As someone new to this pastime it seems that there is almost no where that you can go easily prospecting for gold in Tasmania. Virtually the whole state is tied up with mining leases and exploration licences. Its seems ridiculous as a mining company is highly unlikely to go fossicking in small creeks for a few gramms of gold and yet we are not allowed to either without asking the company first and they are not obliged to to reply to you. There needs to be a system where you if you have a prospectors licence you are able to to prospect/fosick anywhere you like (national parks aside) and provided that if it is on private land and not crown land or forestry land you have the land owners permission. Then MRT in conjunction with the mining companies could easily indicate on their map a safe zone around any active mine working that could pose a danger to miners or visitors, inside which casual prospectors must not go. This would really open up the state for a new fun LEGAL tourist activity and provide a lot of people with healthy outdoor activity and a bit of family fun, whilst in no way impacting the activities of the mining companies. There must be a way to happily co-exist with Mining companies, govt departments and recreational prospectors. No idea how this can be achieved though. But what a great thing if it could, look at the Gold tourism industry in Victoria.
Is there a prospectors lobby group here in Tasmania that can talk to MRT, i see WA has one?
Anyway just the frustrated thoughts of a newbie who really would rather spend his hard earned cash here than leap on the ferry to Victoria.
Cheers John
I think your concern is very widely held!
However technically speaking they are legally obliged to respond. Part 5, Division 1, 112(4) of the Mineral Resources Development Act (1995) states: “A holder of a mineral tenement who refuses to give consent for the holder of a licence to prospect on land which is subject to the mineral tenement must give that person written reasons for the refusal”. However, even though they are obliged to respond, this is not enforced in the slightest, as I imagine most of us have tried contacting tenement holders (those that are owned by list companies seem to be the worst offenders) and got absolutely naught back.
I’ve written to MRT about this kind of thing, and basically what I found is that legislative changes are required to a greater extent than bureaucratic ones, which are not really foreseeable.
I’ve honestly personally tried to just avoid ELs completely, which was possible when a good chunk of the Queenstown gold field was not under-one.
The two things I can recommend to improve your ‘strike-rate’ of replies is firstly call not email and secondly dig through the subsidiary companies to work out who actually owns the tenements and then contact that company directly. For example Stavely Tasmania owns a couple of tenements in the North-East and is owned by a Canadian firm of Nubian Resources.
Hi, thank you for your reply and the tips for applying for permission.
I have noticed Stavely Tasmania come up a lot when searching, so knowing the parent company sounds very handy.
Cheers John
However technically speaking they are legally obliged to respond. Part 5, Division 1, 112(4) of the Mineral Resources Development Act (1995) states: “A holder of a mineral tenement who refuses to give consent for the holder of a licence to prospect on land which is subject to the mineral tenement must give that person written reasons for the refusal”
Maybe this could be used to our advantage - send a registered letter to the lease holder saying something like “if you do not wish to give me consent then please respond by dd/mm/yyyy in accordance with Part 5, Division 1, 112(4) of the Mineral Resources Development Act (1995). If no reply has been received by dd/mm/yyyy then it will be taken that you have given consent”.