Help Support Prospecting Australia:
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
Thanks DWT and others for your support.
We need all the members we can get to build and strengthen credibility.
The current membership deal is really good. As you would have noted -- two $10 tickets in GPX5000 for $20 membership.
It won't last forever though -- the raffle will be drawn in Mid November so after that membership will be on the basis of pure support.
I am sure we will continue to grow past then, but for anyone sitting on the fence, getting in now will get you into the draw for the GPX and other items (total value $9500+)
Cheers
Stephen
President
NAPFA
We need all the members we can get to build and strengthen credibility.
The current membership deal is really good. As you would have noted -- two $10 tickets in GPX5000 for $20 membership.
It won't last forever though -- the raffle will be drawn in Mid November so after that membership will be on the basis of pure support.
I am sure we will continue to grow past then, but for anyone sitting on the fence, getting in now will get you into the draw for the GPX and other items (total value $9500+)
Cheers
Stephen
President
NAPFA
I joined also some time ago - member 513
Dogmatic
Matt
Anyone want to go as a proposer and seconder for me? just need your names pm'd to me so I can add them to the online application form.
Dogmatic
Matt
Thanks Stephen, will put your name down as proposer and leave the seconder so that I can submit it tonight.
Matt.
Matt.
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
NAPFA met with the NSW Minister for Resources and Energy, Anthony Roberts, on Friday 26 of September to argue for the removal of the current requirement in the Mining Act for recreational fossickers to require the permission of Exploration Lease holders prior to fossicking in areas that are not Fossicking Districts.
The Minister gave us a good hearing on the matter and we await with interest the outcome that is of relevance to all fossickers in NSW.
Predictably the mining sector, as represented by the well-funded Minerals Council of NSW, has presented a number of concerns to counter our request and to maintain the current situation, but these concerns do not hold up to objective analysis.
In particular, that:
security of active mining areas is controlled by other parts of the Act and fossickers do not pose any significant additional activist risk; and
there is no effective competition for discovery or exploitation of the resource due to the protection for miners under the Act and their focus on large and often deep ore deposits that are not of interest to fossickers.
In short, despite their protestations, this change would not cause any material risk or administrative loss to miners.
It would, however, simplify arrangements for an estimated 50,000 fossickers annually in NSW, members of the public, and others beyond the border who visit as fossicking tourists.
It would also remove redundant red-tape for both miners and fossickers.
The matter has never really come up before because there has not been effective and organised representation by fossickers about it until now.
In practical terms, some fossickers seek permission, but many dont. Mining companies are also often ignorant of the requirement or dont respond to requests.
It is also virtually impossible for many people to navigate the maze of ownership information and to track down the actual managers of ELs.
However, technically, if you fossick on an area covered by an Exploration Lease, and you are not in a fossicking district, you are breaking the law and under the Mining Act 1992 face a 50 point or $5500 penalty. This applies even if you have permission of the land owner!
This is what we want to fix.
By not getting behind this change, the Minerals Council is missing an opportunity for some good public relations for the industry in NSW which would make a welcome change from news about coal and gas protests and improper conduct by some companies.
If you are not a NAPFA member, please take the effort to join and support the cause.
For those who are interested in all the detail, here is a short version of why we believe things need to change:
1. The current requirement can turn ordinary people into unwitting lawbreakers who under the Act face a 50 point or $5500 penalty for undertaking an activity that has no real material impact on the EL holder.
2. NAPFA contends that removing this requirement would pose no genuine issue for the mining industry, or any reduction in the value of ELs or the security of title of those ELs.
3. It would be a tangible improvement and good news for the fossicking public.
4. It maximises the return to the State of NSW because recreational fossickers are the only ones able to economically recover small alluvial deposits for the benefit of the community (noting that very few recreational fossickers would even cover their fuel bill).
5. Fossickers target small coarse gold deposits which are not the target of EL activity, as evidenced by the lack of official reports (complying with JORC code) of such deposits.
