I will start off by saying that I have not read that legislation (the PL you  quote from them).  That being said, USUALLY when a "withdrawal from entry and location" is done, it just eliminates being able to files claims on that piece of ground.  Normally you can still prospect and small scale mine (usually with some limitations.)

 

Examples of ground withdrawn from entry and location are USFS and BLM campground and recreation areas, areas open to the public for prospecting (keeps it open for prospecting for evreyone), and some other areas.

 

In my mind, they are reading the "withdrawn from entry", as literal to keep people out.  That being said, the only way to test it is to go in and get cited and take it to court and see who prevails. 

 

As usual, your mileage may vary from mine...., and I make no warranties on my thoughts...........

Any one else????????

It means don't Prospect there, and I have had this argument with more than a few people.

California changed the law so that the only dredging allowed has to receive a permit first. Just so happens the only Permit given out to date was to the Sierra group, or so I am told. I have heard people say that they still dredge there because the local authorities will not enforce the ban, but at the same time the EPA Clean Water Act just went into law without a challenge which now gives the EPA Authority over all these waters, and they have a link to report anybody violating the law, you can even download their APP for reporting.

The full law that went into effect July 27th has not yet been given to the public, so for the time being prospecting there is illegal under state law, if they decide to enforce it, but now Federal Law is prohibiting you from dredging there, and I am willing to bet a few tree huggers will be more than happy to report you.

This new law will end up in the Supreme Court, the EPA and President Obama went way off the limb in creating these laws, but we need to challenge them and not remain silent. Laws are supposed to be passed by Congress, and this new EPA law supersedes the laws of Congress.

BC-  Whole different can of worms than what you are referring to.  The EPA fiasco and mineral withdrawal are completely different cats.

I agree with you Arthur, but how these news laws are exercised is yet to be determined. I fought like hell to get a copy of the new Clean Water Act, it would have cost me $550 to get a FOIA release but then I realized the law was still being created and you can't get a copy to save your life. When I realized the law would not be available to the public prior to it going into effect I quit trying, but now that the new law is in effect I still can't find the document, and I will gladly read the whole thing, all 2000+ pages.

The difference in the can of worms is a Misdemeanor or a Felony offense, and that is huge for us freedom loving people. Do you want to lose your side arm, your hunting rifles, your right to vote?

I believe in following the law and fighting unjust laws, and the new EPA Clean Water Act is about as unjust as it gets.

I know where you are coming from, but lets try and not confuse the man with more than one subject in his thread.  He is referring to the interpretation of  "withdrawn from mineral entry and location", and what that particular National Forest says it is.  Most all, if not all N.F.'s out west say prospecting, and other forms of mining within reason (without filing a claim, filing an NOI and POO) are allowed in most withdrawn areas when "withdrawn from mineral entry and location".  In this case I believe (not a lawyer and take it for what it is worth) the Forest Supervisor has way overstepped his bounds on bad advice from other folks on the forest.  The Regional Forester may have other ideas when backed into a corner, and that would be the place to start at this time.  If Regional agrees with him, then it is time to go to Sec. Agriculture and Sec. Interior (BLM handles mining and claims for both agencies).

What had me confused is that other prospecting forums have been mentioning this quoted law since prior to 2006, yet the listing still appears in the guide. We have spoken to someone in the GPAA office who said she know several people who have gone prospecting there with a problem. I would think that somewhere since 2006 the guide would have removed that listing if prospecting were truly being restricted. Guess we'll try and see what happens.

As my Mother used to say, "be careful how you step in those pies!"



I don't live there and don't prospect there, but I am seeing many different Jurisdictions being formed over those bodies of water.



Can you do us all a favor and let us know your outcome?

Here is the problem. A hiker comes by in a National Forest and they see a gasoline powered engine running on the water and freak out, they in turn call the police and then the Forest Agency has to come out and see if what you are doing is legal. I ran into the same problem when bear hunting in Washington State in Wilderness areas that were connected to Parks Lands. When the laws are not clear the enforcement is not either, it's to the judgment of the officer at hand, and you will then have to fight it in court if charged.

I can't say this enough, always call the BLM, Forestry Department, or who ever else is in charge of the land before you go prospecting and get their blessings. Nobody in the GPAA wants their picture on the cover of a newspaper as a person that was polluting a now protected body of water and right now water in California is highly coveted.

Just my two cents.

Ok I know what your talking about Martin and here is some information That I have found out about. First off regarding the 1928 water act does not spell out how to enforce it also this area is now part of the San Gabriel Mountain national monument and they are still working on the plains for it. They are taking commits until the 11 Aug 2015 so I would ask you and everyone else to make their comment to try and keep this area open for prospecting and mining. here is the link to make the comments https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=46964 it was signed from a national forest to a monument on 10 Oct 2014 by Obama and it is creating some confusion on if you prospect up there. I know of people that do hike from the end of the east fork road and prospect. I also have heard that people have gotten in a decision with law enforcement to put it nicely. Now with the new epa law mention above is just going to add to it

The area was taken out of the entry for a claim .As has been on here before .Yes you can still use pans and sluices in the san Gabriel area .No motorized equipment at all .That fight has been debated for a long time .

And at the start there was no mention of mechanical equipment .Just panning and sluicing.The sing that was put up had to be removed as it had false information on it .The forest service said the sign had been put up by an inviro group over night ad was removed soon after .It was not an official sign.It was and is only removed from entry.

Thanks to everyone for their input.  We did visit the Angeles National Forest, East Fork, yesterday and spent about 5 hours sluicing material We gathered from what appeared to be old river bed above the river. We never saw a ranger but did see a couple people sluicing further upriver from us. Got a couple stares from passerbys but no problems.

NICE, glad you had a good trip.

Now that makes it more fun. Looks like you found a good spot. Hope you marked it in your mind for future use.

I was sad to see that the claim in this area was not in the new book... I have been prospecting there for a while now. Good gold, good people, beautiful atmosphere.

Hey guys! I'm suuuuper new, first post! But I live in LA and so I've looked up this particular issue and I kind of came to the understanding that the Forest Service was taking the stance that no prospecting was allowed in the National Monument area. That still left other areas of the National Forest subject to regular public lands use including prospecting - again in my total n00b understanding, but I did spend a good bit of time trying to educate myself on it.

I am so new I haven't even gotten my guide in the mail yet! :) But I'd be curious whether the GPAA claim was within the Monument boundaries or elsewhere in the forest. Been poking around non-monument areas like Gold Creek, Delta Flats etc with no luck whatsoever, but really I'm so new that I wouldn't expect much. Just been enjoying getting outside. :)

Looking forward to getting to know y'all on here! :)

-Julie

Im just giving this subject a bump.. because, i was also interested in checking out that area sometime..
mostly because i have never been up in there... and have wanted to visit a new spot...

I was wondering if anyone on here could share the name of the claim or claims that were held on the East Fork by the GPAA. I go up there from time to time and it would be nice to check them out and see what kind of works been done.

Also, for anyone who wants to go up there. Don't leave anything tempting in your car. There are frequent break ins.... I learned the hard way.

I go there every weekend. Dredging is not allowed. Panning, sluicing, metal detecting is. I’m not sure about drywashing. I have never had a ranger say anything.

I go there every weekend. Sluice boxes and gold pans only are allowed. I have no problems there.

Just bumping this thread as I've been interested in this area for a while. Any recent feedback from folks prospecting on the East Fork?