I would like to hear from someone like Salmo G on this issue of dredging or someone he would suggest as he does mostly know what he is talking about and is respected on this board.

As for Agate Pass while I'm sure taking all the Geoduc has had a bad effect on filtration of the Sound, and I suspect has destroyed eelgrass beds as well, But for your info True Cod disappeared after wdfg allowed a commercial bottom dragger fishery in the sound during the 70's.

A problem exists when the regulatory agency (the WDFW) that has issued hundreds of free permits (Hydraulic Project Approvals or HPAs) for EXCEPTIONS to the mining windows specified in the "Fish and Gold" rulebook has LITTLE OR NO IDEA how those stream mining activities actually have been carried out. Why is an activity, suction-dredge mining, that has the potential to damage a stream with ESA-listed salmon and steelhead almost unregulated here in Washington? At the same time, fishermen face ever more restrictive regulations on the same streams. (According to the "Fish and Gold" rulebook, I can apply for a permit to suction-dredge mine the Sol Duc River, which the WDFW just designated a wild steelhead gene bank -- does that make any sense?) Representative Tarleton's bill at least starts to bring some commonsense regulation to suction-dredge mining and provides money for monitoring and enforcement. Why have other western states already acted to bring suction-dredge mining under control? Do we possess some secret knowledge they lack? Or are Washington's dredgers (I'm not talking about hobbyists who pan for gold) so uniformly careful and ethical that they would never, ever harm a steelhead or salmon stream? If you believe that, I've got some nice swampland in Florida for sale....

Exactly how much toxic material is utilized by the small suction miners? Zero??

And how much by those who would operate Pebble? HUGE volumes! And from what I have read the biggest risk from that proposed mining operation would be the ponds full of that toxic materials rather than the actual mining itself.

They simply are not comparable so lets not make the local issue something it isn't.

The last thing miners need is the fishermen and women out to get them. Small scale suction dredging actually has positive impacts on river systems. The biggest impact is from clean out mecury. Its a fun hobby for the family, we all are getting the outdoors taken from us little by little. WA state actually have some of best laws in the northwest. It comes in the form of the Gold and Fish pamphlet. It restricts dredging in area's during the spawing seasons so there is no accidental dredging of reds.

Unless you have real facts please don't let the extreme enviros sway your opinions.

Okay, here's a few "real facts": EXCEPTIONS to the dredging windows (in the form of Hydraulic Project Approvals or HPAs) specified in the Gold and Fish pamphlet are ROUTINELY issued by the WDFW (in fact, many hundreds of them have been issued), and then those "exception projects" are not monitored for compliance with the rules. Suction-dredge mining is different from panning for gold: it can involve moving boulders and woody debris in streams, altering the streambottom, stirring up sediment, and destroying fish eggs, to name a few obvious effects. Dredging clearly has the potential to damage streams with ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. The claim that small-scale dredging "actually has positive impacts on river systems" defies common sense and is a minority opinion held mostly by miners themselves. By comparison with other western states such as California, Oregon, and Idaho, Washington actually has a very permissive, even lax set of rules governing dredging. That is a fact. (Does it make sense that I can apply for a permit to dredge the Sol Duc River, recently designated a wild steelhead gene bank by the WDFW? The Gold and Fish pamphlet says I can apply.) And there is no monitoring or enforcement of what dredging rules exist -- also a fact. Lastly, I'm not out to "get" miners: I don't care about a family panning for gold for fun. And I'm certainly not an "extreme enviro," whatever that's supposed to be. But I am for commonsense regulation to protect our already badly degraded rivers and dwindling stocks of wild fish. It's not 1960 any more.

Lets address some of your concerns.
1.HPA's. HPA's are applied for and reviewed and NOT issued to people who wish to dredge during times reds are in the river.
2. Moving debirs. the river moves more debris every high water than 1000 dredgers in the same area.Suction dredging also clean areas so fish have extra habitat to spawn. They wont spawn in silt.
3.Enforcement. Game wardens do enforcement and know exactly were the miners are. Miners cant hide in the woods they have to be in the scour Zone so they are easily seen.
4. It is a fact that fishermen kill more salmon than dredgers do so why are they not going after fishermen and women??
5. Fact congress granted 1872 mining act that allows for the collection of valuable minerals,

Extreme enviro's are the ones that try and make laws for every little thing they can to stop the good people like you, me and our kids from enjoying the outdoors that is all of OURS.

I hope you can see both sides of the argument.

With that said I am a fisherman at heart but do enjoy mining from time to time with my family. I have applied for and have several HPA's and I have been denied HPA's.

Facts??

I don't see any facts. What I see is someone who calls for "common sense" ( thereby attempting to take the high ground and implying anyone disagreeing with them doesn't have "common sense") regulations tossing about generalized numbers for exceptions to dredge windows and then implying that they are routinely violated with nothing to back up those assertions.

So, exactly how many dredge window exceptions have been granted in a specific period? Pick a year, two or three.

How do you know that there is no enforcement (an asserted "fact")?

Has WDFW cited anyone or shut down operations for violations during the period you picked? Specificity!!

With all of your personal experience and knowledge in this matter how many violations have you personally witnessed during that same period?

Assuming you have witnessed violations during that period did you report them and what was the result?

FYI I do not dredge mine nor participate in any form of mineral extraction in WA, know no one who does (to the best of my knowledge), and am unfamiliar with the regs pertaining to that work.

What I do recognize is someone pushing an agenda citing so called facts without substantiating their assertions. And, by the way, simply saying someone else has done something (in this case more stringent regulations) and we, therefore, should do the same or more is equivalent to blindly following the lead lemming over the cliff.

Sorry pal, I don't have the time or inclination to write a 20-page paper for you in order to document my statements. But they are based on information obtained directly and recently from the WDFW official responsible for issuing HPAs to dredgers who want to work outside the windows in the Gold and Fish pamphlet. (I repeat: monitoring of ongoing projects and enforcement of the existing rules -- more like guidelines -- simply isn't occurring due to funding constraints. As for game wardens doing that job, I think I've seen more unicorns than wardens on rivers in the last several years.) And yes, when fishermen routinely face stream closures and other restrictions on fishing for salmon and steelhead in Washington, it IS common sense to tighten up the existing highly permissive dredging rules because suction-dredge mining indisputably has the potential to damage streams with ESA-listed fish. (The great majority of scientists who actually have studied the issue and published papers on the subject have reached that conclusion.) Once again, why have other western states adopted far more restrictive and effective regulations on dredging or prohibited it outright? I suppose it's because their streams and fish are so much more vulnerable than our highly resilient ones, right? And we sure wouldn't want to learn anything from the experience of other states because that would just be "blindly following the lead lemming over the cliff" -- nope, don't wanna do that, no siree!

As for "pushing an agenda": you bet, my agenda here is to help protect wild salmon and steelhead for fishermen. I don't care about suction dredgers who exploit a public resource, our rivers and streams, for their own private profit and may leave those public resources degraded in a variety of ways. Personally, I would prohibit suction dredging in this state. Representative Tarleton's proposed bill doesn't do that, but it does introduce commonsense regulations to further protect our already badly degraded streams.

Instead of 20 pages, you should be able to state the "facts" in a page or less.

Gee, I thought I did that "in a page or less" in my previous posts, which summarized information obtained directly from the WDFW. Maybe we have a different view of what constitutes a fact, though. For example, I consider it a fact that suction-dredge mining has the potential to damage the ability of streams to sustain wild salmon and steelhead. Another fact, in my view, is that the WDFW has issued hundreds of HPAs (using the same boiler-plate language) that represent exceptions to the windows specified in the Gold and Fish pamphlet.

Well, it is apparent that we aren't pals. And by challenging your "facts" we have elicited at least the purported source of that information albeit an anonymous one. Would it have been so hard to have included in your initial post that your information came from the WDFW official responsible for issuing them? That would have lent at least some credibility to your generalized statements. And if that official has provided specific information why not utilize his/her name? After all, that is just factual information directly related to their official duties.

But is that same official on board with your assertion that there are numerous violations and that there is no enforcement?

And still nothing on the specifics regarding the actual number of dredge mining window exceptions issued nor the waters involved or nature of the exceptions.

Sure, anything one does around a body of water has the potential for adverse impact. Doesn't mean it is actually occurring. Again, do you have any personal knowledge of violations?

I refuse to act like a lemming. Give me a paragraph of your general position, a couple more citing specifics with source references, followed by a conclusion. If your source won't informally provide detailed information you can always request information under the PDA.

I understand that the WDFW doesn't even keep detailed statistics of the kind you want, which is kind of startling. But the WDFW has issued hundreds of HPAs for exceptions to the windows specified in the Gold and Fish pamphlet, and those projects are not monitored for compliance with the rules. Those are facts provided to Representative Tarleton's office by the WDFW. (I apologize for not putting that information in bold capital letters in my initial post. Did you think I dreamed up what I've said here to drive some sinister "agenda"?)

My only purpose in supporting this bill is to help protect endangered runs of wild salmon and steelhead so that fishermen can fish for them, if not now then someday. Washington's regulation of an activity, suction-dredge mining, has very few restrictions on what miners can do, and what they do can harm our streams with ESA-listed fish. And it is another fact that other western states have acted to tighten restrictions on dredging, an activity conducted on public lands for no public benefit, while fishermen in Washington suffer from more and more restrictions on their ability to fish for salmon and steelhead. (No, I'm not going to do your homework assignment and write a fact-filled background paper for your perusal.)

By the way, you've made it a point to say that you are a proud non-lemming. It sounds like you don't value any experience but your own. It would be just awful to learn anything from the example of other states that have acted to rein in suction dredging: after all, everything we need to know we can learn ourselves, right?

While I don't have a dog in this fight, I got a good laugh out of this...to me it seems akin to saying "Aerial carpet bombing is great for the environment because it has the potential to eliminate invasive species!".

I feel it is important to assess the facts regarding any subject brought to my attention by someone seeking support. I have absolutely no problem considering peer reviewed research data or even first hand anecdotal information from person(s) who are willing to provide details.

You asked whether I think you have dreamed up the information you have provided in order to drive some sinister agenda? No. First, I never used the word "sinister." I also never said YOU dreamed it up. In fact, I never said it was dreamed up. What I did was question the veracity of the very limited information you provided insofar as it was very generalized and without references other than to say "California did it."
By the way, providing some pertinent information is fairly easy. Here is the link to the WDFW page pretaining to this type of activity and on that page is a link to the Fish and Gold pamphlet: http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/mining/.

I will opine that WDFW's system to record all citations issued by its LE, to be able to track them through final adjudication, and to inquire the system based upon specific types of violations may not be the best. This came into question during the new P.S. crab policy hearings when WDFW LE provided violation stats that portrayed a poor picture of recreational crabber compliance. After much peeling of the onion it was determined that LE focused its efforts on areas of known problems and then regularly made contacts after witnessing a violation. Sure, the resulting violation rates (as % of contacts) were high because their contacts were not random. While the violations and percentages may have been valid the implication that the violation rates were for the entire population of recreational crabbers was highly inaccurate. Garbage in, garbage out.

The absence of data supporting your assertions regarding violations is not proof that violations are occuring nor is it proof that no one is monitoring (any of) the activities about which you have expressed concern.

Smelt;
I would like to know were you get your facts from, because they are not true. It is simply note true that WDFW give out blanket HPA's. I have applied for and been denied HPA's based on spawning seasons. Please stop pumping your own personal agenda.

Try and get an HPA for the Stilly, Nooksack or the Skagit and see what happens. Your facts are simply not facts.

Here are a few scientific articles for you.


Dredging doesn’t harm fish, experts say
Mar 28

Written by:
3/28/2012 4:21 PM RssIcon
The science — and politics — of dredging

By BRAD JONES
GPAA Editor/Content Director

Salmon spawning illustrationSuction dredge mining does not harm fish and can actually improve fish habitat, scientists say.

Claudia Wise and Joseph Greene, worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for more than 30 years. Wise is a retired physical scientist and Greene is a retired research biologist. Both scientists have done extensive research on the issue and cannot find any evidence to substantiate claims made by environmental activists that suction dredging harms fish or fish habitat.

They say suction dredging can benefit salmon and other species of fish by improving habitat in rivers and streams.