6. Fossickers can only conduct limited short term low impact activity, so there is no competition for discovery and no ability to extract commercially viable resources.
7. EL rights prevent other parties to also lay exploration or mining claims on the same resource. So there is no effective threat to security of title by having fossickers on an area. The leaseholder always owns the deposit if by some rare good fortune the fossicker discovered a commercially viable deposit.
8. It is implausible that a lucky fossicker removing a few grams of gold or mineral will somehow compromise a sophisticated exploration search or security of title.
9. There have been no apparent problems with security of title or other concerns -- in Fossicking Districts where such permission is not required.
10. Despite the internet, practically it is very difficult for ordinary people to identify who owns ELs, what they cover and even to communicate with them.
11. A change like this would effectively extend the exemption that currently exists in dedicated Fossicking Districts. It would help redress a legislative imbalance that is consistently in favour of the large mining industry, rather than the recreational fossicking public.
12. If the relevant section of the Act is repealed, the Act still has provisions to ensure that the public are prohibited from entering sites where mining companies are undertaking active drilling and sampling on their lease.
13. This change would be of benefit to the public and help to put NSW in a leadership position when it comes to fossicking.
14. This would encourage more interstate fossicking tourism and help boost NSW regional economies.
15. It would be a red tape reduction for citizens and a gain for the economy of NSW.
If you have got this farThank You!
Regards,
Stephen
President
NAPFA
The Minister gave us a good hearing on the matter and we await with interest the outcome that is of relevance to all fossickers in NSW.
Predictably the mining sector, as represented by the well-funded Minerals Council of NSW, has presented a number of concerns to counter our request and to maintain the current situation, but these concerns do not hold up to objective analysis.
In particular, that:
security of active mining areas is controlled by other parts of the Act and fossickers do not pose any significant additional activist risk; and
there is no effective competition for discovery or exploitation of the resource due to the protection for miners under the Act and their focus on large and often deep ore deposits that are not of interest to fossickers.
In short, despite their protestations, this change would not cause any material risk or administrative loss to miners.
It would, however, simplify arrangements for an estimated 50,000 fossickers annually in NSW, members of the public, and others beyond the border who visit as fossicking tourists.
It would also remove redundant red-tape for both miners and fossickers.
The matter has never really come up before because there has not been effective and organised representation by fossickers about it until now.
In practical terms, some fossickers seek permission, but many dont. Mining companies are also often ignorant of the requirement or dont respond to requests.
It is also virtually impossible for many people to navigate the maze of ownership information and to track down the actual managers of ELs.
However, technically, if you fossick on an area covered by an Exploration Lease, and you are not in a fossicking district, you are breaking the law and under the Mining Act 1992 face a 50 point or $5500 penalty. This applies even if you have permission of the land owner!
This is what we want to fix.
By not getting behind this change, the Minerals Council is missing an opportunity for some good public relations for the industry in NSW which would make a welcome change from news about coal and gas protests and improper conduct by some companies.
If you are not a NAPFA member, please take the effort to join and support the cause.
For those who are interested in all the detail, here is a short version of why we believe things need to change:
1. The current requirement can turn ordinary people into unwitting lawbreakers who under the Act face a 50 point or $5500 penalty for undertaking an activity that has no real material impact on the EL holder.
2. NAPFA contends that removing this requirement would pose no genuine issue for the mining industry, or any reduction in the value of ELs or the security of title of those ELs.
3. It would be a tangible improvement and good news for the fossicking public.
4. It maximises the return to the State of NSW because recreational fossickers are the only ones able to economically recover small alluvial deposits for the benefit of the community (noting that very few recreational fossickers would even cover their fuel bill).
5. Fossickers target small coarse gold deposits which are not the target of EL activity, as evidenced by the lack of official reports (complying with JORC code) of such deposits.
6. Fossickers can only conduct limited short term low impact activity, so there is no competition for discovery and no ability to extract commercially viable resources.
7. EL rights prevent other parties to also lay exploration or mining claims on the same resource. So there is no effective threat to security of title by having fossickers on an area. The leaseholder always owns the deposit if by some rare good fortune the fossicker discovered a commercially viable deposit.
