americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org
mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

U.S.F.S.
Page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Hefty



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 132
Location: sacramento ca

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:19 pm    Post subject: U.S.F.S.  Reply with quote

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth District has upheld in its entirety the 1872 Mining Laws. In the case of USA vs. Shumway, opinion filed 12/28/1999, regarding mining claims and mill site claims, Judge Kleinfeld has ruled that the mining law is still in effect.

He states in section 14938 "...the Forest Service may regulate use of National Forest lands by holders of unpatented mining claims... but only to the extent that the regulations are 'reasonable' and do not impermissibly encroach on legitimate use incident to mining and mill site claims. Congress has refused to repeal the Mining Law of 1872. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES LACK AUTHORITY EFFECTIVELY TO REPEAL THE STATUTE BY REGULATIONS."

Other highlights of this ruling state: Sec 14923: "Despite much contemporary hostility to the Mining Law of 1872 and high level political pressure by influential individuals and organizations for its repeal, all repeal efforts have failed, and it remains the law."

"The locators of all mining locations...so long as they comply with the laws...shall have the EXCLUSIVE right of possession and enjoyment of ALL surface located within the lines of their location..."

Sec 14925: "In law, the word 'claim' in connection with the phrase "mining claim" represents a federally recognized right in real property. The Supreme Court has established that a mining 'claim' is not a claim in the ordinary sense of the word, but rather is a property interest, which is itself real property in every sense..." "The court held that the unpatented 'title of a locator' is "property in the fullest sense of the word."

Sec 14927: "When the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of PRESENT AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION. The claim is property in the fullest sense of the term."

In ruling on the 1955 Multiple Use Act:

Sec 14927 and 14928: "Mining claims located after the effective date of the 1955 Act are subject...to a right of the United States to manage surface resources for the government and whomever it permits to do so to use the surface, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT ENDANGER OR MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH PROSPECTING, MINING, OR PROCESSING."

Sec 14936: "The Multiple Use Act empowers the Forest Service to regulate NON-MINING activity upon mining claims, so long as the non-mining activity DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH MINING ACTIVITIES..."

Sec 14928 and 14929: "...an unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory interest and that FEDERAL MINING CLAIMS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH ENJOY THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT."

Sec 14931: The owner of a mining claim owns property, and IS NOT A MERE SOCIAL GUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR..."

To reiterate:

Sec 14938 and 14939: "...the Forest Service may regulate use of National Forest Lands by holders of unpatented mining claims, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE "REASONABLE" AND DO NOT IMPERMISSIBLY ENCROACH ON LEGITIMATE USES INCIDENT TO MINING AND MILL SITE CLAIMS. CONGRESS HAS REFUSED TO REPEAL THE MINING LAW OF 1872. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES LACK AUTHORITY EFFECTIVELY TO REPEAL THE STATUTE BY REGULATIONS."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hefty



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 132
Location: sacramento ca

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I offer the following discussion of the laws that created the National Forests and their relationship to the mineral estate grant to assist you in understanding your right to mine the public lands designated as National Forest. Education is the greatest weapon you have against government employees who overstep their lawful authority. If you remember only these two things you will be in a much stronger position to deal with obstructive Forest Service employees.

1. The Forest Service is a SURFACE management agency of the Agriculture Department. The Mineral Estate Grant (our right to prospect, claim and mine the public lands) is a SUBSURFACE grant. The Forest Service has no right whatsoever to control prospecting or mining. The Forest Service only has the right to protect those SURFACE resources not directly involved in mineral extraction.

2. Those Forest Service employees work for YOU. They are YOUR employees and as a member of the public, on public lands, you have a right to instruct them on their lawful job AND to insist they do it. Title 16 of the United States Code contains all the laws relating to the Forest Service. If it's not in Title 16 it's not a law about the National Forests.

Lets see what Congress intended when they created the Forests and the Forest Service:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 475

Section 475. Purposes for which national forests may be established and administered

All public lands designated and reserved prior to June 4, 1897, by the President of the United States under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, the orders for which shall be and remain in full force and effect, unsuspended and unrevoked, and all public lands that may hereafter be set aside and reserved as national forests under said section, shall be as far as practicable controlled and administered in accordance with the following provisions. No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of said section, to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.

