Marked said:
The original gazette describes our much loved exemption list as "lands reserved for public use"...whether justified, or ungrounded, the banning of prospecting along rivers on the list is, by my reading, allowed by the original legislation, as permissible uses of the land is entirely at the discretion of the body given the responsibility of management of the land; in most cases the DEPI. I am guessing that the growing use of floating suction dredges by amateur prospectors during the 80's and may have been a motivating reason for the list to be used for it's current purpose - it was a convenient way to use existing regulation to protect a huge number of areas from the destruction caused by over-exuberant dredging.
Hi Marked,
I think your off the mark on the suction dredges issues. In fact suction dredges do less damage on all fronts. Cutter dredges are a completely different story. From what I understand and this comes from a variety sources, with some conflicts, so the best I can figure from is
1. Commenced compilation somewhere post WWII, as no government water management authority existed.
2. Was the result of complaints from farmers and down stream towns, loss of water sources, contamination by suspended loads, arid conditions,dwindling water levels. One or a combination of impacting factors.
3. Investment by companies in technologies of the time, hydraulic sluicing, cutter dredges, running mills and puddlers.
I think you ll find that the legislation was fitting at the time, to manage environment impact. However today technologies have advanced, so have the number of management agencies. I derive at the conclusion like with most legislation these embargoes placed, were at the time needed. Over time, methods have changed, management has changed, the list of contributing factors on the prospector now are 10 to the 6. Governments and legislation have a key trait, they rarely remove, look at the motor traffic laws, there are laws pertaining to horse drawn carriages and etc. legislation gets added to, but public servants rarely remove. So outdated is what I think we all agree.
Oh if you were to get an ML in one of these areas, if you extraction and processing methodology is approved by DPI, you can use it, so if you we're start a mine with a cutter dredge on the flood plains of the goulburn, with approved methods and environmental impact, it doesn t apply.
Go figure hey. On the suction dredge issue I have been to countries overseas, seen the high environmental impact dredging operations can have if un monitored, and too, I have seen the latest small suction dredges in action, they are more beneficial and less invasive then current approved methods.
Suction dredges work within the confines of the river Eco system, merely lifting bed & suspension loads from the river bed, and essentially redepositing them within a 10 m radius downstream. This action is essentially the natural course of justice for any such material within the Eco system. There are few visible signs of the work conducted, and the stream flow mechanics rehabilitates this quickly.
On the other hand, let's look at approved methods, high banking.Take a look at Oallen Ford, holes and piles everywhere. The only rehabilitation that happens here, is the 4wd and motorbikes slowly to some degree flatten these out. Look at holes left by detectors, mounds by dry blowers, the list goes on and on.
I will say that in small portable methods I do have all the offending equipment and use it too, I don t have a suction dredge, but would gladly if a change in legislation occurred buy one tomorrow.
Food for thought.
