Prior to reading this thread, I had no idea anything called suction dredging was happening on our rivers and streams. I fish quite a bit, and in many places, and I've yet to encounter anyone engaging in said activity (which leads me to believe it's not a major challenge to ESA species' survival), but now that I know what this is and how it works, I do have some thoughts (in case anyone is interested).

Seems the dredgers (and the regulars on the board who typically condemn ANY new government regulation, so oppose it on principle) think this proposed legislation is unwarranted. Meanwhile, although nobody (original poster aside) seems to be overly concerned about the relative impact of the activity in question, others have suggested there is reason to believe the practice of suction dredging has potential to do meaningful harm to stream beds and, subsequently, salmon and steelhead stocks.

Those opposed to tighter regulations argue that dredge mining is already sufficiently regulated and that the practice can actually benefit fish habitat. I'll stop short of saying such claims are ridiculous, but I have yet to observe an activity involving disturbance of a riverbed being a net benefit to fish productivity, so I am skeptical of those claims, to say the least.

For example, on the one hand, one poster said the dredging takes place in deep pools that are not suitable spawning water. Then, the perhaps slanted article from the gold prospecting association claimed that dredging can create new spawning habitat by forming gravel deposits where none existed before. These points are clearly contradictory, as a spawning bed created in a deep pool would never be deemed suitable by any spawning salmon or steelhead. At least as concerns this argument, either dredging does occur in spawning areas, or else there is no habitat benefit to dredging.

The mercury removal argument is compelling, and if that is indeed a benefit dredging provides, I think that's kind of cool. Not being familiar enough with the process to know how or whether the mercury that gets dredged up is actually removed from the substrate permanently, I have a suspicion it simply goes back into the river when the stuff the miners are after is filtered out of the sluice, and I therefore have doubts this is a real, net benefit. I'd be interested to know more about this if someone can enlighten me.

The argument that killing fish while mining is no worse than harvesting fish by hook and line is weak at best (in my opinion). Without a doubt, we walk a fine line when we, as sport fishers, claim to be fish advocates while fishing in the presence of depleted or endangered stocks, but most of us are good stewards of the environment and do only a limited amount of harm to the resource. Guys dragging anchors to slow their drifts through flats should be slapped sensible, but that's not a majority of the boating contingent. Sport fishers are limited to a defined number of harvestable fish, and mortality on release of additional fish is relatively low. Furthermore, their impact is accounted for in fisheries planning, and the fish they harvest are (in theory, anyway) allocated as part of an allowable impact. (Certainly, the effectiveness of planned harvest impacts is up for debate, but that's not what this thread is about.) Fish killed in mining operations are not accounted for in any harvest model I've ever seen, so any number of mortalities presents a danger. I think it also bears mention that sport harvested fish get eaten, and there is a social value in killing fish for that purpose. Killing them incidentally and with no opportunity to utilize the resource is wasteful.

I agree that responsible suction dredging (done with the intent to avoid contact with spawning redds or usable habitat) should kill very few, if any, fish. My concern is that many of the people doing the mining aren't likely to know how to go about doing that, and they're less likely to care if they have reason to believe that a piece of spawning water lies over a significant deposit of gold.

I'm not overly excited about this issue, and I am fully aware that sport fishing has real impacts, but I think the proposed regulations are fair and a good idea. The bill doesn't outlaw suction dredging (except in designated waters which, in many cases, are similarly restricted for sport fishing). Rather, it implements fees for doing the same; fees that COULD be used to pay for additional enforcement, which would not only minimize the potential harm associated with this sort of mining, but would also improve enforcement of fishing rules designed to protect endangered fish. I think a lot of government regulations are excessively costly and counterproductive, but I don't feel that way about this one. My attitude may change if this legislation passes and the revenues collected go to the pork barrels instead of enforcement, but....