OK so Congress says that National Forests are established to:

1. Protect and improve the Forest within the Boundaries

OR

2. To secure favorable conditions for water flow

AND

3. To furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens.



Congress also tells us what Forests are NOT established for:

1. They are NOT to include valuable mineral land.

AND

2. They are NOT to include valuable agricultural land.



Interesting huh? What other things has Congress said the Forests are for?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 528

Section 528. Development and administration of renewable surface resources for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services; Congressional declaration of policy and purpose

It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The purposes of sections 528 to 531 of this title are declared to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established as set forth in section 475 of this title. Nothing herein shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish on the national forests. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands or to affect the use or administration of Federal lands not within national forests.

So Congress later came along and added outdoor recreation, range, wildlife and fish purposes. But they make sure that everybody understands that this still doesn't affect the mineral resources found on the National Forest. Are you seeing a trend here? Congress knew that if they were going to put some agency in charge of all this public land they had to tell them what authority they had to enforce laws on that land. So they added Title 472:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 472

Section 472. Laws affecting national forest lands

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall execute or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands reserved under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, or sections supplemental to and amendatory thereof, after such lands have been so reserved, excepting such laws as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying, certifying, or patenting of any of such lands.

So the Secretary of Agriculture gets to have his Forest Service employees enforce the law on National Forest Lands EXCEPT those laws about mining "surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying, certifying, or patenting". Seems Congress really doesn't want the Forest Service involved at all in your right to mine! So what did Congress have to say about how all these new Forest laws affect mining itself?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 482

Section 482. Mineral lands; restoration to public domain; location and entry

Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of the President, after sixty days notice thereof, published in two papers of general circulation in the State or Territory wherein any national forest is situated, and near the said national forest, any public lands embraced within the limits of any such forest which, after due examination by personal inspection of a competent person appointed for that purpose by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be found better adapted for mining or for agricultural purposes than for forest usage, may be restored to the public domain. And any mineral lands in any national forest which have been or which may be shown to be such, and subject to entry under the existing mining laws of the United States and the rules and regulations applying thereto, shall continue to be subject to such location and entry, notwithstanding any provisions contained in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title.

WOW! Congress felt so strongly about the right to the mineral estate that they made a law saying if there was better use for mining that the Forest could be turned back to the public. Even more important they made it clear that you can still make claims and mine in the National Forests and THE LAWS ABOUT FOREST USE DID NOT APPLY TO LANDS SHOWN TO BE MINERAL. They were even specific and said sections 473-482 and section 551 can not prevent you from making a claim!!!  So what are these Forest Laws that have no effect on your right to claim a mineral discovery (location and entry)?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 473

Section 473. Revocation, modification, or vacation of orders or proclamations establishing national forests

The President of the United States is authorized and empowered to revoke, modify, or suspend any and all Executive orders and proclamations or any part thereof issued under section 471 [1] of this title, from time to time as he shall deem best for the public interests. By such modification he may reduce the area or change the boundary lines or may vacate altogether any order creating a national forest.

So if the President modifies or eliminates a National Forest the claims are still valid.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 474

Section 474. Surveys; plats and field notes; maps; effect under Act June 4, 1897

Surveys, field notes, and plats returned from the survey of public lands designated as national forests undertaken under the supervision of the Director of the United States Geological Survey in accordance with provisions of Act June 4, 1897, chapter 2, section 1, thirtieth Statutes, page 34, shall have the same legal force and effect as surveys, field notes, and plats returned through the Field Surveying Service; and such surveys, which include subdivision surveys under the rectangular system, approved by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate as in other cases, and properly certified copies thereof shall be filed in the respective land offices of the districts in which such lands are situated, as in other cases. All laws inconsistent with the provisions hereof are declared inoperative as respects such survey. A copy of every topographic map and other maps showing the distribution of the forests, together with such field notes as may be taken relating thereto, shall be certified thereto by the Director of the Survey and filed in the Bureau of Land Management.

Makes sense that they aren't allowed to modify your claim by making a survey.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 475

Section 475. Purposes for which national forests may be established and administered

We already looked at 475 above. This just makes it clear that an existing claim is not to be included in a new National Forest


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 476

Section 476 has been repealed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 477

Section 477. Use of timber and stone by settlers

The Secretary of Agriculture may permit, under regulations to be prescribed by him, the use of timber and stone found upon national forests, free of charge, by bona fide settlers, miners, residents, and prospectors for minerals, for firewood, fencing, buildings, mining, prospecting, and other domestic purposes, as may be needed by such persons for such purposes; such timber to be used within the State or Territory, respectively, where such national forests may be located.

