NQMA Making Detecting On Leases Illegal.

Prospecting Australia

Help Support Prospecting Australia:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
gcause said:
Why not tell the forum what was said that satisfied you? Secrecy always raises suspicion.
Click to expand...
I will not reveal anything that was said in confidence to me, as I am sure you would not break a confidence.

There is no secrecy as far as I am aware only a lot of misinformation being spread about NQMA's intent and actions. I was advised by the NQMA that there will be a statement coming out shortly to clarify their position and address the misinformation that is being spread about them.
Click to expand...

That is just raising more eyebrows. If you are bound by a confidence about something that concerns everyone who detects or prospects then that gives the inference there is something being hidden. When you make the accusation that others others are spreading misinformation then you need to be prepared to back that up. Perhaps the "misinformation" was correct at the time but people asking questions caused a shift in policy?
If you aren't prepared to elaborate on or substantiate your allegations then don't make them.
 
Rockwall said:
gcause said:
Why not tell the forum what was said that satisfied you? Secrecy always raises suspicion.
Click to expand...
I will not reveal anything that was said in confidence to me, as I am sure you would not break a confidence.

There is no secrecy as far as I am aware only a lot of misinformation being spread about NQMA's intent and actions. I was advised by the NQMA that there will be a statement coming out shortly to clarify their position and address the misinformation that is being spread about them.
Click to expand...

That is just raising more eyebrows. If you are bound by a confidence about something that concerns everyone who detects or prospects then that gives the inference there is something being hidden. When you make the accusation that others others are spreading misinformation then you need to be prepared to back that up. Perhaps the "misinformation" was correct at the time but people asking questions caused a shift in policy?
If you aren't prepared to elaborate on or substantiate your allegations then don't make them.
Click to expand...

I have to ask why would you want me to breach a confidence and then accuse me of secrecy when I refuse to do so? If you told me something in confidence would you want me to breach that confidence and go around telling others about it? It goes against my upbringing to do so, end of story.

As for being prepared to stand up, I actually confronted the NQMA directly and spoke to them directly.

So was anyone who is spreading this information about the NQMA actually present in person at the meeting in question to hear what was actually said?

To take and quote a one liner out of a set of minutes out of context doesn't count as hard evidence of a legislative change being imminent, government just doesn't work that way.

If no one spreading this information was present at that meeting then spreading information about that meetings content and getting it wrong would be considered misinformation in my book.

As far as I am aware there is no shift in policy by anyone, these forum posts are totally irrelevant to governments decision making processes. I was an advisor to state government and have worked in state government departments and with local councils so I know how the system works.

So why not wait for the NQMA to make a statement first before trying to address an issue that people only perceive to be there?

Either that or meet with the NQMA committee in person or phone them and address these perceived concerns directly.
 
gcause said:
Rockwall said:
gcause said:
Why not tell the forum what was said that satisfied you? Secrecy always raises suspicion.
Click to expand...
I will not reveal anything that was said in confidence to me, as I am sure you would not break a confidence.

There is no secrecy as far as I am aware only a lot of misinformation being spread about NQMA's intent and actions. I was advised by the NQMA that there will be a statement coming out shortly to clarify their position and address the misinformation that is being spread about them.
Click to expand...

That is just raising more eyebrows. If you are bound by a confidence about something that concerns everyone who detects or prospects then that gives the inference there is something being hidden. When you make the accusation that others others are spreading misinformation then you need to be prepared to back that up. Perhaps the "misinformation" was correct at the time but people asking questions caused a shift in policy?
If you aren't prepared to elaborate on or substantiate your allegations then don't make them.
Click to expand...

I have to ask why would you want me to breach a confidence and then accuse me of secrecy when I refuse to do so? If you told me something in confidence would you want me to breach that confidence and go around telling others about it? It goes against my upbringing to do so, end of story.

As for being prepared to stand up, I actually confronted the NQMA directly and spoke to them directly.

So was anyone who is spreading this information about the NQMA actually present in person at the meeting in question to hear what was actually said?

To take and quote a one liner out of a set of minutes out of context doesn't count as hard evidence of a legislative change being imminent, government just doesn't work that way.

If no one spreading this information was present at that meeting then spreading information about that meetings content and getting it wrong would be considered misinformation in my book.

