HB 2579 "Give Fish a Chance Act" New Mineral/Prospecting Permit Created

[bigtex]

House Bill 2579 was introduced today by Representative Tarleton. The bill, known as the "Give Fish a Chance Act" would make several changes to the state mineral/gold prospecting laws. Those changes include:

-The department may not issue a permit under this chapter for the use of a suction dredge in any state waters that have been designated as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species by the United States fish and wildlife service or the United States national oceanic and atmospheric administration or in the tributaries of any freshwater state waters that have received critical habitat designation.
-A mineral prospecting and mining permit is required to conduct small scale prospecting and mining and any mineral prospecting and mining not prohibited under RCW 77.55.021(7)(a). The fee for the permit is one hundred fifty dollars. In addition to the permit, compliance with the pamphlet  referenced in RCW 77.55.091(2) is required in order to conduct mineral prospecting and mining. Permit applicants must submit a permit application and payment in a manner and form required by the department. Prior to prospecting and mining activities, the permit holder shall notify the department of the month and location that the prospecting and mining will be performed.

"The pamphlet" is the Gold & Fish Pamphlet that WDFW issues regarding small scale prospecting and mining.

So your question is probably, "what is small scale prospecting and mining"? Under state law that term is defined as, "means the use of only the following methods: Pans; nonmotorized sluice boxes; concentrators; and minirocker boxes for the discovery and recovery of minerals."

So essentially this bill will make it illegal for WDFW to permit the use of suction dredges in listed critical habitat areas, AND require a $150 for any "small scale prospecting and mining" as well as require prospectors to notify WDFW of the month and location the prospecting will take place.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=2579&year=2013

[bearpaw]

I am opposed. The Columbia has endangered salmonoids, this means any tributary to the Columbia would be off-limits, that's crazy.

[bigtex]

I am opposed. The Columbia has endangered salmonoids, this means any tributary to the Columbia would be off-limits, that's crazy.

The provision you are talking about (suction dredging) is kind of already in place. Per WAC 220-110-130 "Dredging shall not be conducted in fish spawning areas unless it is designed to create or improve the access or quality of fish spawning areas."

I am more opposed to the $150 permit that anybody who wants to go panning for the day needs to get...

[bearpaw]

I am opposed. The Columbia has endangered salmonoids, this means any tributary to the Columbia would be off-limits, that's crazy.

The provision you are talking about (suction dredging) is kind of already in place. Per WAC 220-110-130 "Dredging shall not be conducted in fish spawning areas unless it is designed to create or improve the access or quality of fish spawning areas."

I am more opposed to the $150 permit that anybody who wants to go panning for the day needs to get...

Yes, I know. I also agree with your point about the $150 permit too. That's unreasonable. 

[duckmen1]

I think it's ridiculous to have to pay 150 to use a little pan to find gold for fun hobby.

[KFhunter]

I'm of the opinion suction dredging improves fish habitat,  it sucks rocks and gravel out of deeper cracks, crevices where the gold hides and deposits them behind in a nice flat gravel bar.
The newly suctioned holes make hiding places for the fry and the gravel bar a spawning bed.
 

sounds like a problem looking for a solution coupled with a money grab.

[KFhunter]

I am opposed. The Columbia has endangered salmonoids, this means any tributary to the Columbia would be off-limits, that's crazy.

The provision you are talking about (suction dredging) is kind of already in place. Per WAC 220-110-130 "Dredging shall not be conducted in fish spawning areas unless it is designed to create or improve the access or quality of fish spawning areas."

I am more opposed to the $150 permit that anybody who wants to go panning for the day needs to get...

I guess you already said it here, I agree with this

[chukar58]

My question is if this bill were to be adopted and put into law where would the money generated from the permit sales go?  To fish and wildlife or the general fund??  

[KFhunter]

Who gives a crap where the money would go,  it's crazy to think $150 permit is worth it.
We already have to buy a discover pass.


Why would anyone want to charge a guy taking his kids out on a sunny summer day to pan for couple hours?  It only happens for the vast majority of people once or twice a year.

Most folks might find a dab of flour gold or a couple specs, bottle it in a small tube and put it in the window for the next 2-3 years before it finds it's way to a junk drawer 

[Knocker of rocks]

I am opposed. The Columbia has endangered salmonoids, this means any tributary to the Columbia would be off-limits, that's crazy.

I disagree with the need for the law, but I also don't think your example would be applicable.  I think the actual stream would have to be a critical area.

[Boss .300 winmag]

I am opposed. The Columbia has endangered salmonoids, this means any tributary to the Columbia would be off-limits, that's crazy.

The provision you are talking about (suction dredging) is kind of already in place. Per WAC 220-110-130 "Dredging shall not be conducted in fish spawning areas unless it is designed to create or improve the access or quality of fish spawning areas."

I am more opposed to the $150 permit that anybody who wants to go panning for the day needs to get...

  Most panners probably never get $150 in gold in a year. 

[bigtex]

My question is if this bill were to be adopted and put into law where would the money generated from the permit sales go?  To fish and wildlife or the general fund??

Under the current bill there is no specification. All other current laws regarding fish and wildlife fees have some type of defined account they go into for WDFW. For example, the fee for obtaining a hydraulic project approval goes into an account funding the hydraulic project program.

[lokidog]

Let's see, how about they tack on prohibiting irrigation water to be drawn from streams or tributaries of concern, the use of pesticides/herbicides in drainages that lead to waters of concern, allow the kill of any sea lions upriver from Portland, etc to "Give the Fish a Chance"?  These might actually do more.  BTW, I am only really condoning the latter of these suggestions.   

[snowpack]

Are dredges on spawning gravel a problem now?  Most of the dredgers I see focus on boulder patches in the pools with higher flows. 
I also think it is crazy to charge that fee to pan or sluice.  Most of the rivers I go to in WA only have about a two week window to prospect near the wetted area anyways.

[bigtex]

Just a public service announcement here.

Anytime you are doing ANY type of panning, sluicing, etc in a body of water that has timing restrictions (which are most streams in WA) you MUST have a copy of the WDFW Gold & Fish Pamphlet with you at the "job site."

It is actually a gross misdemeanor in WA to fail to have the pamphlet.