NQMA Making Detecting On Leases Illegal.

[EVIE/BEE]

mbasco, Sounds like what we have in WA already. You can obtain permission to detect on exploration tenements in WA by submitting a 40E permit application.
Costs $90.
I don't know if you get your $90 back if the lease holder refuses to grant permission.

 

[kingswood]

mbasco, Sounds like what we have in WA already. You can obtain permission to detect on exploration tenements in WA by submitting a 40E permit application.
Costs $90.
I don't know if you get your $90 back if the lease holder refuses to grant permission.

Leaseholder CANT refuse a 40E application on a granted/live E lease in WA....
They can advise that some areas are off limits due to their current exploration activity, but cannot refuse permission.
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Minerals/Permit-Section-40E-over-granted-2421.aspx

 

[EVIE/BEE]

So i can't lose my $90.
Always wondered about that. ...thanks K.

 

[Simmo]

I think you would find that people like Goldhounds are part of the reason for complaints by small miners, to ask the Association to act on their behalf.

 

[Guest]

There's always been a fine line between the small miners and the gold prospecting community.

I've seen some shockers

And at the moment, this one small miner, thinks he's the boss. :fire: :bomb:

 

[user 4485]

I think you would find that people like Goldhounds are part of the reason for complaints by small miners, to ask the Association to act on their behalf.

Can't comment on that Simmo. Hopefully they're not encroaching on people's Mining Leases!

Putting exclusions (without a fair permission system like WA's 40e) on exploration leases can be a double edged sword.
Large companies can lock up large areas of ground under the guise of exploration while doing very little as evidenced by a lot of the mostly rehashed compulsory exploration reports I've read - change of date & box ticked. When this occurs it can lock not only detectorists/prospectors out of areas but also small scale miners. Money talks.
I support small scale miners wanting to have a better system of access onto their exploration leases but it needs to be done fairly. Obviously they should maintain the right to refuse access on Mining Leases & get better support in policing that.
In NSW outside of Fossicking Districts EL holders can refuse permission to detect/prospect without giving any reason - just a flat no, bugger off. To me that is unfair especially where large companies are doing SFA in the area themselves.

 

[Simmo]

There's always been a fine line between the small miners and the gold prospecting community.

I've seen some shockers

And at the moment, this one small miner, thinks he's the boss. :fire: :bomb:

I dont quite understand your post?
The only fine line I know that differentiates a small scale miner with a lease, and a prospector without one or permission, is the signature line on the cheque book...

 

[Simmo]

Just spoke to GoldHounds..

They would like to advise that they have nothing to do with this latest decision/proposal from DRME/NQMA.

They have not been active in almost two years.

All their leases and EPM's have been off set or sold, and they are no longer functional.

I have apologised personally for any comments I have made, that could possibly affect GoldHounds.

 

[kemjak57]

There's always been a fine line between the small miners and the gold prospecting community.

I've seen some shockers

And at the moment, this one small miner, thinks he's the boss. :fire: :bomb:

I dont quite understand your post?
The only fine line I know that differentiates a small scale miner with a lease, and a prospector without one or permission, is the signature line on the cheque book...

And the sh@tfight with beauocracy trying to get Ts crosses and Is dotted. Not like going to the pub and buying a carton of grog. Theres a fair bit of time and money that goes into owning a lease. I appreciate people like Simmo who allow people like me to go and play on their leases with permission, and, respect of his property.

 

[Rockwall]

I think you would find that people like Goldhounds are part of the reason for complaints by small miners, to ask the Association to act on their behalf.

Can't comment on that Simmo. Hopefully they're not encroaching on people's Mining Leases!

Putting exclusions (without a fair permission system like WA's 40e) on exploration leases can be a double edged sword.
Large companies can lock up large areas of ground under the guise of exploration while doing very little as evidenced by a lot of the mostly rehashed compulsory exploration reports I've read - change of date & box ticked. When this occurs it can lock not only detectorists/prospectors out of areas but also small scale miners. Money talks.
I support small scale miners wanting to have a better system of access onto their exploration leases but it needs to be done fairly. Obviously they should maintain the right to refuse access on Mining Leases & get better support in policing that.
In NSW outside of Fossicking Districts EL holders can refuse permission to detect/prospect without giving any reason - just a flat no, bugger off. To me that is unfair especially where large companies are doing SFA in the area themselves.