8. It is implausible that a lucky fossicker removing a few grams of gold or mineral will somehow compromise a sophisticated exploration search or security of title.
9. There have been no apparent problems with security of title or other concerns -- in Fossicking Districts where such permission is not required.
10. Despite the internet, practically it is very difficult for ordinary people to identify who owns ELs, what they cover and even to communicate with them.
11. A change like this would effectively extend the exemption that currently exists in dedicated Fossicking Districts. It would help redress a legislative imbalance that is consistently in favour of the large mining industry, rather than the recreational fossicking public.
12. If the relevant section of the Act is repealed, the Act still has provisions to ensure that the public are prohibited from entering sites where mining companies are undertaking active drilling and sampling on their lease.
13. This change would be of benefit to the public and help to put NSW in a leadership position when it comes to fossicking.
14. This would encourage more interstate fossicking tourism and help boost NSW regional economies.
15. It would be a red tape reduction for citizens and a gain for the economy of NSW.
If you have got this farThank You!
Regards,
Stephen
President
NAPFA
G
Guest
Let's hope that commonsense prevails & this is removed. For mine it is the single biggest problem NSW fossickers face & it is an injustice that large mining companies can even have a say whether you can or can't fossick on lands they don't even own. Fair enough on Mining Leases or in the direct area of Exploration activities but most of the land under EL's they don't look at or aren't even interested in.
I have found it difficult, as have many others trying to work out if an area is designated as a Fossicking District, thus allowing us to legally carry out our hobby (as long as we have the land owners permission). ELs tie up most of the area's that are suitable for fossicking.
I hope that those in power can see the benefits in making the changes needed to make it fairer for us all.
I hope that those in power can see the benefits in making the changes needed to make it fairer for us all.
taken from the NAPFA newsletter
......"At the Muster, and since then, the regulations around sluices has become an issue. This has resulted in scrutiny by the relevant areas of Minerals and Resources and Department of Primary Industry, wherein there is a view that use of sluices with pumps is not allowed under the regulations.
Due to these circumstances, NAPFA is now in the process of preparing a submission to go to the authorities. The matter is complicated and somewhat confused. We have written evidence that sluicing has been allowed since the early 1990s and we cannot understand why that may now not be the case.
Who changed what and when ?..."
We seem to have some nuttters in govt departments trying to abuse their power without any wisdom involved in the process.
If they think they are going to kill of a citizens hobby they are going to have some very angry elephants galloping through their offices.
I expect Napfa will be giving us more information on this as it develops , but just a little side note here.
Shooters were compensated with a buyback when the govt banned automatic weapons , any ban of sluicing will require a similar compensation plan
my invoice to them will be about $ 6000
multiply that by 30,000 prospectors and see if they change their mind
......"At the Muster, and since then, the regulations around sluices has become an issue. This has resulted in scrutiny by the relevant areas of Minerals and Resources and Department of Primary Industry, wherein there is a view that use of sluices with pumps is not allowed under the regulations.
Due to these circumstances, NAPFA is now in the process of preparing a submission to go to the authorities. The matter is complicated and somewhat confused. We have written evidence that sluicing has been allowed since the early 1990s and we cannot understand why that may now not be the case.
Who changed what and when ?..."
We seem to have some nuttters in govt departments trying to abuse their power without any wisdom involved in the process.
If they think they are going to kill of a citizens hobby they are going to have some very angry elephants galloping through their offices.
I expect Napfa will be giving us more information on this as it develops , but just a little side note here.
Shooters were compensated with a buyback when the govt banned automatic weapons , any ban of sluicing will require a similar compensation plan
my invoice to them will be about $ 6000
multiply that by 30,000 prospectors and see if they change their mind
Go gettem Headsup, glad I joined NAPFA, they have my vote 
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
NAPFA has just achieved a major breakthrough with the NSW Government on the vexed question of requiring permission of mining Exploration Lease holders to undertake fossicking.
