Did anyone notice that PMATwon a Bob Brown Foundation Award in the Community Group section for outstanding contribution … etc, except, in this case, PMAT refers to the Tasmanian Planning Matters Alliance. Bummer!
Quite funny Pat ! Don’t think we want anything from Bob Brown anyway .
It’s funny… we must have just beaten them to the pmat.org.au domain name too.
Given comments about doing the ‘right’ thing regarding powered sluices, I would of thought that PMAT members would voice there opposition, and support the responsible use of at least battery powered sluices in our quest for gold. After all where’s the harm in moving gravel two feet thru a sluice. Given the fact that the government allows Grange resources to dig a pit that can be seen from the moon and an acidic tailings dam that is growing every year, I do see certain double standards being applied here. Perhaps certain members who follow the ’ rules ’ without thinking it through could learn a thing or two from a thinker like Bob Brown. Not to mention the blight on the landscape that it Port Latte. I’ve already ducked to avoid the return fire !!
Hi @blackjack PMAT’s position on highbankers is that they are not a prospecting method, they are a method used to clean up dirt you prospected using your hand-tools only, as per the Mining Act. Essentially the same as if you put the dirt in a bag and take it home to clean it up.
Unfortunately said Mining Act also gives power to the Director of Mines to impose any conditions they see fit, and this is one of them. So far as I know nobody has had their highbanker seized, which would allow this to be tested in court (or at least in the Mining Tribunal).
As far as one can tell, most people struggle with the difference between a highbanker and a suction dredge, which is illegal in every State in Australia. Not that that causes anyone to do anything about the rampant dredging that goes on, but that’s another matter. So every time someone posts a video of themselves highbanking in Tassie (thank you, social media!), MRT get a string of complaints from the public and are put into the position of having to do something about it. Not that I’m taking their side, but it helps to understand why things are the way they are, if we’re trying to change them.
Hey Miguel thanks for your reply. I think I do know the difference between the three. A suction dredge uses a venturi effect to suck gravel and almost always uses a noisy petrol powered pump. The gravel is then put through a sluice, not something I’m advocating. A high banker is type multi tiered sluice that has an initial section that uses high powered water jets to break up clay or clods of dirt. To provide the amount of water required they mostly but not always are petrol powered as well, also not something I’m advocating, not just on a noise basis but also because the resulting water power can be used to erode stream banks. What I am advocating is the use of battery powered sluices I.E. a river sluice in conditions were the water is not flowing enough to use it as a river sluice. As a group I think we should be advocating the use of this silent simple form of sluice after all it is within the rules to use a river sluice when the water is flowing. Some may argue that when there is no water flow you could pan. Pedantic I think as some of us are old with bad backs. I believe there is a difference between rules and doing the right thing, I’m not sure about the legalities of removing soil but to me that is not doing the right thing. If every prospector that visited Petcheys bay removed 100litres of soil and took it home the foreshore would soon be eroded. As Mark Twain quipped you can educate people but you can’t teach them to think. Think about it people we can remove soil from a location but can’t use a battery and bilge pump to move it two feet, ridiculous !
Sorry some clarification needed I meant the rules imposed on us by MRT are ridiculous not Miguel or any other members, as I’m sure you would all agree with me.