As far as I am aware there is no shift in policy by anyone, these forum posts are totally irrelevant to governments decision making processes. I was an advisor to state government and have worked in state government departments and with local councils so I know how the system works.

So why not wait for the NQMA to make a statement first before trying to address an issue that people only perceive to be there?

Either that or meet with the NQMA committee in person or phone them and address these perceived concerns directly.
Click to expand...

You obviously believe totally whoever it was you spoke to. The "others" are telling fibs. Fair enough, your choice.
 
So much deleted by a newbie poster!!

The main idea behind this post, is to seek permission!!
If that was achieved, there would be no issue...

I have a group of people that love going camping, and detecting on our leases.. With permission...

Hey, Dale, I pegged that one, and the one next door, and the one at Firey... and that one next to west Jessops...plus some...
In Moratorium, I have hired choppers to post my Notice on the datum post... I see why you deleted your post!!...

So, whilst I respect you, Dave and Tremaine, the fact remains, that miners, bigger than me, have and are complaining about detectorists finding gold, bragging about it on Social media, in area's where Small Scale Miners are paying for either EPM's or MLA's or ML's!!??

My opinion.... if you are not paying for the ground, you dont have permission.... Flup off...
 
Simmo said:
So much deleted by a newbie poster!!

The main idea behind this post, is to seek permission!!
If that was achieved, there would be no issue...

I have a group of people that love going camping, and detecting on our leases.. With permission...

Hey, Dale, I pegged that one, and the one next door, and the one at Firey... and that one next to west Jessops...plus some...
In Moratorium, I have hired choppers to post my Notice on the datum post... I see why you deleted your post!!...

So, whilst I respect you, Dave and Tremaine, the fact remains, that miners, bigger than me, have and are complaining about detectorists finding gold, bragging about it on Social media, in area's where Small Scale Miners are paying for either EPM's or MLA's or ML's!!??

My opinion.... if you are not paying for the ground, you dont have permission.... Flup off...
Click to expand...

So you want total exclusion? Access even to an EPM would be at your discretion? Where would that leave property owners who currently eke out their existence by charging for detecting/camping? I gladly pay. Where would that leave small towns like Forsayth that rely on an influx of people each winter to do a bit of detecting? I know of a situation where a former mines department employee has taken up several EPM's waiting for this to happen. I shudder every time I see someone posting their finds knowing that if there isn't an EPM in that area there soon will be. Especially the videos that get put up showing the surrounding terrain etc. Not hard to get an idea of the location if you have knowledge of the area. I noticed some videos on youtube from a bloke who did a detecting trip this year, starting in NSW and up through Qld. It was obviously just to video everything and show how good he is, without even the permission of the property owner. Let alone paying to camp etc. Driving around knocking over every tree that got in his way. Then he goes home to NSW and leaves us to put up with the consequences of having properties locked up. (I know there are a majority of decent people who come up this way)
I would hope that if the rules are changed then something would be put in place to prevent people tying up huge tracts of land just so they can charge for permission to access that land. Not everyone who holds an EPM is a genuine miner like yourself.
 
Rockwall said:
Simmo said:
So much deleted by a newbie poster!!

The main idea behind this post, is to seek permission!!
If that was achieved, there would be no issue...

I have a group of people that love going camping, and detecting on our leases.. With permission...

Hey, Dale, I pegged that one, and the one next door, and the one at Firey... and that one next to west Jessops...plus some...
In Moratorium, I have hired choppers to post my Notice on the datum post... I see why you deleted your post!!...

So, whilst I respect you, Dave and Tremaine, the fact remains, that miners, bigger than me, have and are complaining about detectorists finding gold, bragging about it on Social media, in area's where Small Scale Miners are paying for either EPM's or MLA's or ML's!!??

My opinion.... if you are not paying for the ground, you dont have permission.... Flup off...
Click to expand...

