Basically what we have here... So Dan, if a poster agrees with you, and caltrout and the karuks, and slams dredging, or it's process, or the Governor, or the process, it's jim-dandy a-ok with you- I saw what you wrote that you did not include here on this page... 1) example: "This veto occurs within the context of Governor's increasing attacks on California's fisheries and ecosystems. " But then the Title says it all doesn't it? [ http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/15/18454139.php ]


So, if someone has something contrary to say about one of u-all, or your thought processes, then you send out emails tellin a poster not to say anything degrading...?

Why are you so afraid of freedom of speech? Or is speech only ok when you posses a delete button? When only one voice is heard, danny, one may as well be in Russia or Iran...oppossite regimes, same tyrants.

I ask you again; Show me the documentation that you have that states that dredging under current california regulations is positively deleterious to salmon and it's habitat.

You can't produce it so you have to shut people up?

Have you even READ the VETO?

Did the Gov veto this because he attacks California's fisheries and ecosystems?

Read it; other than shutting down alot of rivers and quadrupling dredgers fees, everything else is already a law rule or regulation ... so this bill is unnecessary. WHY? Because Current law ALREADY 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.

See, danny, before they gona let you get your permit, they already gona tell when how where you can do it; Not forgetting What and Why. theys gona tells yah what you can use and why you can't use this or that.

'In its regulations, the Department may also designate specific waters or areas that are closed to dredging. '

See here, they ALREADY can shut down just about any dang waterway they dream any reason up for. AND they most certainly Do.

and then there's: "...the notion that scientific environmental review should precede such decisions. " Now this he got wrong you see; IT'S more than a 'notion' it too is already a law.

So you see other than completely removing dredgers from the rivers, as you apparently wanted, this Bill was completely unnecessary.

So i have pop quiz for you: How many fish does a dredger kill when he is not even allowed (by regulations already) to be on the river/s during spawning season? BEEEP Come on yer faster than that... question 2: When the dredger is sittin at home and yer up to your waist in the river walking on unseen redds and yellin "FISH ON" - who's killin salmon during spawning season?
(Hey don't get me wrong here; I am a fisherman first and dredger fourth or fifth)

So please stop with your rhetoric until you come to terms with your own hypocrisy and prejudice.

There are boocou bunches of studies done that state dredging under current regulations have de minimus and less than significant effects on fishery and habitat. Go to google and type in "ab1032" there's lots of real great info that leads one right to the studies or reference.

As to the karuk I am not going to tell you that they lied to you; Apparently one isn't free to say anything like that so You can determine that one for yourself by reading what the DFG biologist actually said in court/s and I will expose their lies on websites that support free speech:

Heres for you dan because you must be pretty busy out there in the wilds swattin mosquitoes with that there fishing pole. {added-that pole doesn't kill salmon?}

(If a tree falls in the forest will a salmon hear it on the end of your pole?)


http://www.goldgold.com/legal/2ndDecDennisMaria.pdf


http://www.goldgold.com/legal/MariaDeclaration%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.prn2.pdf

and such as:
(you might want to pay particular attention to what your OWN Dr. Moyle had to say below - funny how time or money or sympathy can change an opinion)


"The results from Resurrection Creek indicated that there was no difference in the macroinvertebrate community between the mining area and the locations downstream of the mining area in terms of macroinvertebrate density and taxa richness. The sampling was done 35 days after mining had been completed for the season and shows a rapid recovery of the mined areas." (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – 2001.)

"Dredge tailings are often referred to as good salmonid spawning substrate. In the Trinity River, chinook salmon have been observed spawning in the tailing piles of suction dredges ( E. Miller pers. comm. ).

Steelhead in Idaho streams have been reported to spawn in gravels recently disturbed by human activities ( Orcutt et al. 1968 ).

In the American River , Prokopovich and Nitzberg ( 1982 ) have shown salmon spawning gravels have mostly originated from old placer mining operations." (Hassler, Somer & Stern 1986)

"Anadramous salmonids held and spawned in Canyon Creek in close proximity to suction dredge activity. During the 1984-1985 spawning season, fall-run chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead spawned in areas actively dredged during the 1984 dredge season (fig.). In August 1985, spring-run chinook salmon and summer-run steelhead were holding near areas where suction dredges were being operated (fig. 23). During the 1985 spawning season, fall and spring-run chinook salmon spawned in areas actively dredged during the 1985 dredge season (fig. 24)." (Hassler, Somer & Stern 1986)

"If dredge mining regulations were expounded upon and miners were made aware of the instream habitat needs of salmonids, the most serious impacts of suction dredge mining could be reduced. Suction dredgers may even be able to enhance certain areas of the channel for rearing and spawning fish, if some of the limiting factors of a reach of stream are identified (ie. cover, woody debris, low velocity refuges, clean gravels). In Canyon Creek, current CDFG suction dredge regulations eliminate conflicts with salmonid spawning, incubation, and fry emergence by restricting mining to summer months. The 15.24 cm maximum aperture size for dredges is appropriate since stream substrate is large, but larger apertures may be too disruptive in the small channel." (Stern 1988)

"Fish and invertebrates displayed considerable adaptability to dredging, probably because the streams naturally have substantial seasonal and annual fluctuations (Moyle et al. 1982). These fluctuations, in the form of flushing winter flows, can greatly reduce the long term impact of dredging. Even during the relatively mild winter of 1980/81, high flows still filled the hole created by dredging on NFAR with a sand and gravel mixture and eliminated all sand from the main streamed. After the high flows in winter and spring of 1981/82, no substrate changes caused by dredging in the previous summer were evident on Butte Creek. Saunders and Smith (1965) observed a quick recovery in the trout population after scouring of a heavily silted stream, which, along with the quick temporal recovery of stream insects seen in this study, implies that suction dredging effects could be short-lived on streams where high seasonal flows occur." (Harvey 1986)

"…dredge mining had little, if any, impact on water temperature." (Hassler, Somer & Stern 1986.)

"Although distinct to even the most casual observer, dredge plumes in Canyon Creek were probably of little direct consequence to fish and invertebrates. Suspended sediment concentrations of 20,000 to 100,000 mg/l which impact fish feeding and respiration (Cordone and Kelly 1961) greatly exceed the highest level of 274 mg/l measured in Canyon Creek. In general, dredge turbidity plumes were highly localized and occurred during midday which is not a peak feeding period for steelhead (Moyle 1976). Laboratory studies by Sigler et al. (1984) found that steelhead and coho salmon preferred to stay in channels with clear water, and turbidities as little as 25 NTU's caused a reduction in fish growth. In contrast to Sigler's results, young steelhead in Canyon Creek appeared to seek out dredge turbidity plumes to feed upon dislodged invertebrates even though clear flowing water was available nearby." (Stern 1988)

"In the 1997 permit, EPA defined a small suction dredge as those with nozzles less than or equal to four inches. EPA is proposing to redefine the small suction dredge range as less than or equal to six inches. Information provided in EPA’s suction dredge study and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) study support the conclusion that there are local but short term effects on both water quality and macroinvertebrate communities in the mining areas. On the Fortymile River, dredges larger than those proposed under this GP showed that turbidity was reduced to background levels within 250 feet. It is expected that small dredges would have even less impact on the downstream receiving water quality." (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – 2001.)

That's it dan- you have fun now hear...

jeff