The right to the timber found on your claim was established in the 1872 Mining act and is repeated here. Notice that timber for all the ordinary uses for mining are specifically free.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 478

Section 478. Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting

Nothing in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers residing within the boundaries of national forests, or from crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach their homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Nor shall anything in such sections prohibit any person from entering upon such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof. Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests.

Well they can't lock you out or prevent you from prospecting or mining. Remember that these laws are specifically NOT applicable to claiming mineral land. Your right to travel to your claim is already preserved in the 1866 and 1872 Acts. Congress seems to want to make that fact doubly clear for the Forest Service.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 479

Section 479. Sites for schools and churches

The settlers residing within the exterior boundaries of national forests, or in the vicinity thereof, may maintain schools and churches within such national forest, and for that purpose may occupy any part of the said national forest, not exceeding two acres for each schoolhouse and one acre for a church.

I don't think I need to explain this one. The right of the people to use the public lands for education and worship are well established.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 480

Section 480. Civil and criminal jurisdiction

The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within national forests shall not be affected or changed by reason of their existence, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such national forest is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.

The reason this one is explicitly excluded is that when you are on your claim you are not legally IN the National Forest. You are ON a mineral estate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 481

Section 481. Use of waters

All waters within the boundaries of national forests may be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes, under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder.

The prior right to the water needed for mining was already granted in the 1866 Act.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 551

Section 551. Protection of national forests; rules and regulations

The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and national forests which may have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, and which may be continued; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction; and any violation of the provisions of this section, sections 473 to 478 and 479 to 482 of this title or such rules and regulations shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Any person charged with the violation of such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge specially designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided for in section 3401 (b) to (e) of title 18.

As a mineral estate grantee your mining claim entry is specifically exempted from this law under Section 482. The very nature of mining disrupts the natural environment. One way or another, if you are going to mine a valuable mineral at some point you WILL dig a hole and you WILL need a place to store,and work, the results of your digging. Your right to extract minerals is by definition NOT a destruction or depredation - it is a RIGHT pure and simple. These laws giving power to the Forest Service are very clear the mineral grant is to be respected and prospecting and mining were to be accomodated.

The lands outside your mineral estate, that have not been shown to be mineral in character, ARE a subject of this law. You have no right to destroy or depredate the Forest lands that are not contained within your claimed mineral grant. The Forest Service has every right and duty to protect those lands NOT proven to be mineral in character. Please do not exceed your mineral grant - it only injures the people's land and gives ammunition to those Forest employees who have a limited understanding of their obligation to those who have chosen to participate in the mineral grant.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few more sections of the Forest law that don't refer to minerals specifically but DO have legal effect for miners and prospectors.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 532

Section 532. Roads and trails system; Congressional findings and declaration of policy


The Congress hereby finds and declares that the construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails within and near the national forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service is essential if increasing demands for timber, recreation, and other uses of such lands are to be met; that the existence of such a system would have the effect, among other things, of increasing the value of timber and other resources tributary to such roads; and that such a system is essential to enable the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter called the Secretary) to provide for intensive use, protection, development, and management of these lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield of products and services.

I don't think most Forest Supervisors have been paying much attention to the Congressional findings and declaration of policy. This is supposed to be binding guidance from Congress to the Secretary of Agriculture on what they mean when the issue of roads and development and use of the land comes up. It's a law instructing the Secretary to favor more roads and more development of the Forest lands. It actually says "intensive use" - not less. It mandates the principle of "sustained yield of products and services" and insists the Forest Service allow "multiple use".  Congress says a system of roads and trails are "essential" to meet increasing demands of Forest use. The Congress says that a system of roads would have the effect of... "increasing the value of timber and other resources tributary to such roads".

Keep this law in mind the next time a Forest employee says something stupid like "It's our job to keep development out of the Forest". These are direct instructions from that Forest employee's biggest boss, the people speaking through Congress, that just the opposite is true.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 524

Section 524. Rights-of-way for dams, reservoirs, or water plants for municipal, mining, and milling purposes

Rights-of-way for the construction and maintenance of dams, reservoirs, water plants, ditches, flumes, pipes, tunnels, and canals, within and across the national forests of the United States, are granted to citizens and corporations of the United States for municipal or mining purposes, and for the purposes of the milling and reduction of ores, during the period of their beneficial use, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and subject to the laws of the State or Territory in which said forests are respectively situated.

Bet you didn't know that you had another Grant besides the mineral estate grant did you?