So you want total exclusion? Access even to an EPM would be at your discretion? Where would that leave property owners who currently eke out their existence by charging for detecting/camping? I gladly pay. Where would that leave small towns like Forsayth that rely on an influx of people each winter to do a bit of detecting? I know of a situation where a former mines department employee has taken up several EPM's waiting for this to happen. I shudder every time I see someone posting their finds knowing that if there isn't an EPM in that area there soon will be. Especially the videos that get put up showing the surrounding terrain etc. Not hard to get an idea of the location if you have knowledge of the area. I noticed some videos on youtube from a bloke who did a detecting trip this year, starting in NSW and up through Qld. It was obviously just to video everything and show how good he is, without even the permission of the property owner. Let alone paying to camp etc. Driving around knocking over every tree that got in his way. Then he goes home to NSW and leaves us to put up with the consequences of having properties locked up. (I know there are a majority of decent people who come up this way)
I would hope that if the rules are changed then something would be put in place to prevent people tying up huge tracts of land just so they can charge for permission to access that land. Not everyone who holds an EPM is a genuine miner like yourself.
Click to expand...
No doubt the government will be rubbing its hands together. Whatever the outcome is you can be sure it will involve more fees for them. Whether by some sort of 40e system or whatever. At 68 I am glad I am on the way out and not just coming in. At least in my lifetime I have experienced a "free country" to some extent, not one that every vested interest group wants to control.
 
I can see from you posts that you share the same philosophy as James Said and others on the NQMA committee, Simon.
Just because you pay a small amount for an EPM you think that you should have mineral rights and the power to control access to what is essentially crown land under a grazing lease!
I belive in the peoples right under the constitution to access crown land.
I'm firmly against anyone who wishes to strip this away from us.
Its bad enough that they took away the 'miners right' that gave us the lawful right to access grazing leases.
Back in the day of the miners right we didn't even have to pander to the 'Grazier'.

If you want the area that bad why not pegg it??? :p

Its clear to me that its just plain jealousy and greed that drives these type of ideas!
 
GD...Lets not get too carried away by the Constitution, too many fudge factors come into play there. (politicians playground!)
Each State has its own Mineral Resources act so lets stay with Queensland.

Can you please quote me the section no. (s) of the Qld.DNRME act which allows for prospecting or any other purpose, unconditional access to a granted EPM?
(in other words, the section that the NQMA want revoked)

For access to any freehold or leasehold land in Qld., a person must have WRITTEN consent of the landholder (or be the holder of a granted tenement/permit)....and yourself being a past ML/EPM holder, having to make access compensation undertakings to the landholder to achieve consent, would know that to be correct.
M
 
boobook said:
GD...Lets not get too carried away by the Constitution, too many fudge factors come into play there. (politicians playground!)
Each State has its own Mineral Resources act so lets stay with Queensland.

Can you please quote me the section no. (s) of the Qld.DNRME act which allows for prospecting or any other purpose, unconditional access to a granted EPM?
(in other words, the section that the NQMA want revoked)

For access to any freehold or leasehold land in Qld., a person must have WRITTEN consent of the landholder (or be the holder of a granted tenement/permit)....and yourself being a past ML/EPM holder, having to make access compensation undertakings to the landholder to achieve consent, would know that to be correct.
M
Click to expand...
And? That is how it is now. GHD said that.
 
Boobook just like you say...
That is how it is now... like I said.
All you have to do now is have permission from the land holder to access the area as long as there is not a ML over the area, then you need permission from both the land holder and the lease holder.

They also seek to change the access laws restricting access to MLA's (mining lease applications). They want to make it illegal to access MLA's without the applicants permission. I agree with this change as this is area of intent to mine and the applicant obviously did exploration and payed the fee's for the application.
I also never prospect on MLA's because of the above reasons and I'm not a scab.
Also ML's and MLA's only cover a small percentage of the gold field un-like EPM's which virtually blanket every gold field.
 
I don't think most miners realize the implications of this and other changes that the DNRM and lobbiests are slowly bringing in to squeeze out small miners like you Simon.

Just look at what they did in NSW as an example.
Where small miners other than opal miners are virtually extinct because of changes just like these.

NSW is virtually covered in large blanket leases held by only a few large companies.
And they regulate who gets them by tender applications which small guys don't even have a chance in.
Like the incredibly large exploration tenements held by Eurasian Minerals or EMX Royaltys, the company that James Said's company NQM has contracts with.
If you had seen the changes unfold in NSW like I did you would realize how dangerous they are to your future. If you let individuals like James Said who's interests lay with the large corporations lobby for changes under the guise of helping you, one day you'll wake up and realize what is really going on here but it will be to late.
I couldn't believe it when you guys elected James president. As many of you know about his lies and the tactics he employs to get his way.

