Depth of removal Victoria

[Goldtarget]

After searching for what seems like forever I'm yet to find a definitive answer to this question...how deep can you dig using hand tools, and how much material can you remove from a site? Also if the ground has been previously removed as in shafts and holes can you go deeper and wider? The answer is much more clear cut for the licencing but remains in my opinion undefined holding a miners right. Any help appreciated.

 

[The Green Wanderer]

Should be defined in the government guidelines for fossicking, I know that up here in QLD its 0.5m deep within a stream/ river bed and 2m deep on solid ground. Undermining and tunnelling into river banks are prohibited.
Doesnt mention hole diameters, however since the activity is technically small scale mining I think the implied feeling is that while a 2m round hole is easily avoidable and can be effectively back-filled a 2m deep 5m long trench would be harder to avoid and have a greater impact on a river ecosystem.

 

[Marked]

My understanding is that only the mineral you are prospecting for may be removed from site - material excavated should be processed on site and used to back-fill. I think I have read that some of the forum members remove material to process, but return it to where it was collected once processed. Many people remove concentrated materials (cons) for final processing - I am sure this would not be more than a bucket's worth of material...

 

[trashmagnet]

if in vic you can take 20 kilo of samples for e.g loaming or reef sampling
cons are not included in this
regards tm

 

[G0lddigg@]

if in vic you can take 20 kilo of samples for e.g loaming or reef sampling
cons are not included in this
regards tm

where did you hear that trashmagnet? I would love this to be true..... my understanding is that you cannot remove any material from excavations other than that which is being sought after i.e. minerals.

http://www.victoriangemclubs.asn.au/Fossicking.html - state -
Do not remove excess amounts of materialtake only enough for your personal use, not for commercial purposes.

The rules clearly state you must repair any damage and leave it as it was found as bet you can, surely that explains that you cannot carry off buckets of material.

 

[trashmagnet]

if in vic you can take 20 kilo of samples for e.g loaming or reef sampling
cons are not included in this
regards tm

where did you hear that trashmagnet? I would love this to be true..... my understanding is that you cannot remove any material from excavations other than that which is being sought after i.e. minerals.

http://www.victoriangemclubs.asn.au/Fossicking.html - state -
Do not remove excess amounts of materialtake only enough for your personal use, not for commercial purposes.

The rules clearly state you must repair any damage and leave it as it was found as bet you can, surely that explains that you cannot carry off buckets of material.

g'day

it used to be written on the back of miners rights, there used to be a list of offences and penalty points on there.

it is 20 kilo's not a bucket full,

if you take more than 20 kilo's then then you will be taking EXCESS amounts and will be fine that amount of penalty points.

it was brought in to stop people going out and getting trailer loads of soil/rock for there garden under a miners right.

if you think about it, if you can't take samples, then it would be impossible to value reefs or loam in dry areas
regards tm

 

[G0lddigg@]

i agree makes it hard to process quartz this is the current miners right statement

 

[trashmagnet]

g'day mate

if you can't remove samples,
then it does not just make it hard to value reefs, it makes it illegal and that is not the case

my stuff is in storage at the moment while I build otherwise I'd grab out my old miners right with it written on it.
I only have been getting miners rights for about 15yrs so the miners right I read it on was issued after 1990 when those rules you put up were issued, so I'm sure it has not been changed since.
the only thing that has changed since those rules were issued is the rule about a miners right not exceeding 2yrs, you can now get 10yr rights.
if any one has a miners right from 10 to 15 years ago (blue one) have a look on the back.
regards tm

 

[G0lddigg@]

i know thats certainly the case in WA 20kgs of samples (https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1803) , cant find it anywhere on the web in relation to vic, are you certain it was a vic miners right?

 

[trashmagnet]

i know thats certainly the case in WA 20kgs of samples (https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1803) , cant find it anywhere on the web in relation to vic, are you certain it was a vic miners right?

yeah mate, old blue miners right

like I said reef sampling and loaming would now be illegal if you can't take samples..
it's common sense they will ping you if your leaving big holes and taking large amounts but talking small samples that do not exceed 20 kilo is perfectly fine, just gotta make the place you get them from look good before leaving.
regards tm

 

[G0lddigg@]

hey mate just got off the phone with DPI and energy resources you cannot under any circumstances remove anything other than the mineral from the work site, the miners right is intended for the use of hobby prospecting and non invasive excavation the soil must be returned to the site prior to departure.

