http://laist.com/2015/08/27/la_miner.php
documentary on gold panners in the San Gabriels
Interesting. I used to sluice and pan for gold in the East Fork, mucho work and not a lot of gold. A great excuse to get into the woods.
The comments to the article were really out there. Those worried about damage to the stream bed should visit the river at a peak flow after a good rainstorm. They might see huge trees floating down like matchsticks. They would also hear the low level growl of the river grinding rocks into dust and moving rocks heavier that any human could move downstream.
The comments to the article were really out there. Those worried about damage to the stream bed should visit the river at a peak flow after a good rainstorm. They might see huge trees floating down like matchsticks. They would also hear the low level growl of the river grinding rocks into dust and moving rocks heavier that any human could move downstream.
The problem isn't as much with the sedimentation of the stream as WHEN and for how long. Storm events are brief and the sediment load quickly returns to normal after the storm has passed. Historically, significant flooding events that produce increased sediment loads are relatively rare, with years in between events. Native fish populations handle catastrophic floods by reproducing heavily in years following. Dredging and sluicing produce sediment all year long, and for years on end. There is no opportunity for native fish to recover from the impacts mining-induced sedimentation has on their reproductive success.
Saying, "It's good for the fish because there are still fish there" is like telling a cancer patient that cancer is good because they're still here.
Saying, "It's good for the fish because there are still fish there" is like telling a cancer patient that cancer is good because they're still here.
I suppose you are referring to the land grabbers who will say anything they think will work....yes its true.
With 100% certainity we can say that miners were not particularly disruptive to the Sheep Mountain wilderness. 99.9% of recreational miners were fooling with rocks from Heaton to downstream of Heaton....particularly along the East Fork Road around Oak Creek. They had their RVs or whatever and it was basically a permanent camp out along Nugget Alley. There were 2 factors that I think put the FS into action....one being the lawlessness and territorial behavior, and the second was large scale mechanical dredging which was taking off in popularity and the price of gold.
So then the FS kicked em out and put up no parking signs. Whether or not this money to do so came from enforcing a new state law I dont know. But knowing that the govt was unlikely to move more than a few feet from their car, the movement took over the Sheep Mountain wilderness, past the bridge. Those spaces quickly filled up and downstream of that started to fill up.
But to be clear I blame this on the FS because its their action that lead to the miners mucking up the east fork where people now hike....meanwhile there is hardly anyone downstream of that. The land grabbers can marginalize whoever they want(and they want to marginalize plenty of others while pretending to be inclusive and experts), but its always fit into the multipurpose of the forest. The only reason the land grabbers care now is because the miners are invading their space.
If only they could get the hell out of the scenic zone and go back to somewhere they could be tolerated but regulated...but you know the forest service mantra...if there is any 'situation', just close the area as long as possible. Put down as an excuse 'fire danger'.
I meant the commentators on that website...people who led the Monument coup aka San Gabriel Mountains Forever....aka Modern Hiker...etc....They are not the public...thats the problem for them. They claim to be, thus the need for no public comment, but they arent.
I opine the public is all of America, whether its a redneck or urbanite. I might not understand many uses of the forest that give people satisfaction but they are still in agreement that there needs to be a forest in the first place. Thats what to me makes the Angeles Forest so unique and great.Of course, Im in one of those marginalized groups, canyoneering, which they consider losers,so let that be a disclaimer.
Im not one of those commentators who ignores the fact that they forced the FS to spend forest money on monument paperwork....money that would have been used towards the East Fork this past year....money earmarked to do cleanups were cancelled because the budget was used to push around paperwork.Now they claim to be surprised that if the forest service has $x money on stuff, and you tell it to spend $Y on some paperwork, they have $X-$Y now! But again, saying that more money should have came from a tree or the sky to compensate for the order does not cover up the hard core fact that service went cancelled.
To which they commented to the LA times...'Be patient, everything is in our control'....all I can do is laugh. The best one recently is their 2 faced statements what El Nino even means....and it was unearthed the last(and only in recorded history) time these same conditions were present, it didnt rain that winter!!!!!! LOL.
Here is the LA times article I referenced
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-mo ... story.html
I'm not aware of any cleanups that have been canceled. The San Gabriel River Ranger District has more recreation employees in the field this year than they have in almost a decade. Do you have specific information otherwise?AW wrote: ↑Im not one of those commentators who ignores the fact that they forced the FS to spend forest money on monument paperwork....money that would have been used towards the East Fork this past year....money earmarked to do cleanups were cancelled because the budget was used to push around paperwork.
You correctly pointed out that I shouldnt have said that without facts....thus what I said should be considered false and a lie even if it were to be true. I'll have to check myself before I break myself hehehe...but I still say the overall message is correct.SGBob wrote: ↑I'm not aware of any cleanups that have been canceled. The San Gabriel River Ranger District has more recreation employees in the field this year than they have in almost a decade. Do you have specific information otherwise?AW wrote: ↑Im not one of those commentators who ignores the fact that they forced the FS to spend forest money on monument paperwork....money that would have been used towards the East Fork this past year....money earmarked to do cleanups were cancelled because the budget was used to push around paperwork.