Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums
Desertpilot

Can a placer claim be a shape other than a rectangle or square?

Recommended Posts

All,

Im wanting to stake a placer claim that has a wilderness boundary running diagonal across the quarter section. Ive read the mining law of 1872 and found the following.

 

Quote

SEC. 2329. Claims usually called ‘‘placers,’’ including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims; but where the lands have been previously surveyed by the United States, the entry in its exterior limits shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands.

Quote

 

SEC. 2331. Where placer-claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer-mining claims located after the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys, and the rectangular sub-divisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant; but where placer-claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral land in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than forty acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead or pre-emption purposes.

 

 

 

 

So thinking it may be possible I did some further reading here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/3832.12

Quote

 

(c)Placer claims.

(1) You must describe placer claims by aliquot part and complete lots using the U.S. Public Land Survey System and its rectangular subdivisions except when placer claims are -

(i) On unsurveyed Federal lands;

(ii) Gulch or bench placer claims; or

(iii) Bounded by other mining claims or nonmineral lands.   (I'm guessing wilderness counts since its closed to mineral entry?)

(2) For placer mining claims that are on unsurveyed Federal lands or are gulch or bench placer claims:

(i) You must describe the lands by protracted survey if the BLM has a protracted survey of record; or

(ii) You may describe the lands by metes and bounds, if a protracted survey is not available or if the land is not amenable to protraction.

(3) If you are describing an association placer claim by metes and bounds, you must meet the following requirements, according to the number of persons in your association, as described in Snow Flake Fraction Placer, 37 Pub. Lands Dec. 250 (1908), in order to keep your claim in compact form and not split Federal lands into narrow, long or irregular shapes:

(i) A location by 1 or 2 persons must fit within the exterior boundaries of a square 40-acre parcel;

(ii) A location by 3 or 4 persons must fit within the exterior boundaries of 2 square 40-acre contiguous parcels;

(iii) A location by 5 or 6 persons must fit within the exterior boundaries of 3 square contiguous 40-acre parcels; and

(iv) A location by 7 or 8 persons must fit within the exterior boundaries of 4 square contiguous 40-acre parcels.

 

 

So from what I gather its possible but will the BLM and county recorder buy off on a triangle or any other shape? Hopefully someone on this forum has ran into this before and can let me know how filing worked for them?

Thanks

DP

Edited by Desertpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd stake the claim in a normal 20 acre rectangle or 40 acre rectangle square.  A triangle claim may be the only thing in AZ that the BLM will reject.  Other than that, I've never hear any recent case of the BLM or county recorder take any steps to enforce any regulation.  I've been told when you walk into the office in the BLM, they have signs saying they won't arbitrate or mediate claim disputes.

I almost staked a claim next to patented land which would have taken a triangular section of a 20 acre claim out and the phrase I was going to use was "with the exception of the patented land located within the claim's rectangular boundaries."  Your wilderness area sounds the same.  None of the claims I've noticed next to any patented land contain that phraseology, but I think the people who filed those didn't know the patented land existed.  The only reason I'd hesitate on that statement for a wilderness area is in the hope that it'd be repealed, like I'm hoping some national monuments will be repealed.  Topic for another thread, but the Secretary of the Interior has the reports on the national monuments, so maybe some will close and these wilderness areas are not free to operate and our country in going broke.

Please keep in mind the BLM and county recorders office will reject no 20 acre rectangular claim, even if you put it over my housing development on my property that I have mineral rights for.  You can pull up reports for the Wickenburg area and find claims files with the wrong county, over private property, and state trust land.  All those are filed with the county and BLM, but certainly does not give the people any mineral rights.

The BLM has kicked back my buddy's triangular claim in Arizona two years ago, though some people say it's not legal, but the amount of gold on there is not worth fighting the man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight Chris. I will have to do some more research and try to run this to ground. 

DP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a triangular claim off of Hwy 69, northwest of Mayer.   Looks to be about 40 acres.  There are other claims in the area, but none directly adjacent.  I could be mistaken, but I believe it's a gravel company.  Maybe contacting the owner would lend some insights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome Luke,

Thanks for the info. I will track down the claim and take a look at the notice. Gravel company eh? Would be pretty cool to trommel and sluice off the gold and sell the gravel that would be a win win. 

DP

Edited by Desertpilot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a Patented Claim running into our 36 acre claim, it is described as a Lot instead of a section. Weird little dogleg as well.

 

 

Ricon limits.jpg

Edited by GeoJack
add image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the example GeoJack, Ive been reviewing notices online through my local county recorder and may have the process down. There are a few odd shaped claims in my county.Thanks again.

DP

Edited by Desertpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, none of the BLM maps public land overlays show this configuration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 120 acre claim Wes and I have in Iowa Hill is a whacko shape also.  It is legally described by government parcel numbers that were created when much of the land near it was government surveyed for patents. If memory serves me correct it has 15 or 16 corners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info El Dorado, 

I think I have the whole process nailed down and will be filing the paperwork this week. The most whacked out shape is 8 sided so it's not as crazy as 15 to 16 sides.

 

DP

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×