BC Government - Mines Permit Fees

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition BC Government - Mines Permit Fees.

Donna Chaytor
The author of this petition

#1

2014-02-25 19:54

The Provincial Government should be encouraging small scale Placer Mining across the province of British Columbia to enhance opportunity to find gold and minerals in order to encourage hiring of individuals, bringing revenue into the different locations, and creating sustainability for one of the first employments historically within this province.  It is irresponsible government that would apply such a fee to a NOW  for exploration, and could possibly lead to a business.  This is government rape and also emotional and mental abuse at the beginning of mining season for miners to be faced with this subject of mine permit fees.  I am truly wondering why at Round Up when all the big boys were around, just a couple of weeks back, why did they not bring it up at "Round Up".   I find this proposal to go against everything exploration is about and what exploration leads to.  This will close down good operations and leave the government dealing with *wild cat* operations, that would not do the honorable thing of putting up bonds.  I am just wondering if the round table just decided this would be a good way to get a bonus at the end of the day.  We must have a united front and fight this, object to this, and ensure we do not pay a pre-assigned tax before the product is produced.  Thanks for reading my rant.  Mad Miner


Guest

#2

2014-02-25 20:23

There should be no charge for exploration work < NOW >
Bucove
Guest

#3

2014-02-25 22:44

Recovering costs of administrating speculation?

Government costs recovery of administrative expense incurred managing mineral exploration was originally intended in "The Act" to be recovered from later and profitable mining operations!!   It's called "Taxation".

Exploration was (and is) intended to be as cost free as possible and even subsidized in qualified cases. Exploration is people going out on a limb for the benefit of the community.

Taxing a "loss leading" altruism such as prospecting is like taking food from your dog instead of feeding it. As a government employee, your need is to understand how this proposal is a backward, dysfunctional idea. The Mines Act Permit Fee proposal itself suggests the perspective of government is that the prospector is a sort of Wall St. Executive who is effectively more powerful than the state. Such jealousy of the populace which government serves is a systemic failure leading to the bureaucratic blindness extant in this proposal.

Pre-loading expenses for exploration in mining is effectively a speculation tax, when the speculation itself is in the government's favour.

The entire precept of 'cost recovery' is thus equated to eating the seeds needed to plant the next crop. Leave those dollars in the hands of the prospector who intends to spend them looking for the resources which enrich our society.


Guest

#4

2014-02-25 22:54

These costs would definitely prevent me from getting a claim.

Guest

#5

2014-02-25 23:01

Fifty dollars would be the maximum realistic fee for a small placer operation. Guy Scott
Bucove
Guest

#6 Re:

2014-02-25 23:02

#3: Bucove -

Please remember!!
Activate the petition response email by clicking on the signature confirmation link!! Your vote MUST be counted!!


Guest

#7

2014-02-25 23:17

Placer mining , especially recreational, should not have added costs. This appears to be a money grab for the current Government. This will set a president for future incompetent legislation.

Guest

#8 Re:

2014-02-25 23:20

#7: -

 


Guest

#9 Re: Re:

2014-02-25 23:21

#8: - Re:

 


Guest

#10 Re: Re: Re:

2014-02-25 23:21

#9: - Re: Re:

 


Guest

#11

2014-02-25 23:23

As I am retired and have very limited funds. I think that a lot of placer miners are in the same position. I would not be able to pay these high fees and therefore have to relinquish my claims. If something more reasonable could be worked out I think it would be more beneficial to all

Guest

#12

2014-02-25 23:55

As usual our civil servants want more money to justify there position. May be if they get enough $ they can look forward to management bonus.
Bruce Chaytor

#13 MINES PERMIT FEES

2014-02-26 00:08

The fee suggested for entry level operations is way out of line.

At this time there is a $3000 bond requirement adding a $2000 application fee will lead to even more Non-permitted and Non-bonded operations than we are presently dealing with.

This fee is the equivalent of 2.5 weeks of laborers' pay.

This is a significant burden on what is a speculative venture at the best. I would hope that you are aware that Placer values cannot be estimated or verified without processing.

I would like to note that the complex vetting process of the various agencies is a product of your bureaucracy and not of the Miner.

These costs should be covered by the multiple fees that are already collected.

This proposal has all the hallmarks of another screw up like the front loading of fees has become. The "Law of unintended consequences" is surely going to come into play.

Guest

#14

2014-02-26 00:28

This affects (at the moment) any person who is using a dredge – any mechanical equipment. The price is far too high, when you think it is worth 2.5 weeks of labor, in order to issue a NOW. (Notice of Work)

To allow this implemented “permitting fee” will eventually hurt everyone.

Guest

#15 Paying double to create new red tape and more bureaucracy

2014-02-26 00:50

1. Should government increase fees to increase staffing?
-No, additional fees to add staff acts as a disincentive to improve government efficiency and reduce paperwork. We are enabling and encouraging red tape by increasing fees to pay for more. This government should be looking for ways to decrease fees and beaurocracy, not finance expansion of it.

