Help Support Prospecting Australia:
I might see ya there wallWally69 said:Definitely heading up tomorrow - if you see a grey landcruiser in the bush off the side of some obscure track, it is not abandoned, it is me looking for gold.
Honk the horn and I'll come and say g'day, and despite sterio-type appearances, I will not be wearing a red and white striped shirt on this occasion as thesedays I like to blend into my surroundings to be 'at one with the gold'
Going out to wattle creek for a training day on Sunday for the mindlab detector. So will be near hill end leaving tomorrow. Are there any suggestions for where to go detecting in the area. Staying for a few days after Sunday to do detecting.
Thanks
eadesy77
Thanks
eadesy77
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2014
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 1,010
My day has ended a bit late, so I will leave here early in the morning. Hoping to arrive around 7ish. Happy to meet up wherever everyone is staying first thing, or later if detecting is already under way
I'll be in a dark blue LR D90
I'll be in a dark blue LR D90
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
ALL fossickers in NSW: YOUR COMMENT IS NEEDED ON NATIONAL PARKS POLICY
As some on the forum would be aware, NAPFA has been working for about three years to try to achieve meaningful access to areas of National Parks in NSW.
As a result of our considerable effort, NPWS has been reviewing its Fossicking Policy following the Governments response to the 2014 Legislative Councils Inquiry into Tourism in Local Communities.
At long last there is now a new draft policy open for public comment until 5th May, 2016 and you are invited to comment on it.
The Draft NPWS Fossicking in Parks policy maintains the current position that fossicking is generally inappropriate in national parks. Fossicking generally involves disturbing soil, rocks and vegetation to find and potentially remove minerals, gemstones and historical objects. These activities are prohibited in parks without consent under the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009.
The draft policy identifies areas where fossicking is allowed and proposes that consideration of any additional areas will be subject to an appropriate level of environmental assessment.
Please take the time to read through the policy and to have your say. You can be sure that various environmental groups and others will be doing just that. From NAPFAs perspective the more supporting responses, the better.
The NAPFA committee will also put forward an Association reply.
If the policy is enacted, it will mean that access to some areas of additional national parks will be achievable but the arrangements will be tightly controlled and could be withdrawn if there is significant environmental impact. So if you get permission recognize that it is a privilege and FILL IN THE HOLES and follows regulations to the letter.
My quick take is that it will be very controlled and restrictive but it is better than nothing and realistically its all we are likely to get for the time being.
I see it as a good step forward for fossicking in NSW, so lets see where it takes us.
Here is the link to the policy:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/policies/fossicking-policy.htm
Cheers
Stephen Dangaard
President
NSW&ACT Prospectors and Fossickers Association Inc
As some on the forum would be aware, NAPFA has been working for about three years to try to achieve meaningful access to areas of National Parks in NSW.
As a result of our considerable effort, NPWS has been reviewing its Fossicking Policy following the Governments response to the 2014 Legislative Councils Inquiry into Tourism in Local Communities.
At long last there is now a new draft policy open for public comment until 5th May, 2016 and you are invited to comment on it.
The Draft NPWS Fossicking in Parks policy maintains the current position that fossicking is generally inappropriate in national parks. Fossicking generally involves disturbing soil, rocks and vegetation to find and potentially remove minerals, gemstones and historical objects. These activities are prohibited in parks without consent under the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009.
The draft policy identifies areas where fossicking is allowed and proposes that consideration of any additional areas will be subject to an appropriate level of environmental assessment.
Please take the time to read through the policy and to have your say. You can be sure that various environmental groups and others will be doing just that. From NAPFAs perspective the more supporting responses, the better.
The NAPFA committee will also put forward an Association reply.
If the policy is enacted, it will mean that access to some areas of additional national parks will be achievable but the arrangements will be tightly controlled and could be withdrawn if there is significant environmental impact. So if you get permission recognize that it is a privilege and FILL IN THE HOLES and follows regulations to the letter.
My quick take is that it will be very controlled and restrictive but it is better than nothing and realistically its all we are likely to get for the time being.
I see it as a good step forward for fossicking in NSW, so lets see where it takes us.
Here is the link to the policy:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/policies/fossicking-policy.htm
Cheers
Stephen Dangaard
President
NSW&ACT Prospectors and Fossickers Association Inc
Steve,
This is fantastic news mate.
Can you check into why the definition of Prospecting suddenly includes digging into Banks. ? ?
We who do the right thing know that this is both illegal and wrong.
Many Thanks for your hard work.
Doug
This is fantastic news mate.
Can you check into why the definition of Prospecting suddenly includes digging into Banks. ? ?
We who do the right thing know that this is both illegal and wrong.
Many Thanks for your hard work.
Doug
A Mechanical sluice. ?
In the very definition of the Mining rules and regulations, This is already illegal.
This is worded incorrectly.
Non of the equipment we use is mechanical.
All gathered by hand.
Processed through a static device.
Returned by hand.
I think a good read is in order.
Please, I am not setting out to be sarcastic or in any way undo the advances into this fantastic piece of News but,
In the words by very definition, What is stated could impact those who are not in the very know on how we go about
our activities.
All they will see is a negative scenario on what is a very negligible if not non intrusive activity.
In the very definition of the Mining rules and regulations, This is already illegal.
This is worded incorrectly.
Non of the equipment we use is mechanical.
All gathered by hand.
Processed through a static device.
Returned by hand.
I think a good read is in order.
Please, I am not setting out to be sarcastic or in any way undo the advances into this fantastic piece of News but,
In the words by very definition, What is stated could impact those who are not in the very know on how we go about
our activities.
All they will see is a negative scenario on what is a very negligible if not non intrusive activity.
G
Guest
Tathradj said:A Mechanical sluice. ?
