Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wes

Claimjumpers caught in Placer county

Recommended Posts

Dogbone

Most of the people here in B.C. don't give a rats A$$ if you pan or beep on their claims as

most of them use machinery,I had 320 acres of claims and I let anyone pan etc;there was a 8"

seam that ran about $1.50 per pan when gold was under $400. an ounce,just don't take a

pump or sluice,then the owner is responcible for damage done.

I met a miner who was working beside a river in the bank,we asked him if we could throw a

4"dredge in the river about 200 yards above him he said go for it when we finished we had a

vile of gold and showed him tried to give him some,wouldn't take any...Ask first all they can do

is say no. If people showed up in hoards,left holes etc.well they wouldn't be welcome anymore..

RJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting RJ. Maybe I should move up to BC. I have wondered time to time if I had a claim if I would want someone panning it. I don't think I would care but like you said it would depend on if we are talking a few isolated people or crowds of hole diggers. Of course, if and when I ever had a claim...I might see things a whole lot differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it has always depended on the attitude of the people. I have even pointed out better spots to pan and just the opposite asked them to depart asap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen El D--I've taken many 1,000 of kids from Boy Scouts,Boys Club,Special needs,Make a Wish Foundation(adults too),given away free days as prizes(my claim & dredges) for forum prizes,gave Merced River claims to YMCA,and on/on. Claimjumpers with kids get special consideration but aholes get instant eviction as kalif laws still provide for citizens arrest for felony mineral theft,and once they read my handbill with the law they skeedaddle BUT once in awhile BLM/FS does help me out ,even a sheriff once and he told me to shoot the MFrs and bury'm on the hillside--good cop-tons a au 2 u 2 -John :thumbsupanim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellow Claim Holders in California,

Lets remember, in the BLM published book titled "Location and Validity of Mining Claims and Sites in California" it outlines our duties as claimholders. Lets take a look at page 40, last paragraph titled "Marking Claim and Site Boundaries". It states; "Unless a mining claim or site is properly located and marked, it is invalid. Locations should be distinctly marked on the ground so that the boundaries can be readily traced and corners found. There are legal exceptions to this statement for placer claims and mill sites laid out on the U.S. Public Land Survey grid showing townships, ranges, and section lines. In this case, only the discovery or location post with properly attached notices is required. Even where not required by law, it is still a good idea to mark your corners and boundaries so they are clearly evident to others who may wish to locate in the same area."

Those of us in the know use LR2000 and other methods to determine whether or not a piece of land is open to prospecting. Others don't know this. They will jump your claim unknowingly. They are not guilty, it is your lazy ass that doesn't keep it posted. INVALID!!! DON'T HAND THE BUCK TO THEM, ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP IT MARKED AND POSTED!!!

Gripper

Hi all!

I suppose looking at this as a third party, I don't see any where that ignorance is an excuse of not knowing the law.!

This does bring up thoughts tho. What would meteorite hunters be looked at on GPAA or other claims????

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

This is what happens when people only read a portion of the laws,and then

try to rationalize them for their purpose. The last part of Grippers post is his

opinion and not actual law.

The portion of the law that Gripper posted is just for locating the initial claim

to meet the legal requirements for locating. Federal and State law says that

missing monuments or posts on an open claim do not make the claim invalid.

A miner does not have to post signs either,this is just a courtesy provided by

some claimants. It is the duty of every prospector on federal land to research

and check land status before prospecting or filing a claim,this includes all people

searching for locatable minerals or precious metals period.The law does not

make exceptions for the ignorant or the lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:goodpost: X2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

This is what happens when people only read a portion of the laws,and then

try to rationalize them for their purpose. The last part of Grippers post is his

opinion and not actual law.

The portion of the law that Gripper posted is just for locating the initial claim

to meet the legal requirements for locating. Federal and State law says that

missing monuments or posts on an open claim do not make the claim invalid.

A miner does not have to post signs either,this is just a courtesy provided by

some claimants. It is the duty of every prospector on federal land to research

and check land status before prospecting or filing a claim,this includes all people

searching for locatable minerals or precious metals period.The law does not

make exceptions for the ignorant or the lazy.

And you also know well the crap one has to endure from claim jumpers first hand..... I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to pi$$ some folk off with this post.

What constutes a "Valid Mining Claim"???

One that has a "Valid Discovery"!

What constutes a Valid Discovery???

One that passes the Prudent Man Rule and the Marketability Test???