2. Should government consider an optional fee to expedite applications?
-Yes, if the application is outside the normal course of approval process, no if it falls within all conventional guidelines

3. Do the proposed class of fees make sense?
No, because it rolls the hobby prospector up with the commercial miner. The hobby prospectors, like fisherman, are willing to pay for a licence and fee to pursue their interest. They are limited to hand panning etc and thus have no potential for commercial returns. Like the sport fisherman they do it for the love of the pursuit, and the hope of a catch, but are realistic that their effort is unlikely to even pay back costs let alone have profit. But they contribute significantly to the local economy through tourism, travel and outdoor activities. The fees for this hand mining should be restricted to a category called artisinal or speculative and limited to $100.

4. Same as question 3, small and single claims for placer gold mining should be fixed at $100 as they have little chance at commercial extraction.

5. I dont know enough already about what oversight is provided, but I would encourage self policing and self disclosure for small operations with significant penalties for violations.

This whole fee discussion seems disproportionately punitive to the small operator who is not writing off expenses against income, is not incorporated and is not expected to generate royalties or taxable income to the crown. There should be a category for speculative or artisanal panners who, if they became remarkably lucky, could graduate to the "commercial" category and require increased permits.

Guest

#16

2014-02-26 01:00

BC is founded on small scale miners. If needed, fees should be collected from big scale (foreign stakeholders) mining companies. Oh Canada, land of evermore fees, barriers, rules & regulations.
Badgerwaxer

#17

2014-02-26 01:04

Last year I submitted a NOW for some handwork that I planned on doing here on the Island in the spring. I was told by MTO that I HAD to submit a NOW, even though it would be hand digging and using a water pump with a 1.5" intake, and it was 75 yds to the nearest, seasonal stream, no discharge would ever reach the stream.
I waited a few months and when the date of my proposed work came and went, I still had no reply to my NOW application.
I inquired about it and was told that it was mailed months earlier. It had been "lost" in the mail. So, by the time I received my letter stating that "no permit was needed" for my work, the seasonal stream could not support my work.

So under the new fee proposal, that would have cost me $2000.
That's just not right.
They state that they crunched the numbers for three sizes of "hardrock" mines and found a .1% cost to the fee structure over 20 yrs. This has NOTHING to do with Placer and Placer exploration. Perhaps there should be 2 fee structures, one for Placer and one for hardrock. But to start the fees at $2000 is just stifling the mining and prospecting industry. They want to increase mining but increasing fees for exploration is counterproductive.
I would also like to see mining in 2 categories like fishing is. One recreational and one commercial. 2 fee structures and regulations.


Keith



Guest

#18

2014-02-26 01:38

No Fee,s for NOW .... Exploration already a huge gamble ,cost to the miner with the local economy benifiting . Taking that away is not a option

Guest

#19

2014-02-26 01:40

I have signed the petition but I feel it might have more clout had it been written or proof read by some one with a better understanding of the english language

Guest

#20

2014-02-26 02:36

As a Free Miner in the Province of British Columbia, do you vote against the government's fee of $2,000 to employ more government agents to produce your Notice of Work (NOW).

Guest

#21

2014-02-26 02:53

I own several small claims and have thought about possibly getting small equipment on rental for a day or two to dig some test holes. There is no way I would be able to afford this with these new proposed fees. (And the rental companies would in turn lose this business!) I can see charging a fee, like suggested, maybe 100.00 or so. But 2000.00 is complete craziness. Who comes up with this crazy stuff??? Wow...
Okanagan Gold Prospector

#22 Re:

2014-02-26 02:57

#11: -

Perhaps there is some confusion. Claim holders would not have to pay the NOW fee if they are not going to be submitting a Notice of Work (NOW) which is needed if you are going to use machinery such as excavators or drilling rigs etc etc. Hand shoveling into a highbanker is NOT needed for a NOW.


Guest

#23

2014-02-26 03:29

Reallyyyy ?? Are you fer real

Guest

#24

2014-02-26 03:37

The Placer Miner should be protected from higher fees. Placer mining should be available to the common citizen.
Donna Chaytor
The author of this petition

#25 Re: Re:

2014-02-26 04:40

#22: Okanagan Gold Prospector - Re:

There is no confusion:

If the government is going to place a $2,000 fee for a NOW to do exploratory work with an mechanical equipment including a dredge, how long will it be before owning your claim and you're working it with a pan and shovel will be taxed at $1,000.00 a year?  No with a highbanker at the moment You Don't fit into this category, and this has been explained, however who is next in line to pay a higher fee?  The small operators will be gone; high bankers and hand tools will follow up with getting more cells, and it will be impossible to do all the hours to keep your claims up, and you will be paying through the nose to keep your cell.  So the moral of this story is those claims will be abandoned, and eventually there will be no Placer Mining.  The recreation we all love will be long gone.   There is only one way and that is United for the Future of Placer Mining.