I hope that you and other small miners can see past your own greed and jealousy and wake up and see what is really going on here before it is too late.
Before Qld ends up like NSW and small miners end up extinct.

If you play with snakes expect to get bitten.
 
globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/02/19/1391916/0/en/Eurasian-Minerals-Completes-Royalty-Property-Consolidation-of-the-Koonenberry-Gold-Project-Australia
(I cant post links on this forum so look up the above in Google)

Here is a news release evidence of how involved with large companies James is
Also look up.
Up the websites of EMX, Eurasian Minerals.

I hope you can realize that large corporations interests do not align with those of the small miner or the prospector or the hobbyists.
I think that we need to group together and fight changes that serve large corporations and their lobbiests before it is too late.
Before Qld ends up like NSW!

What James and the corporations tactics are: get into a position of power(like president of the NQMA) then to create division amongst us, create problems that need fixing with legislative change, gradually enact legislative change that squeezes out the competition.
By way of making their buisiness financially unviable or impossible due to bureaucracy and red tape.

If you can't see this is already happening you are blind! He uses your greed and jelousy which are very powerful drivers especially when you are being financially stressed by all of the other changes slowly strangling you which heightens these feelings.
Its a very powerful commonly used war tactic.

Hence my starting the posts on other forums.
And being vocal on this forum when this post was started by Simon.
 
I'm now sick of forums again.

I've got better things to do than argue with people on forums.
If you can't see what is happening with the information I provided I can't see a way to help.
I'm no longer going to bother with this anymore.

As far as I'm concerned...
You guys are making your own bed... you can lay in it.
I did the right thing and informed my brothers. If you make the wrong decisions even though you were informed its not my fault.

Over and out
Gold hound Dale. :pickshovel:
 
Unfortunately GD, you seem unable to either access or understand the Qld. Legislation "Mineral Resources Act 1989"

Chapt. 1 Pt. 4-6b "Meaning of Prospect"
6d "Types of Authority under Act

Chapt. 2 Pt.1 13-20 "Prospecting Permits"
Pt.2 21-47 "Other Provisions"

It is quite clear that where Tenements (EPM etc.) granted under the act are concerned, without a Prospecting Permit you have no authority to be there unless by given written consent of the Tenement Holder. Regardless of what authority the Land Holder may have provided or what "Fossickers Licence" you may hold.

As stated earlier, In the past I have been involved in both Qld. EPM's and ML's, and particularly, I have no axe to grind against prospectors who make the right approaches and abide by the regulations.
But making those unsubstantiated allegations and rambling does nothing to enhance the needs of the prospecting community, only cause confusion and possible infringement.

I rather suspect I have little further to add, maybe perhaps a little more entertainment reading about Goldhounds Exploration and Mining Pty. ltd. :cool:
 
"QLD FOSSICKING ACT 1994 - SECT 27 Licensee must get permission to fossick on occupied land etc.
27 Licensee must get permission to fossick on occupied land etc.

(1) A licensee must not fossick

(a) on occupied land (other than a road reserve, designated fossicking land or a fossicking area) without the owners written permission; or

(b) on land to which a mining claim or mining lease applies without the claim or lease holders written permission; or

(c) on land where a person may takequarry materialsunder aquarry materials permitwithout the permit holders written permission; or

(d) on land the subject of anexclusive possession determinationwithout the written permission of the native title holders for the determination."

Currently under the Qld Fossicking Act 1994 if you have a Fossicking Licence & the Land Owners permission for occupied land then you only need permission from Mining Claim or Mining Lease tenement holders - not Exploration tenement holders!
Prospecting Permits are the next level up allowing hand mining or pegging a mining lease or mining claim (if marking out is required) on the available land specified in the permit.
(Hand-mining means using hand-operated tools, such as jackhammers, picks, shovels, gads, sieves and windlasses to mine).
You only need a Prospecting Permit if you want to dig (hand mine) past the allowable fossicking limits or if you want to peg a lease/claim - not for Exploration tenement access.