Here is a grant of the right to build and maintain "dams, reservoirs, water plants, ditches, flumes, pipes, tunnels, and canals" across the Forest for "mining purposes, and for the purposes of the milling and reduction of ores". That wasn't spelled out in the brochure on Forest Use your local National Forest provides for education, was it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these laws are current Federal law on National Forests (USC Title 16 Chapter 2 - National Forests). In the Eastern United States there are purchased Forests known as "Weeks Law" Forests and many of these laws do not necessarily apply to them. In the 11 Western States these are the current, and applicable laws. Each Section is presented in whole with no excluded words or phrases.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember - under the mining acts if you are not a citizen of the United States or have not stated your intention to become one you may NOT participate in the mineral estate grant. If you are not in the actual act of prospecting (exploring), staking (locating), claiming (making entry) or mining ALL of these National Forest laws apply to you. Avoid camping or "recreational" prospecting and mining if you wish to enjoy the right to the mineral estate that Congress has been so careful to preserve for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Crossman



Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the state of idaho.  We have, what is called the department of water resources or IDWR.  They charge $10 for an Idaho Recreational Mining Authorization letter permit.  This permit comes with a pamphlet that tells us which waters are open and closed to dredging.  I.E. Streams, rivers, tributaries.  

With these kinds of restrictions and permits, do they have the right to open or close or restrict or allow us to mine or dredge (unrecreational)?  I don't want to pay for this kind of ridiculous permit, should we just go dredge or what do we do?  Basically IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, do they have the right to eliminate or restrict the bodies of water that are being used by dredgers?

Is this another backdoor tactic to try and keep us from dredging in Idaho? I don't want trouble or probblems, I just want to dredge for income.  

Is there a difference between recreational dredging or professional dreding?  Is there a permit for that vice versa?
_________________
It is better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by six.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lastchancelarry



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 158
Location: hood river, ore

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

recreational is a term gven by the agencies you are a miner pure and simple..drop the term recreational..if the claim is in the national forest then these guys laid it out for you.....there are many guys dredging without a permit here in oregon and hopefully one will surly chime in here eventually. there is a moral obligation, in my opinion to not dredge when the salmon/fish are spawnin

lastchance
_________________
keep it simple stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John Crossman



Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why doesn't California recognize these laws and allow dredging?
_________________
It is better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by six.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That question and many more like it John is why this forum was created, its up to us miners to know our rights. If you look through threads here or on the GPAA forum you well see that your question has an answer. And its an answer miners should like. I encourage you to read through our homework and classwork sections as well as the other sections. Hopefully participate in our discussions and understand what we as miners have before us.

Gary
_________________
Navy Vet 1983-1992 (Submariner SSN-612)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hefty



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 132
Location: sacramento ca

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John once you buy a permit you agree to their rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hefty



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 132
Location: sacramento ca

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Crossman wrote:
Why doesn't California recognize these laws and allow dredging?


Short answer....MONEY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lastchancelarry



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 158
Location: hood river, ore

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

according to this Idaho does not have an approved system in place to issue permits under the clean water act! Idaho does not have an approved state NPDES permit program nor do they have an approved general permit program by the EPA under the CWA...
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm
so Im thinking your federal right to mine supercedes them...correct me if I am wrong...palleeasse
_________________
keep it simple stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GoldPatriot



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 219
Location: Waldport, Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lastchancelarry wrote:
according to this Idaho does not have an approved system in place to issue permits under the clean water act! Idaho does not have an approved state NPDES permit program nor do they have an approved general permit program by the EPA under the CWA...
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm
so Im thinking your federal right to mine supercedes them...correct me if I am wrong...palleeasse


Larry;

The state can ONLY supercede the feds on State owned lands, not on Federal lands. The issue of "clean water" is and always have been a red herring, for every study done by the sates and federal agencies, has failed to show a real and substancial danger to the quality of water, as a direct result of dredging.  As for the red herring of "protecting" fish and other waterborn species, the same studies refute such claim.  As a matter of record, these studies have found, what those of that have dredged for years, have known, that the benefits of dredging are far greater to the ecology of the stream, river, lake or ocean, than even natural floods.  

While dredger remove valuable metals, they also rid the waterways of lead, mercury, iron, and a host of other pollutants.  We also renew and refresh fish habitat and breeding gravels.  

Without breeding gravels, the world would have a real shortage of boulders and gold couldn't hide.


_________________
" America is at that awkward stage......... It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum