Tasmanian Prospecting Licence

Rules and regulations In Tasmania for prospecting

Moderator: Philski

Sluice Box

i support Sluice Box Use
29
97%
I dont support Sluice Boxs
1
3%
 
Total votes: 30
mids0n
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Tasmanian Prospecting Licence

Postby mids0n » Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:14 pm

I would love to know also! Another thing that im curious about is why do we have to pay $30.60 for an annual licence when in victoria you can purchse a licence for $23.70 that lasts a decade!!!!

warrenaw
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:47 am

Re: Tasmanian Prospecting Licence

Postby warrenaw » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:18 pm

It's all so frustrating! Being from a background of 40 years on oil rigs, the definition used there for something that is 'motorized' is just that. There's plenty of stuff. Trommels, shale shakers etc are motorized using power. Sometimes lots of it. They are active devices using using motorized centrifugal force or impact forces shaking to separate stuff.
Really, how the water gets to a passive device with no moving parts , whether straight sluices or as highbankers, should be a totally separate issue, IMHO.
A sluice or highbanker fed by a pump very definitely (IN OILFIELD definitions,at least) is not powered or motorized.
For instance, if a sluice sitting in a river is legal, then a highbanker fed by ......... lets say, upstream you have a waterfall with a 2 meter drop down to you,and so you decide to use that water source via a hose, instead of a pump to drive the thing surely would be legal. Now, if you used a pump at the very same place to move water from your feet up to the hopper, it suddenly becomes illegal!!! The same passive device, is now 'motorized' in whose eyes!! It makes no sense!

Politicians can argue that black is white and white is black, very successfully. Common sense should prevail with our MRT too. It's a pity there isnt a member of the MRT in our little group (maybe there is!) who can at least explain the reasoning we prospectors use to get their superiors to write better rules, or write the rules better, depending on how you look at it.
Again, in the field where I have worked, sluices and highbankers could never be classed as motorized because they simply are not. The method of getting water to them is, or should be a totally separate issue, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the license conditions.
Of course, this is just an opinion, but I hope I have managed at least to show that this issue can be viewed in more than one light.

Warren

User avatar
Philski
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:21 pm
Location: Sheffield Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Tasmanian Prospecting Licence

Postby Philski » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:12 am

I suspect those early prospectors where asking MRTs earliest incarnation the same sort of questions we do today.

This creek has been sluiced. Shoveled, Forked, Screened, brushed, bashed, burned, dredged and turned upside down repeatedly for the last 125 years. See the damage? me either. It was denuded and covered in rubbish until recently. The magic prospecting fairy cleaned it up.

16831055_1322778084435430_8042123806772909905_n.jpg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest