just repeating what they have heard and have no real solid data to back up there claims ( the karuks) and try to make issues based on that. thats the main reason that this impact studys there bain. when it proves there wrong its going to give them and DFG a hugh blaCK EYE THAT WONT GO AWAY
Back to top
« Last Edit: Today at 8:27am by CatBuster »    IP Logged
drstressor
 
Big Kahuna
*****




Posts: 9077
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #12 - Today at 8:29am
 
I don't know that much about the effects of recreational gold mine dredging.  But I do know this:  There is never a single cause for the decline and loss of a fishery.  Human disturbances superimposed on natural population cycles increase the probability of extinction.  It's the cumulative effects of habitat loss, pollution, and loss of genetic diversity from hatchery operations during the low points in natural population cycles that cause the salmon to disappear.
 
And trust me. Mercury is not good for you. You may have already been exposed to too much of the stuff.  Since it's a neurotoxin, you'd be the last one to notice. Wink Grin
Back to top  
CatBuster
 
Platinum Member





Posts: 395
 
Re: Governor Vetoes AB 1032, the Suction Dredging
Reply #13 - Today at 8:37am
 
Quote from drstressor on Today at 8:29am:
 

And trust me. Mercury is not good for you. You may have already been exposed to too much of the stuff.  Since it's a neurotoxin, you'd be the last one to notice. Wink Grin

 
 
oh, i know its not good for you, dont get me wrong, my point is that its effects are HIGHLY exagerrated. if mercury is heated, it evaporates (at a fairly low tempature) and creates cyanide gas. also, the oxidation from mercury is poisonous,BUT mercury in its solid form doesnt propose as big of a health threat as alot of the greenies would like to lead the public to believe. i know this as i studied it extensively ( due to the previous mentioned mercuy quantities) when i lived in oroville ( for 16 years) and was presented with countless studies DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA that showed that while it is a problem, its not that big of a problem. if it was they would have to conduct a major cleanup and evacuation of 90% OF THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY.....people should be more concerned about the levels of arsnic and the accumulation of pesticyde poisons in there fish than mercury...lol
 
ive got about 80lbs of mercury i collected from that place just outside oroville there sitting in my garage right now.......its sold in most of the prospecting shops around the atate, and you can buy it in mass quantities right online. heck, ive sold pounds of it right on ebay.
===============================================================

according to this danny boy (fish sniffer again) and cal trout they say/think/ that DFG won't have the funds; and arnold is a baaaaaaaaad boy.

what's funny is danny is asked what data he has for his opinion and he quotes the karuks myths.

http://www.fishsniffer.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl?num=1192388187
***********************************************************
NOTE: sorry the link above no longer works, the author, dan bacher, of the thread removed it.

Several of us tried to post references and facts, at his Fishsniffer website forum, disputing his incorrect reporting of suction mining being determental to salmon as having shown "conclusively' in the karuk lawsuit: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inurl%3Aindybay+mining_barrels+bacher&btnG=Search

Not only did he remove all mentions of any kind about the karuk in our responses, but he then removed the entire thread that he himself had began, and all of the references and actual facts and depositions disputing his allegations.

Mr. Bacher stated that the mere mention of the word karuk as "a group" was rascist, that it wasn't a board for miners, and we were 'attacking' his friends.

Poof the truths were gone from the website. (Although I managed to save at least the first page from google cache which shows zero racsium or attacks - simply facts and dialouge)

Some articles Dan bacher offers can be found at the People's Weekly World, a Communism for America website. http://www.pww.org/index.php/article/author/view/593

Home Contact

 

              Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM  Pacific


             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2007, All Rights Reserved