New Zealand Gold Prospecting & Metal Detecting Forums Archive

Hi Guys.

I have posted the below draft? Of what I consider to be some reasonable terms that should/could possibly be included into any concessions that the Government might hopefully grant to our hobby.
It is hoped that you will supply comments, suggestions, or amendments, etc, that may better the terms, or the setout, etc, of this draft.
I.E. Is there something that you consider should be added to, or deleted from the draft?
Alternatively, should we just ditch the whole idea, and continue to “Skulk” around breaking the law?

---

Draft copy follows:

What does “Fossicking” mean, (in the sense of looking for gold?)
“Fossicking” involves the use of metal detectors, hand tools, pans, sluices, or “Simple” motorized equipment in the search for gold.

What is the (“Individuals” (non-amalgamating) “Fossicking” license?)

This license should be a permit of “Right” that allows the holder to “Fossick” for metals upon all Prospecting, and Mining licenses, plus all unreserved Crown lands, or Private Lands in New Zealand,where the Consent (“Permission to do so”) of the appropriate license holder,or the landowner/occupier has been obtained beforehand.
Holders of this right should "NOT" have to gain consent from the holder of an Exploration license to be able to “Fossick” on these vast areas.
The holder of this right should also be able to “Fossick”, up and in any river, stream, or creek bed, including a marginal strip of land not exceeding a width of Ten (10) meters to either side of these beds!

If the holder of this right is validly on any land under this “Right”, they should also be able to validly remove from the land, and keep, any metals discovered thereupon.
As all metals/minerals belong to the Crown, (even on private land), the above Rights should transfer the ownership of any metals found to the holder of the Right, giving the holder (as legal owner) the right to keep or sell any gold found whilst “Fossicking” in the above areas! (Providing that such gold has been extracted in accordance with the above terms.)
This right should be current for a period not exceeding 5 years.

THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE HOLDER OF THIS RIGHT.

The holder, acting under these rights, must produce the appropriate documentation for inspection if asked to do so by an inspector, or any person acting under authority conferred by the mining act.
They also must not use any equipment for the purposes of excavation on the land, other than those described above, or use explosives on the land. They must also repair any damage to the land arising out of the search.

Regarding obtaining “CONSENTS”. Theoretically, a verbal consent is sufficient, but to protect your own interests, it should be in writing. In the event of a dispute, you will need to prove permission given.
Treasure troves that may be discovered while “Fossicking” belong to the Crown and must be reported to the Police.

Regards---Colin.

P.S. I look forward to your intelligent inputs.

Hi Rick.

Thanks for your input. Appreciated!
The word “Simple” was used to try to convey the idea that it meant Simple (or small scale) but maybe it should be defined a little bit more so that there’s no mistake as to what it suggests?

Something like:---- In respect of motorized dredge operations, a “Size” limit is to be self imposed, by restricting the suction hose diameter to no larger than 4 inches, (100 millimeters)

---

(I am not a “Dredgie” so can only go by a bit of knowledge learnt from other sources,if this does not fit the situation, suggest a remedy.)

Cheers---Colin.

Hi Bill,
That’s what I was trying to get across, that we are just Fossicking, not mining.
Thanks for that input. Cheers.

If we are to have any input to the Govt, as to gaining any sorts of concessions to alleviate the problems we now face, we have to really stress the point that were not going to rip the place apart with our small operations, which are carried out in a most responsible and respectful manner, and with considerate regard to others.

Bill, do you, or other members, have any suggestions as to a “Max Depth” limit for any excavations that are likely to be made in the pursuit of this hobby? 1 meter? 2 meters?
The holes that most detectorists make are very unlikely to exceed a meter.
Even dredging, or high banking, would possibly go no deeper than this? And if your silly enough to underpin a river bank past this limit, you risk the bank caving in on yourself! (Glub, Glub.)

Cheers---Colin.

Hi GingerBMan. Thanks for that information.

I was sort of, of the opinion that 100 mm size restriction for hobby dredging could be “Slightly” more acceptable to those who make the rules, as this seems to be of a universal acceptance range for small time dredgers?
My reason for this is, and I quote from Gerry Brownley`s ministerial reply letter to myself dated 5/7/2010: (with emphasis on the word recreational.)

(Quote.):
“At present mining permits are required to undertake recreational gold mining activities, such as beach sand and suction dredge gold mining“.
(Unquote.)

By the other token, I see no real harm in increasing the size limit if other members were happy with that.

So the question arises, that are the “Otago Regional Council” conforming to the rules of the Mining Act, or just being “Nice” : ) : )
To quell your concerns about any more letters being sent away. There will hopefully be only “One” more letter sent. Which will possibly happen when we all come to a complete agreement together over any submissions that may be made by the consensus of all interested members.

Cheers, and regards---Colin.

Hi Colin,

Great initiative re the approach to Brownlee. One suggestion would be to have a look at the language used within the Crown Minerals Act to define the scope (the 'what' is allowed bit) of the different types of permits. You'll notice that most legislation of this type is quite prescriptive so any submission to bring about the change needed would obviously have to be quite clear as to the scope of what it proposes. The ideas and figures kicked around in previous posts are certainly a step in the right direction though.

K

Hi guys, Thought you might like to see this.
http://golddredgingforum...n=display&thread=528

Happy hunting

JW :)

Yeah it's a wee bit disheartening to see that kind of reaction - from the tone of his post it would seem the gentleman to whom you refer is worried that lobbying by members of this forum might pose some risk to semi-pro dredgers. Fair enough as an initial reaction I guess, but reading back through various posts in this thread I can't see anything that would/should give that impression.

In effect the proposal aired by Colin could only serve to benefit the semi-pro dredging community by reducing cost of compliance for them too. Beyond that I've been doing some research and can confirm that not all regional plans are as favourably disposed toward small scale mining as the Otago one, and therefore any lobbying of other regional councils by members of this forum could again only serve to benefit us all. Semi-pro dregders included.

If the semi-pro community in NZ have something meaningful to contribute to a discussion on this topic then they should feel free to do so.

Isnt "RKC" a "KIWI"? that runs the Australian gold dredging forum?
Does he want the best of both worlds? with regard only to himself.?

One of the Australian posters made this remark, with due (emphasis on Criminal):
Quote:
"Like all of you I don`t like being a criminal every time I venture out into the gold fields of NZ so a Miners Right is long overdue."
Unquote:
Are they working both sides of the ditch? to suit themselves?

Cheers---Colin.

Edited by moderator Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:23:12 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Robert requested his full name be removed from the post

Hi GT.

I wasn’t aware that I was bad mouthing anybody. (No offence was meant : ) )
If some has been inadvertently taken, then I apologize for that.
I was after all only asking questions, but I take your point.

As to taking in the advise they offer--they haven’t offered any to me or us yet. But if they feel so inclined to do so, we should welcome it with open arms. We just might be able to learn a few things from some well intentioned input.
On second thoughts though, after reading their posts on their site--maybe they could also be slightly guilty of badmouthing us?

Cheers---Colin.

user pays. yes i would ,great idea