Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Jim P.

Nugget Shooter Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jim P.

  1. Snakejim is correct, I'll just add that any association placer claim of up to 160 acres still counts as a single claim under the small miner exemption. Later...Jim P.
  2. Volunteer or nominate someone to be a voice for miners and prospectors in the Prescott National Forest https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/prescott/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD640442
  3. I detected and dug up a desert iguana buried in the sand of a wash back in my VLF days, scared the crap out of me. Keep digging and good luck. Later...Jim P.
  4. I replied to Les with the following excerpt from CFR 3809.5 describing no notice level "casual use"; "it may include the use of small portable suction dredges" This is the current standard so I don't know why the AZ BLM gets to claiming otherwise. I can't seem to paste here, just Google CFR 3809.5 and CFR 3715 which deals with occupancy. Later...Jim P.
  5. I've not felt the need to respond to a post or thread here for a long time, but this one got my ire up a little. While I believe Wyoprospector is beyond help, I'd say a conservative estimate of those who have been helped by Bill and the members on this forum is in the multiple thousands, myself included. While Bill and I have not always seen eye to eye on everything over the years, he's always had my respect and appreciation for his wiliness to share both time and knowledge. In fact it's all Bill's fault; if he hadn't been so generous, I'd probably still be poking around with my Tesoro Diablo, finding a nugget one in a blue moon. Bill and I met up for a hunt many moons ago at the LSD. Right off the bat he offered good info on the area's geology and gold production. He then offered a practical stranger his Minelab 2100 to try out.(keep in mind this was 20 plus years ago and the minelab was an incredibly expensive machine, especially compared to my budget breaking Tesor that I bought for $100 at a pawn shop) He gave me a quick rundown of the detector and then made himself scarce. I was hooked from the first moment I held that machine and heard the tone. I could finally hunt like I always wanted to without all the squawking and popping of the VLF. I was forever ruined when it came to detectors and started saving immediately for a minelab of my own. I think the most important part of this story is the fact that Bill had nothing to gain from this other than satisfaction and friendship, this was many years before he became a dealer of any kind. I don't think much has changed since then, Bill is still out there giving people help, inspiration and hope, and yes, hopefully gaining a few $$ along the way. So, for those newcomers reading this thread; beware. Beware naysayers who claim that there's no help, no hope and only profiteers looking to take your money. Later...Jim P.
  6. This might be worth looking into if you have the time. The BLM has an advisory board with members that represent interests outside of the BLM and they have vacancies here in AZ. Later...Jim P. https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-you/arizona Update: just found the deadline for nominations this year, it's today, June 4th. Start working on next years application.
  7. Chrisski, I applaud your willingness to get involved. I'll help if I can, but I must warn you that my efforts in this area go back 15+ years and I'm weary and jaded. For many years, I've attempted and failed to get the off-road crowd, hikers, bikers and even some miners to realize the importance of the 1872 and related mining laws as the only way to gain a "right" to access. If we find a better communicator than I, (you maybe?) maybe we can have success in forming an alliance of sorts with some of the other interested parties. PM me if I can help. Later...Jim P.