The science of dredging

“Any negative effects of suction dredging on fish or fish habitat are insignificant. The benefits definitely outweigh any of the negative effects in any of the studies I’ve ever seen,” Wise said in recent interview.

Salmon circle a dredge holeIn almost every study, the environmental impact of suction dredge mining on fish — including salmon — and fish habitat has been proven to be “less than significant,” Greene said.

Dredging improves fish habitat by creating pockets in the bottoms of riverbeds and streambeds. These depressions are ideal places for fish, especially salmon, to spawn when there are limited natural areas of loose gravel, called refugia.

“It’s a pool of water within the river you might say. If it is three feet deep, it’s considered refugia, which is a depression in the river bottom that is under the main currents where fish prefer to rest in cooler water, lots of times at the mouth of a tributary,” she said.

“There are so many benefits to it,” said Wise, explaining that the gravels in many rivers and streams have become so compacted over the years that the fish cannot always find a natural place to spawn.

Because suction dredgers break up or loosen the gravels and create small pockets in the bottoms of streams, it often creates manmade refugia, where none had previously existed. While opponents of suction dredging argue that fresh dredge tailings (gravels), are not as stable as natural gravel beds, they are better than nothing where natural gravels don’t exist, Wise said.
“However, the salmon are smart enough to recognize the difference between natural and manmade refugia,” Greene said.

If there is no suitable place to spawn, the fish will spawn anyway.

“The eggs will just be floating down river and be eaten by any predator that would eat them. They have to get through the gravel to build that nest.” he said.

Salmon spawn in dredge tailingsAfter dredge tailings have settled for a year, they become more stable and more attractive to salmon.

“By the next year, you’ve got great spawning gravel,” Wise said.

So, adding more refugia means salmon have more places to spawn which helps to increase salmon populations. Even one redd (nest of salmon eggs) can contain thousands of salmon eggs, she said.

“One egg mass is thousands of fish. With one egg mass you’ve made a big difference in some rivers,” she said.


There are several positive studies. I challenge you to find a single incident of a fish being harmed.

Now that I've stopped laughing, I'll point out that you failed to note that your so-called scientific article came from the Gold Prospectors Association of America, and that both of the authors are gold prospectors themselves. That's just who I'd go to for objective information on the effects of dredging! The rest of their long article is a rant against "extreme environmental organizations," the "mainstream media," and the findings of most climate scientists that climate change is underway due to burning of fossil fuels. Those two prospector-"scientists" even took a shot at fat old Al Gore, who supposedly has brainwashed our younger scientists. Yeah, their article certainly is the clincher!!

After reading the article in full in the original, I've just gotta admit that you've proved your case, and state for the record that suction dredging on public lands is a perfectly legitimate activity (for private profit) that actually helps steelhead and salmon spawn, especially when they couldn't do it otherwise. (The little picture of the happy salmon spawning in the dredging hole is real science, isn't it?) So much for dredging having no public benefit. Let's just issue dredging gear with the largest possible suction hoses to every fisherman when he buys a license and save wild salmon and steelhead that way. (Incidentally, dredgers don't even need to buy a license to strip mine a stream, do they? That ain't right!)

Oh yeah: please stop pushing your own personal dredging agenda. Although you obviously must be right since you produced that fine article, I still don't want aquatic strip-mining to occur where I fish.

P.S. Dredgemasterdan...sorry, Fishmasterdan: Why in the world would you want to dredge rivers with endangered runs of wild steelhead and salmon to begin with? If you were denied HPAs on the Stilly, Nooksack, and Skagit, then I'm glad, but you never should have had the opportunity to apply at all. Why should miners be able to line their pockets with gold by strip-mining streams that belong to everybody? I don't want my fishing opportunities to suffer from mistakes, carelessness, or disregard of the rules made by miners trying to find their big score. It's that simple.

Like trying to get blood from a turnip.

I assume you mean finding gold by dredging...so why even bother? Let's just leave the streams alone then.

Wait a minute! You don't mean arguing with me, do you? Now I feel bad. But if you can produce some other articles from the Gold Prospectors Association and its fine "scientists" about more fish and better fishing through dredging, I'll read them tomorrow. Maybe you can write one yourself overnight about the many benefits for fish of suction dredging their homes.