In the very definition of the Mining rules and regulations, This is already illegal.
This is worded incorrectly.
Non of the equipment we use is mechanical.
All gathered by hand.
Processed through a static device.
Returned by hand.
I think a good read is in order.
Please, I am not setting out to be sarcastic or in any way undo the advances into this fantastic piece of News but,
In the words by very definition, What is stated could impact those who are not in the very know on how we go about
our activities.
All they will see is a negative scenario on what is a very negligible if not non intrusive activity.
Spot on mate.
While it is giving some hope, the requirement to provide ei or ohs may be difficult.
I'm hoping it is a step forward for us as recreational fossickers.
Keeping the access will be dependent on individuals doing the right thing, permits for specific area may be a means of providing suitable accountability. All of this applies only to those who fossick by the rules.
Hoping for a balanced approach. Lots to consider before making a comment.
Thanks Stephen
I'm hoping it is a step forward for us as recreational fossickers.
Keeping the access will be dependent on individuals doing the right thing, permits for specific area may be a means of providing suitable accountability. All of this applies only to those who fossick by the rules.
Hoping for a balanced approach. Lots to consider before making a comment.
Thanks Stephen
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 285
sent my submission in even though i live in QLD
just noticed a few posts above, please just spread the word and show people the link and DONT muddy the waters by ranting about whats legal and what isnt on this thread ,there are lots of threads on this forum about this where you can discuss the rights and wrongs of fossicking and detecting
just noticed a few posts above, please just spread the word and show people the link and DONT muddy the waters by ranting about whats legal and what isnt on this thread ,there are lots of threads on this forum about this where you can discuss the rights and wrongs of fossicking and detecting
G
Guest
nicko61 said:
Yes indeed
Toysandthings
Toys and things
- Joined
- May 2, 2013
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 60
Was any progress made in re allowing fossicking in areas that only a decade ago we were allowed to fossick in but
they grabbed the areas n turned them into state conservation areas removing them from state forests where
we were allowed to fossick in?
they grabbed the areas n turned them into state conservation areas removing them from state forests where
we were allowed to fossick in?
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
Tathradj said:A Mechanical sluice. ?
In the very definition of the Mining rules and regulations, This is already illegal.
This is worded incorrectly.
Non of the equipment we use is mechanical.
All gathered by hand.
Processed through a static device.
Returned by hand.
I think a good read is in order.
Please, I am not setting out to be sarcastic or in any way undo the advances into this fantastic piece of News but,
In the words by very definition, What is stated could impact those who are not in the very know on how we go about
our activities.
All they will see is a negative scenario on what is a very negligible if not non intrusive activity.
Thanks for pointing that out but just to be clear, this is a NPWS document. It was not drafted by NAPFA although we had some input. At the end of the day NPWS had final call on the wording. The point of putting it out to consultation is to get the very feedback you are providing. I agree there are many nuances in language and definitions. Keep the 'analysis' coming but also consider putting your own response(s) in to the process please.
cheers
stephen.
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
Toysandthings said:
Those areas could be accessed under this policy - but under the terms of the policy. We argued very strongly for a wholesale change but NPWS would not come at it. They want to do it area by area with local managers controlling. Have a good look through the wording of the policy. It does not specifically include SCAs but they are not excluded.
Cheers
Stephen.
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
Tathradj said:A Mechanical sluice. ?
In the very definition of the Mining rules and regulations, This is already illegal.
This is worded incorrectly.
Non of the equipment we use is mechanical.
All gathered by hand.
Processed through a static device.
Returned by hand.
I think a good read is in order.
Please, I am not setting out to be sarcastic or in any way undo the advances into this fantastic piece of News but,
In the words by very definition, What is stated could impact those who are not in the very know on how we go about
our activities.
All they will see is a negative scenario on what is a very negligible if not non intrusive activity.
A bit more on this one. I think it is a reference to highbanking because in late 2014 NAPFA did a field demo for NPWS with the different types of equipment (highbanker -- 12 volt and petrol, river sluice, bucket concentrator; pan and detector. It was obvious they did not like the pump driven highbanker. Please note this is not a discussion about highbanking good or bad; and I note that you point out that under the regulations mechanical methods are not allowed (even though some will interpret that differently). NAPFA did a detailed sumbmission on highbanking in mid last year and you can find it on our website. Inclusion of "mechanical sluicing" reference in this policy probably reflects a lack of understanding on NPWS side; but I am sure that Dept Resources and Energy will be letting them know that. Your other points about negative scenario is absolutely right and we will point it out.
cheers
stephen.
G
Guest
Thanks Stephen i think the report is very good even if it just opens one door, it will be one door we do not have now.
The squeeky wheel gets the oil; the more individual comments that go in the better. Do this as a forum , but put your own in too. You need to show just how big of an issue this is, Big in as the number of people it affects. We all vote, so let the *******s know how many.
Cheers LL.
Cheers LL.
Stephen,
I have added my submission, in doing so expressed my support for expansion of existing areas including:
a) defining that sluicing should include the use of water pumps up to a limited size and that this would not include the use of water pumps to wash gold or other product from river banks,
b) enabling exploration licences not to deny amateur fossicking to such areas until a formal mining licence has been approved, and
c) enabling Prospecting Australia to be involved in the negotiation of the changes.
Cheers,
Dicko
I have added my submission, in doing so expressed my support for expansion of existing areas including:
a) defining that sluicing should include the use of water pumps up to a limited size and that this would not include the use of water pumps to wash gold or other product from river banks,
b) enabling exploration licences not to deny amateur fossicking to such areas until a formal mining licence has been approved, and
c) enabling Prospecting Australia to be involved in the negotiation of the changes.
Cheers,
Dicko
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