  8. I based my statement on a recent post on facebook by the NMRA referring to them speaking at a GPAA chapter meeting at the request of Kevin Hogland. American Mining Rights Association May 11 at 7:42am · Currently proposed Arizona road closures by BLM and what to do about them: We are currently in Arizona and spoke at the GPAA Gold Fever West Valley Chapter last night about a new proposal by the BLM to close 505 miles of of public land roads under their Travel Management Plan. Most of these lands are used by miners, recreationalists, hikers, campers, hunters and off-roaders. What BLM is doing is proposing changes these currently accessible roads, or basically........restricts your access to your lands. Here is the link to their plan: https://eplanning.blm.gov/…/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do… Kevin Hoagland asked us to speak last night at the Chapter meeting and when Jere and I were preparing for the discussion, we decided to do a little research on the computer about RS2477 roads in Arizona and whoa did we find a gem. First of all, RS2477 (revised statute 2477) is a part of the original 1872 mining grant. In a nutshell, it states the roads and travel routes must remain open for exploration, mining and usage. In 1976, Congress passed FLPMA, the Federal Lands Policy Management Act and claim they now can close all the roads willy-nilly at their discretion. Well, not so fast BLM and USFS. Under 2477, they cannot close any roads which predate 1976. If it is a road "created" after 1976, they can, prior to that, no they can't, it's really that simple. Just two years ago, Utah took this issue all the way to their Supreme Court and the court ruled unanimously that RS2477 is valid and their roads must remain open and accessible for public use and for mining. So back to Arizona and our research........ On a whim, I typed in "Arizona RS2477" just to see if there was anything out there Arizona had done on keeping the roads open to the mining community and the public at large. What we found is, like Utah, the Arizona Congress and politic body decided to protect their roads that the public uses and took it a step further than Utah did. They passed a bill telling the Federal Government they cannot close roads under RS2477. So in clear language, Arizona told the United States government, any roads in the state which predate 1976, they will not allow the Federal Government under FLPMA to close them period. End of story Arizona House Bill 2175 passed in April of 2015 and signed by Arizona's Governor states just that. Gotta love Arizona and these politicians who told the Federal Government if you aren't going to recognize RS2477, we will and will not allow you to close our roads. (link below) https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/1r/bills/hb2175h.pdf So what does all this mean? It means the Federal Government (BLM) has just given the middle finger to the state of Arizona, the residents, claim owners and folks who like to use these roads and is saying we don't care what you say, that you passed a bill and we are going to ignore a "grant" passed by Congress in 1872 and are proposing to close your roads anyway. So what do the folks in Arizona do? Call the sponsors of HB2175, the bill which was passed telling the BLM they can't close these roads and ask these Congress folks what they are going to do about it. Make them stand up for you again. I would assume these politicians are going to be pretty upset the BLM is ignoring their laws they pass in this great state. Here are the sponsors of HB2175 (the good guys who passed the bill on your behalf), call them today: Rep Mark Finchem District 11 (602) 926-3122 Rep Bob Thorpe District 6 (602) 926-5219 Rep Brenda Barton District 6 (602) 926-4129 Senator Sonny Borelli District 5 (602) 926-5051 Rep Regina Cobb District 5 (602) 926-3126 Rep Vince Leach District 11 (602) 926-3106 Senator Steve Smith District 11 (602) 926-5685 Also as a part of our research, Jere found this statement put out by the Arizona Attorney General in which he reasserts these roads will remain open. It's a great read and goes further than any other state we have ever seen in protecting your public lands and road access. Man do we love this state. https://www.azag.gov/sgo-op…/revised-statute-2477-rights-way So here it is folks. Arizona passed a law saying the roads must be kept open, BLM is thumbing their nose at you and it is now up to you to call these politicians and first of all thank them for passing HR2175, and then tell them to make the BLM back off. There it is.............don't sit there and be silent, CALL. We will absolutely be calling the Attorney General on your behalf and will be calling each and every one of these politicians, we just ask you do the same.
  9. Hi Gary, option C would eliminate one of two motorized route from our claims. We have a third that stops short of the claims and becomes a hiking trail already. The BLM closed the third route to motorized travel around 10 years ago without any notice or public input. I was able to get it re-opened by simply sticking to my guns and pointing out the same parts of the law as I did in my most recent letter, minus the recent ARS dealing with RS 2477. It took some time and effort, and they lied to me at every opportunity, from needing a notice of intent or plan of operation to maintain access to telling me they weren't the ones who placed the boulders in the road, but they did finally agree to move the boulders. Mike Rice and Roy Draper were the two I was dealing with back then. My suspicion is that these new BLM agents know little of theses laws and probably couldn't care less to know about them. I'm with the Roadrunners as well and we also gave input with over 300 members signatures. I read about the State GPAA and a few other groups rallying the troops as well. There are some off-road groups opposing the changes as well. Never count out the silent majority, The roadrunners and several other groups and citizens were able to stop the Agua Fria Nation monument from claiming all the land west of I17 all the way to the Prescott NF a few years back. They would have effectively taken all granted rights of way (and escape routes from the valley) and eliminated mining claims by attrition if they had succeeded. Later...Jim P.