I believe that the NQMA may have originally sought to have the highlighted section of the Fossicking Act above (b) & Prospecting Permits changed to include Exploration tenements? If that is correct then IMO it's unfair to Prospectors & Fossickers :N:
I agree with Dale in that Fossickers, Prospectors & Small Scale Miners in Qld don't want to go down the NSW path but at least now in NSW we have had a large increase in Fossicking Districts which negates the need for Exploration tenement holders permission in those areas.
 
mbasko said:
"QLD FOSSICKING ACT 1994 - SECT 27 Licensee must get permission to fossick on occupied land etc.
27 Licensee must get permission to fossick on occupied land etc.

(1) A licensee must not fossick

(a) on occupied land (other than a road reserve, designated fossicking land or a fossicking area) without the owners written permission; or

(b) on land to which a mining claim or mining lease applies without the claim or lease holders written permission; or

(c) on land where a person may takequarry materialsunder aquarry materials permitwithout the permit holders written permission; or

(d) on land the subject of anexclusive possession determinationwithout the written permission of the native title holders for the determination."

Currently under the Qld Fossicking Act 1994 if you have a Fossicking Licence & the Land Owners permission for occupied land then you only need permission from Mining Claim or Mining Lease tenement holders - not Exploration tenement holders!
Prospecting Permits are the next level up allowing hand mining or pegging a mining lease or mining claim (if marking out is required) on the available land specified in the permit.
(Hand-mining means using hand-operated tools, such as jackhammers, picks, shovels, gads, sieves and windlasses to mine).
You only need a Prospecting Permit if you want to dig (hand mine) past the allowable fossicking limits or if you want to peg a lease/claim - not for Exploration tenement access.

I believe that the NQMA may have originally sought to have the highlighted section of the Fossicking Act above (b) & Prospecting Permits changed to include Exploration tenements? If that is correct then IMO it's unfair to Prospectors & Fossickers :N:
I agree with Dale in that Fossickers, Prospectors & Small Scale Miners in Qld don't want to go down the NSW path but at least now in NSW we have had a large increase in Fossicking Districts which negates the need for Exploration tenement holders permission in those areas.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
The problem when one only reads and interprets what they want things to say.

From the Qld. Fossicking Act
s.8 Meaning of Expressions used in this and other Acts:

1. The following expressions have the meaning given by the Mineral Resources Act 1989--
"exploration licence, mineral, mining claim, mineral development licence, mining district, mining lease, occupied land, owner, prospect, prospecting permit, reserve."

From the Dictionary, Mineral Resources Act 1989 the following is given:

exploration permit.. means any exploration permit under Chapt. 4,

exploration tenement.. means any exploration permit or mineral development licence,

mining tenement.. means any prospecting permit, exploration permit, mineral development licence or water monitoring authority

It could hardly be more clear, an Authority given under the Regulations provides necessary protections for which the applicant (miner) pays, whether it be BHP or Tom Smith round the corner.
 
boobook said:
The problem when one only reads and interprets what they want things to say.

From the Qld. Fossicking Act
s.8 Meaning of Expressions used in this and other Acts:

1. The following expressions have the meaning given by the Mineral Resources Act 1989--
"exploration licence, mineral, mining claim, mineral development licence, mining district, mining lease, occupied land, owner, prospect, prospecting permit, reserve."

From the Dictionary, Mineral Resources Act 1989 the following is given:

exploration permit.. means any exploration permit under Chapt. 4,

exploration tenement.. means any exploration permit or mineral development licence,

mining tenement.. means any prospecting permit, exploration permit, mineral development licence or water monitoring authority

It could hardly be more clear, an Authority given under the Regulations provides necessary protections for which the applicant (miner) pays, whether it be BHP or Tom Smith round the corner.
Click to expand...
Yes, it depends which act a definition applies to. Not necessarily all "acts" within legislation.
1576464207_screenshot_2019-12-16-12-37-36.jpg
 

Similar threads

sand surfer
fig tree camp
Replies
15
Views
2K
Mr Tee
Mr Tee
mbasko
NSW a Minefield of Rules Simplified (hopefully).
Replies
6
Views
4K
LONEWOLF
LONEWOLF
P
  • Locked
For Sale GPZ7000 plus many extras
Replies
14
Views
3K
PeterInSa
P
WalnLiz
Beginners Detecting Mistake..."Walking away from gold too soon."
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
Moneybox
Moneybox
mbasko
  • Locked
  • Sticky
❗Fossicking & Prospecting Regulations - All Australian States
Replies
0
Views
86K
mbasko
mbasko

Latest posts

Top