Attached is a screen shot of the outline of EPMs in Qld. Seems for very little outlay vast amounts of land can be tied up. Obviously the costs of the activities described can be very expensive, if done. If a total exclusion on EPMs applied it would open the door for permit holders to charge detectorists for the opportunity to enter, would it not? Surely that wouldn't be what is behind this?
Leases are a definite no go area obviously.
If a similar system to WA gets brought in then at least the small towns within the EPMs will still get some business from detectorists.

 

[Macman 01]

Just spoke to GoldHounds..

They would like to advise that they have nothing to do with this latest decision/proposal from DRME/NQMA.

They have not been active in almost two years.

All their leases and EPM's have been off set or sold, and they are no longer functional.

I have apologised personally for any comments I have made, that could possibly affect GoldHounds.

Hi Simmo, thanks for clarifying, the status of Goldhounds tenements and the companys closure. Without going into any further intricate discussion of why we decided to sell other than greed from a certain very high official in NQMA and PROVEN documents that we possess were slanderous, misleading and straight out lies from the DRME REPORT that we obtained from freedom of information. I would also like to point out that Goldhounds have never entered anyone's mining leases without prior permission, and our EMP'S and leases were pegged on OPEN ground. Cheers DAVE.

 

[Goldhound Dale]

I think you would find that people like Goldhounds are part of the reason for complaints by small miners, to ask the Association to act on their behalf.

I can't belive this comment I have NEVER detected on anyones lease!
You've never even met me before Simon.
So where did this come from?
And there is no reference to active ML's in my posts that have been lifted from other forums I am only talking about EPM's.
Very dissaponted in you hope we never meet.

 

[Goldhound Dale]

As the law stands, the EPM holder has exclusive rights to peg a lease in an epm and rights of access to do field work.
The EPM dose NOT give the holder mineral rights or exclusive access rights.
Under the current framework if you have permission from the land holder, this is all you need to access the area and prospect by hand methods including metal detecting.
It's like this for a reason.
This keeps the playing field open to anyone so if large companies buy up large EPM's they cannot lock up ground without doing any exploration for long periods of time. And when the EPM lapses it goes into what is called moratorium where by anyone can go and pegg ground for a period of time before anyone can lock the ground up under EPM again
This is suposed to allow the little guy to be able to economically pegg a lease and to keep the playing field fair.
I have had both leases and large EPM's held under our exploration company and belive that the laws are fair how they are.
As they somewhat restrict large companies from tieing up ground that they never even explore but just use in their portfolio to sell shares, this is a very common practice among listed companies.

These changes that the NQMA and the president James Said are lobbying for are self serving. Firstly he is trying to make it easy for large companies like the ones he works for to lock up ground and is also trying to make prospectors have to ask for permission so he can milk them for their gold find locations (as he can't find gold on his own lol).

 

[Goldhound Dale]

The below article that talks about how most gold deposits are discovered and initial development is done by individuals or small companies referred to as junior's in the mining sector.

mining.com juniors-are-the-answer-to-gold-industry-challenges.

This is what I am talking about above.
Limiting access dosent serve any one who has an actual interest in the industry long term, it only serves the few scammers or short sighted greedy individuals who think because they pay for an EPM that they have mineral rights.

We had 2 large EPM's which we sold that covered over 80sq km up until a few months ago and at no time did we ever try to regulate who went there or try parasite their gold find locations.
I and my business partners are firm believers in peoples access rights and their intellectual rights to their finds which came from their hard field work.

If I wanted someone's valuable information obtained from hard work in the field I would offer them compensation. As anyone who dose field work knows this costs a fortune, much more than the small amount to take up an EPM, which is why so few EPM's ever get explored.

I have been on both sides of the fence here.
I have held both ML's and EPM's and prospected on open ground or EPM's.

I've had people quickly take up EPM's over ground when they heard we found gold there.
Is that right?
Should I now have to negotiate access with this type of person? (Like James Said)
Should I now have to turn over my gold locations from in many cases years of in field work just because someone takes up an epm and I want access to make my living?

My concerns with this change are not focused on hobby prospectors, they are focused on the whole industry both sides of the fence will lose if lobbying for these changes is successful.