  10. Here's my letter to the BLM. By the way, the postcard I received back in April has two different dates for the deadline for comments. One line says May 22(Tonight) and the other says May 8th. To whom it may concern, Instead of choosing between 5 options of how much of my right to ingress and egress I would like to give up, I'd like to point out a few items in the laws of the US and State of Arizona that should prevent the BLM from forcing anyone to choose. First I'd like to refer you to the Lode mining law of 1866, codified in the General mining law of 1872 in which a right to ingress and egress is to mineral deposits is granted to all US citizens. This right has been reaffirmed multiple times in state and federal courts up to and including the US Supreme Court. Second, I'd like to refer you to a portion of the law that gave the BLM it's authority as administrator of public lands but limits it's ability to control travel; specifically 43 U.S. Code § 1732 - Management of use, occupancy, and development of public lands "Except as provided in section 1744, section 1782, and subsection (f) of section 1781 of this title and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress" Third, is what's commonly referred to as RS2477, part of the Mining act of 1866, stating "The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted" Although this section was repealed by the FLPMA of 1976, any public right of was existing at the time was again protected. “Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid right-of-way or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act.” Finally, I'd like to direct you to Arizona's HB 2175, signed into law by Governor Ducey last year. HB 2175 confirms and asserts Arizona's right to control all rights of way existing prior to the passing of the FLPMA act of 1976. I'd like to conclude with a message to those of you who would limit my right to access in the name of protecting the environment, animals or aesthetics; Many of our forefathers fought and died for these lands, for their natural resources and strategic value to ensure our nations survival. I doubt any of them would have done so knowing that their heirs would be locking them up and throwing away the key to protect a supposedly endangered species of plant or animal or protect someones hiking trail or view. Without rights to access, your access becomes a privilege. Sincerely, Jim Pressley Peoria AZ.
  11. Looks like fun, thanks for sharing. Why doesn't Laszlo look any older, but the rest of us do? Later...Jim P.
  12. I still stop by daily. Still a great motivational place most of the time; makes me wish I could get out more. Later...Jim P.
  13. Might just be the lighting, but it looks like a cast reproduction to me. I see bumps on the after pic, that don't appear natural. check the carat. Nice nugget by the way. Later...Jim P.
  14. Bravo! Well done Amanda. And well done Rod, you have lots to be proud of. Later...Jim P.
  15. Just North of Walker, south of seven mile hill, between walker road and lynx creek. It's a WPA site if memory serves. Haven't see any signs like that one. Later...Jim P.
  16. Hi Ron, Isn't it interesting that the one of the only uses of that land that is a statutory right(mining) is the only one not mentioned in the management plan. I'm growing closer and closer each day to pushing back in the form of exercising my right under the law in open defiance of the "rules" in order to have my day in court. I don't think anything is going to change until we all start pushing back. later...Jim P.
  17. Hi Ron, first, congrats on the new addition to the family. I say no salt. As you know, my oldest son has been nuggethunting with me off and on since he was about 5. He's dug a few that I beeped, but he didn't find and dig his own until last year. I can tell you without a doubt that the wait was worth it. He and I both new how much time and effort was involved getting to that point and it was truly a great moment. With your skill and experience I'm sure you can make that moment happen more quickly for your grandson, but it will still be a moment neither of you will ever forget. later...Jim P.
  18. Hi all, some good news and some bad news: Good news, the "wildlands" initiative has been de-funded in the most recent version of the FY2011 budget. http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2011/04/wild-lands-initiative-defunded-in-final.html I'm sure this is just a temporary setback for those wanting to lock the public out of public lands and the public domain, but it at least slows them down. The bad news, the budget still includes 205 million dollars for land acquisition by the various Federal land management agencies. Later...Jim P. H.R.1473 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Introduced in House - IH) Sec. 1703. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land Acquisition' shall be $22,000,000: Provided, That the proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. Sec. 1706. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Land Acquisition' shall be $55,000,000. Sec. 1720. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Land Acquisition and State Assistance' shall be $95,000,000: Provided, That section 113 of division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. Sec. 1745. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Acquisition' shall be $33,000,000.
  19. I had the honor and pleasure to meet Bob in person only once, but I can still hear his voice, filled with enthusiasm for all things prospecting related. We conversed over the phone and through email over the years and his desire to share with and help others never waned, even when he was down physically. What a great loss in knowledge, experience and generosity. What a great place this world would be if more of us were like Bob. My condolences and prayers to his family and friends...Jim P.