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A "VALID CLAIM" THEN YOU ARE ONLY IN POSSESION BY THE " Prediscovery Right of Pedis Possessio"

{30 USC 23 (1976), it is stated that "no location of a mining claim shall be made until discovery of the vien or lode within the limits of the claim located" Federal regulations (43 CFR 3831.1) also require discovery before location:} site: Mining Law from Location to Patent, March 1987, Terry S Maley.

Rights of a calimant who locates before discovery; Doctrine of Pedis Possessio, Davis v. Nelson, 329 F2d 840 (9th Cir 1964) court sumerizes the rights of prospectors.

AND here is what the Supreme Court says on the mater.

Union Oil Company of California v. Smith, 249 US (1919)

WHAT MAY HAPPEN IF OCCUPANCY RELAXED!

Cole v. Ralph, 252 US 286, 294 (1920)

prediscovery rights "may be maintained ONLY by continued actual occupancy," failure to maintain such occupancy may open your claim to location by others.

these go on to state that only by and absense of 180 days or less can a prospector continue his Exclusive Right and protect it from others.

And NO Where is there ANY provision for "Recreational Prospecting" so if you want do this recreationaly go to Knots Berry Farm or one of the many BLM Recreational Areas/Parks that are set aside for that persute.

IF you want to be a Proffesional Prospector and or Miner then STOP whining and RTFM all the Rules and Regs that Apply and then Stay off Others "Valid Mining Claims"

For those who can read (and I assume if you are reading this YOU can)tehe. You may be interested in Terry S. Maleys Books on Mining Law ie.

Mining Law from Location to Patent Mineral Land Publications Boise, Idaho

Terry's books are very readable by anyone with a highschool education or equivelent and Explain how the law is made and how to use it in court to defend yourself from others and the government.

An additional book that is a nesscity is the BLM's Mineral Examiners Handbook. I pried this from the Portland BLM office in the middle 80's as there were only 10 Orange Copies then in existance in the 10 BLM Regions.

Hope this helps some new folks.

Sincerely

Bill Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Adams

You didn't even make me frown ! I only have one small thing to add.

Since 1976 and the BLM fee arrangement,continued occupancy no longer

applies. As long as those fees are paid and the paper work is current ,you

maintain exclusive rights. Under current BLM, Forest Service,and Federal

rules and laws it is impossible to maintain continued occupancy without a

Plan of Operations. There is no law that you have to have a plan of operations

just to keep a claim valid,and maintain mineral rights. There is no current law

that says you have a time limit to develop or start mining activities ,in order to

maintain your rights either.

The current Blm,and Federal laws have made some exceptions to old laws.

Also the current laws do allow for a casual use type mining claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Gang

I know that this may be boring to most,but it needs to be said in order to keep

things on the level. Lost Adams made some good points in his post,but failed

to show the whole picture.

He is correct that in order for a claim to be valid,that a discovery has to be made.

He failed to state what constitutes a discovery under Federal law. He also threw

in a bit about the prudent man rule that needs explaining. A discovery is just

finding locatable minerals in place ,that may cause a prudent man to justify the

time and expense to try and develop a mineral operation or mine,for a lode claim.

A placer claim requires a discovery on the initial site, as above,but only requires

that each 10 acres other than the discovery be mineral in nature. These discoveries

constitute a valid claim ,when located ,monumented ,and legally recorded.

As far as the prudent man or other tests to maintain validity, this is only used,when

the government contests a claim,as in a withdrawal, patent ,or trespass case.When

I say trespass,I don't mean as in highgrading,or claimjumping. I mean a mineral use

trespass against the Federal government.

Why would another claimant want to prove that a claim was worthless,if they are

interested in it? Only the Federal government or Federal judge can rule that a claim

is not valid. That claim is valid until the government proves otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did state my sources and documnet them so ANY One can or could research FOR themselves and NOT take my WORD as Gospel.

I can't and Won't Spoon Feed anyone who doesn't have the inclination to go Educate themselves with the Resources that have been sited.

I have a life other that this or any other forum and will not Babysit anyone who can't go read the references given.

Have a good day gals and gents see you in the au fields.

Such is thems that proffess to be experts they have to attack those who dissagree with them.

PS Sawmill I did reference what constitutes a Valid Discovery. It's called the Marketability Test and the Prudent Man Rule. Guess you didn't catch that.

Sincerely

Bill Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost Adams

I did catch your reference,but there is some that wouldn't try to find it.

