2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

We are not talking about strip mining for gold in rivers here.  It was a mistake for the hosts to polute the suction dredging topic with the othert topic of strip mining for chromium on the beach.  It has nothing to do with suction dredge mining.  Also quit comparing bucket line dredging and hydraulic mining with suction dredging.  These three mining techniques have nothing in common other than they all are mining techniques.  Bucket line dredging and hydraulic mining techniques have been outlawed because studies showed those mining techniques were causeing harm.

Another point to be made here is the reason that the California legislature passed a moratorium on suction dredging has nothing to do with any scientific proof of any harm being done against an endangered species.  It was passed because it was a topic that special interest groups pushed with huge amounts of money being donated by those groups to the Democratic party, it is no suprise that the California Democratic legislature passed such a partisian bill that is in direct violation of federal law. 

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I also would like to mention to the commentor who stated that dredging harms the the bethnic community in a stream.  There is not one, and I repeat not one unbiased scientific study that would pass peer review that you can provide to back up your statement.

On the other hand, the EPA had a two year study performed on the fourty mile river in Alaska that addressed the specific issue you are talking about. That study was performed by a nuetral third party, the University of Idaho, and they specifically performed very specialized studies on the bethnic community and micro organisms.

The title of the study is; Impact of suction dredging on water quality, benthic habitat, and biota in the Fortymile River, Resurrection Creek, and Chatanika River, Alaska, and was performed in 1999.

That study as published and accepted, states that the effects of suction dredging are in fact beneficial, contrary to your opinion of harm.

Specifically, a particular part of the study was about a stream with a very active club, and the study was centered on those areas where there was a large number of dredgers and quote" is to be considered the worst case scenario as far as the number of dredges in a small area".

That study of that high impact area stated that the minimal effects of dredging would only persist for about one month after the dredging season, and the dredged areas one year later in fact had a healthier population of micro invertebrates than the non dredged areas.


Contrary to what the opponents of dredging would have you believe, there have been numerous unbiased scientific studies performed and where it was shown there was a potential of harm being done, regulations were crafted to prevent that harm.

That is why there is such a short dredging season.


I wonder how many of these commentors actually listened to the broadcast.

What right do you alarmists have to restrict or ban an activity that you have no proof of any harm being done, especially when the scientific studies done to date conclude otherwise?

I bet all of  you anti suction dredgers are sitting at your computer filled with gold, and it is plugged into a wall outlet using electricity, and you are drinking bottled water in a plastic bottle that you drove your polluting car to the store to buy.

Hypocrites.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The study that Cameron Lafolette qouted in the broadcast would never pass peer review because it was not conducted using proper scientific study methods. in fact it is not even a scientific study but a report that is written by a biologist who has made observations and wrote a report of his opinions.  The other issue is why do these environmental groups love to quote opinions from scientists or biologists who have never participated in a proper scientific study on this subject or even reviewed all the available studies that have already been done on this subject.  Just because you can find a biologists who has a predetermined negative view of dredging to write reports that in his/her opinion, without any properly conducted scientific studies performed to back up that opinion, they believe that dredging is causing harm, should surprise nobody.  But to try and use his opinion which goes against the unbiased scientific studies that have already been done that conclude dredging produces an impact so small it can barely be measured, is hypocritical and wrong.

In the opinion of the biologist in the above quoted report, he stated that in his opinion, dredging tailings are unstable and are a hazard to spawning salmon.

Funny that the Fish and Game agencies of Washington,  California, and our Federal government  and the EPA believe that suction dredge tailings in fact make excellent spawning gravel for salmonoids and trout.  Another overlooked fact is that many streams have been suction dredged by fish and game agencies to improve the gravel conditions so the returning fish can in fact have better gravels to spawn in.

A biologist's professional opinion that has not had a scientific study performed using proper scientific method to prove or disprove that opinion is actually called a hypothesis.  It means nothing.  Do you know how many hypothesis are disproved for every one that is proved?  Hundreds upon hundreds.

Quit quoting reports written by biased biologists expressing nothing more than opinion, as the proof that you believe shows dredging is causing harm to any protected species of fish. 

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

First off, this is not a choice of gold mining or salmon.  mining has  been going on in Oregon since long before there was a commercial Salmon harvest that kills millions of salmon a year. 

There is not one single case where anyone can produce one single bit of evidence that a suction dredge gold miner has ever killed a single fish, and that says a lot since suction dredge mining has been a mining technique used on Oregon rivers since the sixties.

If you want to whine about dredging, which almost every single person writing here is doing, then give some science to back up your claims of harm. There have been over a dozen unbiased scientific studies that have all reached the same conclusion, dredging has an impact on the environment that is so small it can barely be measured.

In California, the Klamath river is one of the most intensely dredged rivers in the state, yet it has the healthiest salmon returns. The Sacramento river has very little dredging yet it's returns are almost completely non existent.

Erik Metz, stated in this broadcast that as regulated by their permit, suction dredgers who obtain their permit are not causing any harm to the salmon.  He said it is individuals who don't buy permits who cause harm.  The Oregon State Police stated that they only cited "less than a handfull" of illegal suction dredgers last year in the entire state.   The reason why there were only "less than a handfull" of citations issued by Oregon State Police last year, is because typical suction dredgers are conservationist who have had an active life in the outdoors and have a very high respect of the environment and our laws. Quit trying to label miners as a bunch of greedy people who don't give a *^#@ about any possible harm they may cause. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I dare any one of you to give any scientific proof of any harm being done by suction dredging right now as it is currently regulated.

If you think the 1872 mining law is outdated, then I guess you really must think the Constitution and bill of rights must be outdated also.

All the corporations you blast for mining our resources and paying nothing for those resources, in fact put thousands of Americans to work and do indeed pay very high taxes. Only an imbecile who has absolutely no understanding of economics could believe such garbage.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context