The NSW Government has said it will undertake consultation in the next several months with many Local Governments throughout the state with the objective of having those Local Government Areas (LGA) declared as new Fossicking Districts. We take them at their word!
The practical impact of this is that fossickers will not require the permission of mining EL holders to undertake fossicking on many more areas of NSW.
It does NOT give fossickers any new rights of access you will still require the permission of landowners or managers to fossick on non-Crown Land. And technically you need to be fossicking in a Fossicking District. You also cannot fossick on mining claims or areas where there is active mining. This change only refers to Exploration Leases.
However it will mean you wont be in violation of the regulations if you fossick on EL areas in any Fossicking District without permission of EL holders.
It will remedy the current absurd situation where mining companies can deny fossickers the chance to fossick, or to warn them off, on land where they have ELs. An example of this is at the very popular Hill End and surrounding area where members have been discouraged by the EL holder.
In reaching this outcome NAPFA faced very stiff opposition by the NSW Minerals Council but we are very pleased to see that the Minister, Anthony Roberts, saw the merit and justice in our case, and took a proposal to the NSW Cabinet on our behalf.
It is something that has been on the NAPFA wish list ever since we formed, but finally we are there.
It is very much a win for fossickers and we can celebrate it at the next AGM at Hill End on 7 November (see separate post).
We expect there will be a public announcement of the new Fossicking Districts before the end of the year.
cheers
Stephen
President
NAPFA
The NSW Government has said it will undertake consultation in the next several months with many Local Governments throughout the state with the objective of having those Local Government Areas (LGA) declared as new Fossicking Districts. We take them at their word!
The practical impact of this is that fossickers will not require the permission of mining EL holders to undertake fossicking on many more areas of NSW.
It does NOT give fossickers any new rights of access you will still require the permission of landowners or managers to fossick on non-Crown Land. And technically you need to be fossicking in a Fossicking District. You also cannot fossick on mining claims or areas where there is active mining. This change only refers to Exploration Leases.
However it will mean you wont be in violation of the regulations if you fossick on EL areas in any Fossicking District without permission of EL holders.
It will remedy the current absurd situation where mining companies can deny fossickers the chance to fossick, or to warn them off, on land where they have ELs. An example of this is at the very popular Hill End and surrounding area where members have been discouraged by the EL holder.
In reaching this outcome NAPFA faced very stiff opposition by the NSW Minerals Council but we are very pleased to see that the Minister, Anthony Roberts, saw the merit and justice in our case, and took a proposal to the NSW Cabinet on our behalf.
It is something that has been on the NAPFA wish list ever since we formed, but finally we are there.
It is very much a win for fossickers and we can celebrate it at the next AGM at Hill End on 7 November (see separate post).
We expect there will be a public announcement of the new Fossicking Districts before the end of the year.
cheers
Stephen
President
NAPFA
Excellent work!! This will be a great step forward for NSW fossickers/prospectors! Great news.
Explorer385
Terry Rushton
Great work.
Terry
Terry
Great news I hope we get the outcome that we need.
I hope we get the outcome that we need.
kawman
steve wardle
great effort mate.. at last a small win..
Well done NAPFA, excellent effort and result
NAPFA
NAPFA Official Representative
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 300
Just putting it out there....perhaps a reason for some members to go to Hill End?
An early heads up that the 2015 NAPFA AGM will be held at Hill End on 7 November -- Saturday at 2 PM. Location Glendora Camping Ground -- same location as the last AGM. More details in due course, and members will be sent mail. The purpose of this post is to tell you nice and early so you can plan your prospecting and the AGM!
cheers
Stephen
President
NAPFA
An early heads up that the 2015 NAPFA AGM will be held at Hill End on 7 November -- Saturday at 2 PM. Location Glendora Camping Ground -- same location as the last AGM. More details in due course, and members will be sent mail. The purpose of this post is to tell you nice and early so you can plan your prospecting and the AGM!
cheers
Stephen
President
NAPFA
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