I just laid things out in plain simple terms,and put out some important

facts,pertaining to current law,so as not to confuse anyone new to the

game.

In case anyone doubts the validity of current CFR's and regulations, I

suggest that they read the case PLP lost on the El Dorado National

Forest road closure. This will open your eyes if in doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Adams,

I do not understand your point, the BLM considers the claim to be valid. What more needs to be said unless for some reason you think this was not a valid claim ? ? ?

Sawmill,

You are 100% correct about how things have changed since the BLM has instituted the Maintenance fee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentleman,

My point was to raise questions that weren't part of common knowledge and COULD have been used as a way to Educate those less knowledgeable about our laws both fed and state.

The congress Both State and Fedral pass "Laws" these then go to the

Execative Branch of our Gov'mnt who promulgate the Rules for that "Law" and post them in the CFR for Fed.

THEN When Citizens don't agree with the way that that Law is being Administered then they go to the

Judicial portion of our Gov'mnt to have the Judges figure out whether the "Law" as and/or administered is "Legal under the Constitution" with Admendments.

SOME Laws Can't be changed without haveing at least a 2/3 vote of the congress and ALL the States Ratifying that. NO matter What is ruled.

In order for those who are new to this Activity and those who by there Very Comments to the past 4 pages to this topic have demonstrated that they don't understand the 1872 Laws;

I just thought I would POSE a Question as to the Problem and then present Case Law with a few Textual Resources for anyones LIGHT Reading after a Hard day at the Keyboard, or their mine.

Like I said before I am NOT going to Spoon Feed ANYONE with Pablem on this forum, IF you want to become better INFORMED, then do as I had to do in the early 1980's and

RTFM.

Have a good day!

And may all your Pans be as

Rich as those FIRST '49ers'

Sincerely

Bill Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gripper

Where does it say that a claim does not have to be marked (discovery monument and claim posting) to be valid? Bring on the beatings....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is right out of the BLM

LOCATION AND VALIDITY OF MINING CLAIMS

AND SITES IN CALIFORNIA

Placer Mining Claims and Notices

Where there is a U.S. land survey, only one discovery, one location monument and one

location notice is necessary for a placer mining claim whether it is of 20 acres, or an

association placer mining claim containing up to 160 acres (the maximum allowed by law

and requiring a minimum of eight claimants). An association placer mining claim requires

one party of interest for each 20 acres until the maximum of 160 acres is reached. For

example, an 80-acre association placer mining claim requires four claimants. Corporations

cannot locate association placer mining claims, but can locate individual 20-acre claims.

Separate location notices, plus fees, are required for each 20-acre claim.

A word of caution about using the names of employees, friends or relatives to obtain more

land than is proper on association placer mining claims. In Cook v. Klonos, 164 F 529,

538 (9th Cir.,1908), it was stated:

The question here is, not whether an individual can purchase mining claims after

they have been located and hold them in his own name, but whether an individual

can, by the use of the names of his friends, relatives, or employees as dummies,

locate for his own benefit a greater area of mining ground than that allowed by law.

The mineral land laws of the United States are extremely liberal in the

requirements under which possessory rights may be acquired. The few restrictions

imposed are only intended to prevent the primary location and accumulation of

large tracts of land by a few persons, and to encourage the exploration of the

mineral resources of the public land by actual bona fide locators. The scheme of

using the names of dummy locators in making the location of a mining claim for the

purpose of securing a concealed interest in such claim appears to be contrary to

the purpose of the statute; but when this scheme is used to secure an interest in a

claim for a single individual, not only concealed but in excess of the limit of 20

acres, it is plainly in violation of the letter of the law, and when, as in this case, all

the locators had knowledge of the concealed interest and were parties to the

transaction, it renders the location void.

All placer mining claims must conform as nearly as possible with the U.S. System of

Public Land Surveys and the rectangular subdivisions of these surveys, whether the

locations are on surveyed or unsurveyed lands (43 CFR 3832.12 and 3832.21-.22; see

Laws/Regs LR-9, page 377, for details). Claims described by private surveys will not be

accepted if they do not match the approved U.S. land survey for that township/section.

Diagrams of some of these placer mining claims are shown in Figures F-2 and F-4 on

pages 195 and 197.

Where a U.S. land survey has been extended over the subject land, a placer claim is

taken by legal subdivisions through aliquot part description (i.e., E1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, Sec. 3,

T.13 N., R.10 E., MD Mer.). Corner monuments are not required, but it is recommended

that a claimant place posted end monuments to avoid any confusion and possible

overfiling by other persons (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, Chap. 4, Div. 2, Sec. 2303 for details).