There is a cultural division between prospectors and miners here in north Queensland, I can't understand why!
As how would someone like you Simon who bought your lease be able to do so with out someone like me who knows how to find one?

 

[gcause]

So this topic is being spread far and wide across the prospecting forums...

http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t26737-nqma-lobbying-for-access-changes

I am a fossicker, and like many of you its my main hobby.

I am also an NQMA member because I want to support the local mining industry.

Initially I trusted the information being posted on the forums and confronted the NQMA about this topic.

I have since spoken with the NQMA directly and as a result have just renewed my membership.

From that conversation I am satisfied that there is nothing for people who do the right thing and abide by the rules to be concerned about.

So rather than spreading all this why not just sit down and talk directly to the NQMA committee and discuss your concerns?

 

[Goldhound Dale]

What they tell you now is different from what they were actively involved in a couple of weeks ago.
James is clearly on the back pedal because of the backlash my posts caused as obviously Simon even knew about this change that James is trying to enact as why else would he have started this post on this forum.
I hope this is the case and they have dropped the epm part of the proposed changes.
I'm all for the other ideas of changing the enforcement of ML trespass and banning access to prospect on ML applications, I am for these changes. Just not the access to EPM's as this has wide reaching implications to ALL of us.

I will be attending the next NQMA meeting and voicing my concerns.

There is a back story between James and I, he hates me. Basically because I wouldn't give him my gold information and detailed geochemical and gold find heat maps that I built over many years on GIS software for a couple of areas that he took up under EPM after he found out that we found gold there.
And all I wanted was fair compensation for my work.

 

[Rockwall]

So this topic is being spread far and wide across the prospecting forums...

http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t26737-nqma-lobbying-for-access-changes

I am a fossicker, and like many of you its my main hobby.

I am also an NQMA member because I want to support the local mining industry.

Initially I trusted the information being posted on the forums and confronted the NQMA about this topic.

I have since spoken with the NQMA directly and as a result have just renewed my membership.

From that conversation I am satisfied that there is nothing for people who do the right thing and abide by the rules to be concerned about.

So rather than spreading all this why not just sit down and talk directly to the NQMA committee and discuss your concerns?

Simple, NQMA say exactly what they want, they might even get some more members. Why not tell the forum what was said that satisfied you? Secrecy always raises suspicion. There is nothing on the NQMA website.

 

[Rockwall]

So this topic is being spread far and wide across the prospecting forums...

http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t26737-nqma-lobbying-for-access-changes

I am a fossicker, and like many of you its my main hobby.

I am also an NQMA member because I want to support the local mining industry.

Initially I trusted the information being posted on the forums and confronted the NQMA about this topic.

I have since spoken with the NQMA directly and as a result have just renewed my membership.

From that conversation I am satisfied that there is nothing for people who do the right thing and abide by the rules to be concerned about.

So rather than spreading all this why not just sit down and talk directly to the NQMA committee and discuss your concerns?

No mention of prospectors, the people who spend countless hours and sweat looking for new areas. Fossickers usually only go to known areas. A prospector having to ask permission to access a certain area of an EPM is just giving away, in some cases, years of work. The EPM holder can sit back and wait. If this not the aim then say so.

 

[gcause]

Why not tell the forum what was said that satisfied you? Secrecy always raises suspicion.

I will not reveal anything that was said in confidence to me, as I am sure you would not break a confidence.

There is no secrecy as far as I am aware only a lot of misinformation being spread about NQMA's intent and actions. I was advised by the NQMA that there will be a statement coming out shortly to clarify their position and address the misinformation that is being spread about them.

 

[Jaros]

From GDPF

I've started this post to inform members and non member detectorists that the NQMA (North Queensland Miners Association) is lobbying the Queensland Mines department to change access laws to EPM's (exploration tenements)

The proposed change would ban detecting and prospecting on exploration tenements without the consent of the tenement holder.

This would effectively ban metal detecting in any gold field as they are mostly covered by exploration tenements. Whats worse is that more than half of the members of the NQMA are detectorists or hobby prospectors. And they are using the money from their yearly fee's to lobby for this change.

This change is the brain child of James Said the current president of the organization.

I urge members and non members to contact the NQMA and voice your concern about the changes they are lobbying for.

To contact the NQMA please email [email protected], please reference the best contact below in your email.