  20. Finally, it appears we have a friend on the US House Natural Resources Committee; Doc Hastings, newly elected Republican Representative from Washington State. From what I've heard and read so far,he is truly a western conservative who understands the nature and importance of private property rights, the true value in our natural resources, and the destructiveness of our governments over regulation of both. I first learned of Doc on the Hugh Hewitt radio program back in January and liked what I heard. He says the things most of us are thinking and/or posting about the various Federal land management bureaucracies' regulations and practices. Recently I found this clip from a hearing he held on the Fed's "wild lands" order, showing the kind of no nonsense approach he will be taking in dealing with our out of control agencies. Let's hope he stays on top of them. I'll be writing him an email to let him know how I feel and I encourage you to do the same. Later...Jim P. http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=226853 P.S Sorry if this is too political for the general forum, please don't hesitate to move or remove it.
  21. Private property, always has been, just like the town sites of Gillett and Tip Top. Might be new owners or just tired of all the idiots tearing up the place. Once again, the lowest common denominator determines the rules the rest of us by default. Later...Jim P.
  22. Hi all, here's our chance to make our voices heard before we loose more rights and more mineral lands. The National Forest service is requesting public input on collecting public input regarding "specific forest landscapes", and "special places"; in other words, pick any place you don't want loggers, miners, ranchers, hunters, off roaders Etc, and we'll block them for you. Keep in mind, they are asking for comments on if and how to collect public comments, not actual comments related to those areas mentioned above (confusing I know, but that's our Government at it's best) One idea that comes to mind is requiring the Forest service to notify any claim holder or other party with in-holdings or other rights, of any proposals, comment request Etc. Here's the link Forest Landscape Value and Special Place Please repost this anywhere you haven't seen it, email it to your friends, or whatever you can do to get the word out. Maybe for once, we can prevent something before it happens, instead of complaining about it after it's too late. Later...Jim P.
  23. Hi Mike,any updates? I sent a letter to my Senator and both Reps along with Senator Sylvia Allen, As usual, Senator allen was the only one to respond, and she's not even my Senator. I first met Sylvia through the "People For The West", She's always on the side of public use, private property owners, Miners and ranchers. Here's a copy of the letter; if anyone cares to use part or all of it feel free. Senator Burns, I was saddened to discover that the Governor has announced the end of the Mine and Mineral Museum. I can't begin to describe how strongly I feel that this is a mistake and a disservice to all of us in Arizona, not to mention the forty thousand plus visitors each year, over half of which are school children. I also consider it an insult to the miners who who helped build this State. This museum is one of the last opportunities for modern people to make contact with the reality of their past, present and future. Everything in our life comes from the ground in one way or another, everything. Please don't allow them to "transform" the Arizona Mine and Mineral Museum. There are at least two other museums already operated by the Historical Society, right here in the valley. Why not use those properties? Why destroy over a half century of hard work and dedication, not only from the state employees but hundreds of volunteers that have created one of the most educational and exciting museums in the southwest. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to you support, and offer mine if there is anything further I can do. Sincerely, Jim P. Peoria, AZ Here's anotheer place to post a comment. KTAR comment Later...Jim P.
  24. Did anyone attend any of the Coronado NF planning meetings???? Wednesday the 3rd was the important one for Greaterville, but there are few left if you missed the first ones. Coronado NF planning meetings Here's a link to the plan draft; http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/plan-revision/documents/DraftForestPlan/Coronado_WorkingDraftForestPlan_March2010-Black&WhiteMaps.pdf Notice how far down the contents list you have to go to get to anything related to multi Use, probably not a mistake. Later...Jim P.
  25. Hi John, try these on for size. Taken directly from Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property Subpart 228.4 section 1 Current as of 25 Feb 2010. Here's a link to the full text: Title 36 (1) A notice of intent to operate is not required for: (i) Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System purposes; (ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting of mineral specimens using hand tools; (iii) Marking and monumenting a mining claim; (iv) Underground operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance; (v) Operations, which in their totality, will not cause surface resource disturbance which is substantially different than that caused by other users of the National Forest System who are not required to obtain a Forest Service special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization; (vi) Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a significant disturbance of surface resources; or (vii) Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for approval; Here's a link to a planning meeting yo might want to attend. I sent this to your email a while back, did you get it? http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/plan-revision/index.shtml Go Get em' Later...Jim P.
  • Create New...