Question about the Karuk II case, Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I th Options

[wheasonjr]

June 2009
Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I think this is a question we do need to be addressing with regards to the Karuk II case. This seems
to be a major part that we may need to defend in this dredging case. If anyone has heard of how
the below information is being addressed in the case I would be interested in knowing it.
Dear Dredging Miners and river prospectors:
If the Tribe wins this case (Karuk II), they can get a permanent injunction against the issuance
of suction dredge mining permits until DFG prepares a new EIR and promulgates new
regulations thereupon. So, I would like to know how we are going to keep the Tribe from
winning this case?
The Tribe named a number of new species, in addition to Coho Salmon, that have been listed
since 1994. They claim that this is all they need to show to win. I checked, there have been a
number of new listings since 1994. So, my questions here are is that all they need to show to get
the permanent injunction and what are we going to argue to counter that?
Yours,
Walter H. Eason, Jr.

[CP]

I had a thought about this Walt....... Maybe take an aggressive position for the fish? I know that sounds weird but here it goes anyway.

From what I've read about fish redds (egg nests) and how the fish make them..............

1) They can only move paricles approximately 10% the size of their tail fin.
2) The worst material for them to work or unsuitable habitat is highly condensed heavily compacted material (especially the smallest/ heaviest=gold, lead, mercury and iron etc)......ie loose stones at good classification without heaviest small pariticulates or heavy compaction is better habitat.
So dredging loosens redd materials while at the same time classifing to a prefered size for fish redds and removing all the smallest/heaviest particles down to about 3.5 specific gravity..... plus mercury and lead is taken out of ecosystem for good.

Hmmmmmmm.......seems like it would be provable on common sense in court that dredging could not possibly be hurting the fish, but rather is in fact stimulating the habitat!
Anyone else see where I'm going with this?
If they are trying to say polutants are added....ie motor oil or gas etc......then they better be ready to ban boating in the state as well since they have more of both on the water ways! Besides, any responible dredger doesn't have leaks or spills on the waterways....wonder how boats would fair in that respect?

Maybe a reflection of dredging permits against fish counts for the last 15-20 years? Any fluxuations that match up or down from permits vs fish counts year to year?
I just don't see how any rational thinker will conclude that the fish are harmed by dredging.

Just my thoughts.....

CP

PS-There are also a couple of good short demo videos on the site here showing fish feeding in the "dredging turbidity" while running and another feeding at the nozzle.....feel free to use those if needed.