NPWS has been reviewing its Fossicking Policy Please comment to them by 6 May

[Gemster]

NAPFA Has been "working with NPWS" for the past 3yrs on this.....   Sorry but I think I smell a rat....... Sorry Leah but that link is Not the one im talking about.... Nice Read tho

 oops it,s the NSW & ACT Prospectors and Fossicking Association... im having a shocker today
   Gemster.....

[Jimnyjerry]

NAPFA Has been "working with NPWS" for the past 3yrs on this.....   Sorry but I think I smell a rat....... Sorry Leah but that link is Not the one im talking about.... Nice Read tho


   Gemster.....

Been looking but cannot find the link you commented on. Will try again tomorrow if my migraine + cold lets me think straight. 

[Aussie Sapphire]

Ah ok - if you have the link available.  Just copy and paste into a message.


ie. when the link is in front of you, select all of the text in the address bar of your browser and then press CTRL + C.


Then in your message here, press CTRL + V and it should paste in so others can go to the link you are referring to.


cheers
Leah

[Gemster]

IT'S coming.... Just waiting for the Lord to help

  Gemster.....

[Lord_Thunda]

   Prayers do help 


https://www.prospectingaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?id=16988


This is the link that Gemster was talking about. It seems to me that NAPFA is primarily looking after gold diggers & going against fossickers by their wording " Fossicking generally involves disturbing soil, rocks and vegetation to find and potentially remove minerals, gemstones and historical objects.[/size] " To say that using gold prospecting equipment does no harm is a load of crap. They pollute waterways by using mercury to separate the gold in some instances. [/color]  

[Crocket]

Thank you to the Lord.

There is also a brief mention in the March newsletter on the NAPFA site:

http://www.napfa.net/NAPFA-Newsletter.html

It does not say a lot so it is reproduced hereunder:

3. National Parks have told us they will soon release a draft policy on fossicking in
some National Park lands for public consultation. We will alert you when this
happens.
4. DRE has supported NAPFA’s request to establish a working group and has agreed to
coordinate regular round table meetings involving NAPFA, DRE, NPWS, Western
Lands, and other agencies as needed. Our second meeting will be held soon. The
purpose of the meeting is to progress discussion and action on areas of interest to
fossickers.

Regards

[Jimnyjerry]

From my reading of the newsletter it is Np that is making the negative comments.

[Aussie Sapphire]

This is the link that Gemster was talking about. It seems to me that NAPFA is primarily looking after gold diggers & going against fossickers by their wording " Fossicking generally involves disturbing soil, rocks and vegetation to find and potentially remove minerals, gemstones and historical objects.

I think you will find that in NAPFA's original post, that sentence is just a quote from the NPWS page where they are asking for submissions.  It seems pretty clear to me that that particular line is not their view but quoting it as a pretty clear indication of where NPWS stands.

Those words are from NPWS - not NAPFA.  This is exactly the line that has (for good reason) upset some commenters here and caused people to make submissions that this need not necessarily be the case.

You certainly may disagree with their opinion that it is "a good step forward" and "better than nothing" but you should not be putting words in their mouth when they have put it up on the Prospecting forum specifically so that interested parties can add to the argument.

Leah

[Gemster]

I agree Leah that the Negative comments have come from NPWS in the wording of their Draft....... I Don't trust them at all... I just pointed out NAPFA's view on this....
 And im sorry if ANY appeared to reflect on NAPFA badly..... that was not my intention at all... If they can help in getting more Fossicking areas opened all the better... but if they(npws) close Torrington which could just as easily happen.... well that's WHAT we don't want isn't it...
Section 11,12,14&15 scare me... so easily turned around onto us....


   Gemster.....

[Lord_Thunda]

The penalty in Section 15 reads .... Failure to comply with the conditions of consent may result in penalties, which may include a temporary or permanent prohibition on fossicking occurring in the park.

• This would imply, according to the proposed laws, that you must sterilize equipment before you leave. I honestly dont understand how this could occur as I have stated before. By stopping fossickers in Torrington will destroy the entire area for tourism which keeps us all surviving in some way. It would mean Minerama & Gemfest would close as apart from guided tours noone would stay before or after these events.

• This is the main reason I am so passionate about this as I dont want my town to die nor any in the area.

[Shivan]

I think things may have been a little confused?

It has always been NPWS policy that fossicking is bad for the parks, hence why it is only allowed in two areas at this time.

Regardless of weather you are looking for gems or gold, you have to disturbing soil and rocks in the very least, and a lot of the time in both instances it is in the waterways as alluvial deposits. Though in both instances, this is not always the case either.

NAPFA has been working to be able to get public comment on what has been common policy for years in NPWS. So now we maybe have a chance to influence the policy. Even if they just started looking at each fossicking area on a case by case basis, wouldn't that be a step in the right direction?

With the talk of sterilizing equipment, i believe this just means cleaning shovels and sieves, so there is less chance of bringing in seeds and weeds from other areas. I could be wrong though...
I just think we need to get the word out and as many positive submissions as possible. 

[Gemster]

I knew the Lord would help me ... I have direct line you see...

 Now in section 12 you could quite possibly find that You, the Fossicker may well be responsible for 'Preparing the Assessments'....Wow this sounds like fun doesn't it.... And a Financial Contribution might be required.....Mmmmm...... Oh I forgot and a Visitor safety risk assessment as well according to section 11...... of course there is more but I think you get where im coming from now.....

 I agree with Lord_Thunda about being so passionate about his little Gem of an area.. Hopefully one day I will be able to call New England my home too ... They are all doing it tough already down there and now this threat... Hopefully things may just stay the same, but it's all to easy for it to go the other way too....


    Gemster.......

   

[Gemster]

 Yes positive Submissions... do you really think after being so passionate about this that I would say/do/write anything negative about what WE all want?  But what we don't want is any Government Department Snowballing us into loosing Torrington CR OR Closing any other areas cause the Act says we can..... now I don't think like NAPFA... and I do not agree that this draft is a good thing the way it reads to me.... If they npws are so worried about a bit of sediment in the creek from shovelling then they would have kittens after a flood then... Hand the Fossicking areas in Torrington CR back to State Forests to manage then there is no conflict of interest..... Simples I say...


   Gemster.....

[Shivan]

I am not saying people on the forums would send a negative submission, but since this got brought up there has been a negative response from this forum in general. I assumed that it was because there was a misunderstanding in what was going on.

You do realize that if they did not want people fossicking in National Park they could just close the fossicking areas without asking for public opinion at all. They do not have to ask public opionion to manage the Park as they see fit, as they have done for years.
All i am saying is this is an opportunity we have not had before, the ability to influence their policy.

I am glad people are passionate about this topic, those who have National Park available to fossick in are lucky. But think about all the other areas that are not as lucky and all the other people out there passionate about their area. I have gold fields 15 minutes from my home, with some interesting geology, nothing else like it close, but i am not even allowed to pick up a rock because its in National Park.

[Aussie Sapphire]

Well said Shivan.


There is a way to be constructive and a way that is less helpful.


I understand that people feel strongly about these issues but a calm and reasoned response is more likely to be successful.


As Shivan points out, NPWS is the landowner in this case and can refuse access at any time.  This is an opportunity to put your point of view about why you think current access should remain and new access opened up.  If NAPFA has been involved in creating this opportunity, they should be applauded for this.


Certainly the overall trend is clear and worrying but careful and respectful negotations will hopefully reverse it at least in this quite specific case.


cheers
Leah