The "Give Fish a Chance Act" Would Effectively End Gold Prospecting in Washington

Two of our self-styled 'betters' in Olympia, Democratic representatives of the environmentalist lobby Gael Tarleton (36th Legislative District) and Gerry Pollet (46th Legislative District), have undertaken a project to effectively ban small-scale mining and prospecting in Washington.  By sponsoring HB 2579, the cloyingly-named "Give Fish a Chance Act," they would impose a $150 permit fee just to wet a gold pan.

Some of the highlights (or 'lowlights,' depending on your point of view) of this bill are the following:

1.  Language added to RCW 77.55.021 Sec. 2. (7) (a) would require that:  "The department may not issue a permit under this chapter for the use of a suction dredge in any state waters that have been designated as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species by the United States fish and wildlife service or the United States national oceanic and atmospheric administration or in the
tributaries of any freshwater state waters that have received critical habitat designation."[Capitalization errors in original.]

The foregoing further limits the number of streams in which one may operate a dredge, assuming one can still afford gas for it after paying the permit fee.

2.  RCW 77.55.091 Sec. 3. (1) is amended to read:  "The department shall require the permit for mineral prospecting and mining described in section 4 of this act for activities conducted in accordance with the gold and fish pamphlet."

The above section would eliminate the Gold & Fish pamphlet's role as a permit in and of itself.

3.  RCW 77.55.091 Sec. 3. (2) is replaced with amended language from Sec. 3. (3) to read:  "The department shall distribute a gold and fish pamphlet that describes methods of mineral prospecting that are consistent with the department's rule.  The pamphlet shall be written to clearly indicate the mineral prospecting and mining methods that require a permit under this chapter or section 4 of this act and the mineral prospecting and mining methods that require compliance with the pamphlet.  To the extent possible, the department shall use the provisions of the gold and fish pamphlet to minimize the number of specific provisions of a written permit issued under this chapter."

This latest section seems to offer a grain of hope that the kindly souls at WDFW may declare that some "mineral prospecting and mining methods" do not require a permit.  Those familiar with the historic attitude of WDFW personnel towards small-scale mining will realize that this 'grain' is most unlikely to germinate, let alone bear fruit.

4.  RCW 77.55.091 Sec. 3. (3) is eliminated.

5.  The real kicker comes in "New Section" 4.  Among other requirements, Sec. 4. states:  "A mineral prospecting and mining permit is required to conduct small scale prospecting and mining and any mineral prospecting and mining not prohibited under RCW 77.55.021(7)(a).  [The 'Critical Habitat' dredge prohibition quoted in 'highlight' 1 above.]  The fee for the permit is one hundred fifty dollars.  In addition to the permit, compliance with the pamphlet referenced in RCW 77.55.091(2) is required in order to conduct mineral prospecting and mining."  [Emphasis added.]

6.  RCW 77.55.091 Sec. 5. (2) (c) and (d) are amended to tie up any loose ends by excluding the fee exemption for hydraulic projects authorized by the Gold & Fish pamphlet and for mineral  prospecting and mining activities.

If enacted, this bill will be a disaster for small-scale prospecting and mining as only the large mining corporations could afford the required fees.

Lost from the proposed amendments to RCW 77.55.091 is the 'Findings' clause in the code as it currently stands:

Findings -- 1997 c 415: "The legislature finds that small scale prospecting and mining: (1) Is an important part of the heritage of the state; (2) provides economic benefits to the state; and (3) can be conducted in a manner that is beneficial to fish habitat and fish propagation. Now, therefore, the legislature declares that small scale prospecting and mining shall be regulated in the least burdensome manner that is consistent with the state's fish management objectives and the federal endangered species act." [1997 c 415 § 1.]

Perhaps Tarleton and Pollet need to be reminded of the legislature's historic position on this issue?

HB 2579 is currently in the House Agriculture & Natural Resources committee and may be tracked at the link here.

Comments on HB 2579 may be submitted to legislators in all districts at the link here.

(Your author's comment to the legislators:  If enacted in these already trying economic times, the $150 fee would effectively preclude small-scale prospecting and mining.  It would thereby not only
fail to generate additional revenue, but also negate current economic benefits to the state from these activities.  HB 2579 appears to be little more than an indirect attempt to ban small-scale mining on the dubious premise that doing so will improve the lot of fish.  Inasmuch as fish don't vote, I would hope the legislators would be more concerned with improving the lot of their constituents, or with at least not inflicting further hardships upon them.)

Gael Tarleton's and Gerry Pollet's  contact information may be found on their web pages linked in the first paragraph of this post.

A PDF file of HB 2579 may be downloaded from the link here.