That was their official statement, I asked in the situation where a prospector wanted to take a quartz sample to crush and process off site he said that would be illegal. Using equipment onsite to sample is acceptable and any earth removed that does not contain the sought mineral has to be returned to the site.

He went on to explain that they intentionally leave the rules vague because they do not want people carrying on mining activities whilst trying to do so under a miners right, (which actually makes sense to me now)

Here's the kicker and its their statement, there are no restrictions under a miners right as to how much mineral you are allowed to collect in any one day.
now if for example you happen to be prospecting for quarts well that can be considered both a mineral and a rock... my understanding of a mineral is that it is inorganic and can be expressed as a chemical formula, inorganic is considered not to contain carbon.

THe answer to the original question though is you cannot remove just any material it must be a mineral.

 

[trashmagnet]

THe answer to the original question though is you cannot remove just any material it must be a mineral.

thanks for ringing, I sent them a e-mail earlier so it will be interesting to see if they match up info wise.

going on that I won't be concerned with the 20kg limit, which means i'll be taking heaps more because I only sample "MINERALISED dirt and reef" it's just some has no gold in it but heaps of minerals :lol:

perhaps I did get mixed up which miners right I read it on but I'm sure my w.a miners right is white, not blue so not sure how I did that

but I'm glad I'm wrong cause no limit is better than 20kg
thanks for the info golddigg
regards tm

 

[loamer]

Quartz - rock or mineral? Its a rock and a mineral so in theory covered in your Miners Right for removal. Drive around the Vic goldfields - there are tonnes of quartz lining driveways, flower gardens, walls etc. at houses (myself included), businesses, even some of the older government buildings and no-one seems to care. Here are a couple of answers:

"Quartz is indeed a mineral. Minerals are naturally occurring, inorganic, have a definite chemical composition and can be expressed as a chemical formula. For quartz, the formula is Si O2.
However, a rock can be quartz as well. The official term is "monomineralic" rock. That means that the rock consists of one mineral. In my part of the country, pure, white quartz veins run through igneous and sedimentary rocks. A chunk of that white quartz is a rock, but it is also a mineral."

The Geological Society of Australia (Victoria Division) states that "Quartz, feldspar and white mica are the clear or pale-coloured minerals in rocks formed from magna."

 

[G0lddigg@]

thats sort of what i said

 

[trashmagnet]

so it looks like we now all agreed, if you can prove it's a mineral, just go for it

which is great cause white quartz driveways look great :lol:
regards tm

 

[charlie123]

I believe on my own personal standards that if i open ground i would not dig further than 1 foot unless back filling, my opinion under the flood line of the stream dig away for the next flood will cover it. But if you are digging a substantial hole under the line, sometimes you may be digging a hole for a couple of weeks next flood will wash it away, but still cover it, for wildlife, also clean it up, because even if you are within regulations all it takes is a single person to ruin the fun for everyone, basicly a person with no idea makes a phone call to the authorities due to a trench they saw. I do not like the fact laws change so much interstate, or in a different country, the laws of mother nature are the same where ever you go on this planet, we are still talking about hole size and depth and where it has been dug. Respect

 

[trashmagnet]

I believe on my own personal standards that if i open ground i would not dig further than 1 foot unless back filling

I believe all holes should be back filled even if less than one foot.
just to shut the whingers up, even though our small depressions help hold water and seeds for the bush and are sometimes smaller than echidna holes (left open too those bad animals) :lol:
I even kick back leaf litter over foot scrapes, but that's just to hide where I get gold.
regards tm

 

[charlie123]

champion

 

[loamer]

thats sort of what i said

- yes, but now its come from two of us, must make it a fact!!! (which it is). Dig away my friends - far more damage is done after a major flood than we can ever do - I call it 'god's raking'. I do laugh when comments are bandied about like 'did you see the unfilled prospectors holes on the mullock heaps?' WTF!!! An unfilled hole on an unfilled hole.

 

[G0lddigg@]