Proposed Equipment Guidelines for PGPI Claims
The membership may want to consider establishing guidelines for the types of equipment that can be used on some of our club claims.
Quartzville Creek Claim
Because the Quartzville Creek placer claim is relatively small and shared by our membership, higher-impact equipment—such as dredges, highbankers, or other large processing equipment—can work a significant amount of ground in a short period of time. This could potentially reduce the available ground and gold before other members have an opportunity to enjoy the claim.
One option for the membership to consider would be limiting the Quartzville Creek claim to lower-impact prospecting methods, such as gold pans, classifiers, hand tools, and small portable sluices.
TY-Roy Claim
There has also been discussion about placing limits on the use of trommels at the TY-Roy claim. One concern that has been raised is the amount of silt and fine material entering the settling ponds when trommels are being used. Over time, this can fill the ponds more quickly and create additional maintenance for the club.
The membership could consider whether certain equipment restrictions or operating guidelines are appropriate for the TY-Roy claim—for example, limits on trommel size, operating practices, or the number of machines running at one time.
Why Consider Equipment Guidelines?
Clear guidelines could help the club:
- Protect the available ground and gold for future outings
- Provide fair access and opportunities for all members
- Reduce unnecessary disturbance to the claims
- Reduce maintenance issues, particularly with settling ponds
- Help preserve the claims for continued club use throughout the season
- Avoid misunderstandings about what equipment is appropriate
These are proposed considerations for membership discussion. The goal is to develop reasonable guidelines that protect our claims while still allowing members to enjoy a variety of prospecting methods and equipment.
2 responses to “Proposed Equipment Guidelines for PGPI Claims”
-
Quartzville Creek – I would agree that we should look at restricting equipment on this claim to non-motorized only. (no dredges or high-bankers) After visiting the claim, it is indeed a smaller claim and can understand the concerns of the board in this manner. It is also such an easy claim to get equipment into, that I could see it being rather simple to get larger equipment into the river.
TY-Roy – since I have not visited this site yet, I can only speak to my thoughts on trommels. I know that a well made trommel regardless of size can move a significant amount of material compared to most high-banker setups. I am not sure how many people are showing up with a trommel to this event, but I wonder if limiting the size of pump people can use for water would be a more fair way to apply restrictions? A high-banker and trommel both running off a 2″ pump should have similar feed rates, but a good trommel will break down more of the clay than a high-banker will.
If this is of major concern, I would support the ban of trommels myself. This is easy to say as I have not built or invested in one and I know there are limited places in Oregon to use them without a 600 permit and plan of operations. So those who have invested in them, may have concerns as they may not have a place to use it outside of this one claim. -
Leave a Reply