Where there is no U.S. land survey in the area, a placer claim must be located in the same

manner as a lode claim. In addition to a discovery monument, all corners must be

monumented and posted, and boundaries must be marked so they can be readily traced.

It is critical to note that any single placer association group, regardless of the style of

location, must be contiguous. That is, any two or more tracts claim cannot simply corner,

because they would not be contiguous.

It is critical to note that any single placer association group regardless of the style of

location must be contiguous. That is, any two or more tracts cannot simply corner because

they would not be contiguous (see Figure F-6, page 199).

The following important points summarize information required for Placer Location Notices

(see Forms/Notices FM-2, page 241).

45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the article posted, these boys were definently out of line, they are from the area and should know better.

I hope I don't sound too ignorant but I won't know unless I ask.....As someone who is new and unfamiliar with the legalities I want to learn and abide by the rules.

So, where would I start? After driving in the mountains over the last couple of days, I saw countless No Trespassing Signs, old and new, some in good condition some tattered and laying in bits on the ground, but for those areas that are marked and unmarked how do you know what is what? Or, when floating down the river and seeing a nice hidey hole, how do you know whether or not you are allowed to be there? Especially since there are no signs generally on the rivers edge?

Basically, where might one find information on claims or property already owned private or state? I have not seen one piece of consolidated information anywhere... Which makes me nervous... Since I'd rather not get shot at 29. :arrowheadsmiley: The quote 'what you don't know, won't hurt you' does not apply here... :head:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the article posted, these boys were definently out of line, they are from the area and should know better.

I hope I don't sound too ignorant but I won't know unless I ask.....As someone who is new and unfamiliar with the legalities I want to learn and abide by the rules.

So, where would I start? After driving in the mountains over the last couple of days, I saw countless No Trespassing Signs, old and new, some in good condition some tattered and laying in bits on the ground, but for those areas that are marked and unmarked how do you know what is what? Or, when floating down the river and seeing a nice hidey hole, how do you know whether or not you are allowed to be there? Especially since there are no signs generally on the rivers edge?

Basically, where might one find information on claims or property already owned private or state? I have not seen one piece of consolidated information anywhere... Which makes me nervous... Since I'd rather not get shot at 29. :arrowheadsmiley: The quote 'what you don't know, won't hurt you' does not apply here... :head:

County recorders office, after first knowing where on a county map the area is located.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

County recorders office, after first knowing where on a county map the area is located.

lol ... you make it sound so easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gripper

Sawmill

"The portion of the law that Gripper posted is just for locating the initial claim

to meet the legal requirements for locating. Federal and State law says that

missing monuments or posts on an open claim do not make the claim invalid."

Where in this law you speak of? Please post.

I will not argue that CORNER monuments are unnecessary for claims filed under plss. So I don't need to hear that one again.

Please, no replies talking about corner monuments.

Thanks,

Gripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated prior, a claim monument can be torn down or removed, but that does not make the claim invalid. If a person can't monitor the claim on a daily basis, there is no way to know if the monument has been tampered with. I don't know what your angle to this senario is and I don't agree with some of your statements, but at some point ethics need to come into play. It is the prospectors responsibility to do his or her due dilignece. If the paperwork is up to date, but the claim is not posted, contact the claimant and let them know their monument is missing. Maybe they will thank you and grant you permission to prospect there. Maybe the claim is posted and your lazy ass comes in on a different trail and doesn't see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gripper

"As stated prior, a claim monument can be torn down or removed, but that does not make the claim invalid"

That's not going to work for me. I need someone to quote from actual law.

This is my angle Matt: I'm trying to make money. How? I am going to take people on tours of my claim(s) to demonstrate exactly what is expected by the Federal and State government to have a valid mining claim. There are so many people out there that just file paperwork on claims they have never put a monument up on because, well, they have never been there. Or maybe the person who bought the 160 acre unpatented mining claim off of Craigslist or Ebay. Sold to them by a paper only filer, never the less! These people need my help, but only if there is a rule saying a claim needs to be properly marked.

Just joking.

Don't tell me, show me I'm wrong. Law/rule/CFR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is a flatlander encyclopedia of good stuff guys

and a pretty scrappy bunch of attitudes held in check

so the accumulated knowledge can flow.

Good on all of you.

Keep it up we're all learning a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...