Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

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

El Dorado

Bad News for Claim Holders

Recommended Posts

Obama's latest attempt to grab more of your cash! This man and his czars need to be voted out!

Effective with the claim maintenance fees due September 1, each 20 acre placer claim will require a separate claim fee. Association placer claims will require a claim fee for each 20 acres or fraction thereof. Thus, a 160 acre placer claim will require 8 claim fee payments instead of one. Here is the language:

SEC. 430. Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f) is amended-

(1) in subsection (a)-

(A) by striking so much as precedes the second sentence

and inserting the following:

''(a) CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.-

''(1) LODE MINING CLAIMS, MILL SITES, AND TUNNEL SITES.-

The holder of each unpatented lode mining claim, mill site,

or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining laws of the

United States on or after August 10, 1993, shall pay to the

Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1 of each

year, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts,

a claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim or site, respectively.'';

and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

''(2) PLACER MINING CLAIMS.-The holder of each

unpatented placer mining claim located pursuant to the mining

laws of the United States located before, on, or after August

10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on or

before September 1 of each year, the claim maintenance fee

described in subsection (a), for each 20 acres of the placer

claim or portion thereof.''; and

(2) in subsection (b), by striking the first sentence and

inserting the following: ''The claim main tenance fee under

subsection (a) shall be paid for the year in which the location

is made, at the time the location notice is recorded with the

Bureau of Land Management.''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if a claim has been in constant active status since before 1993, the additional fees won't apply? This will increase the resale value of those claims as they will not have to pay the additional fees.

Also, if a claim becomes invalidated, but then someone snatches it up, it looks like that won't fall under this rule.

One thing I a, reading here is that they are trying to make it unconstitutionally prohibitive to the small guy to locate and stake a claim, and is a step toward not allowing any new claims.

Can someone say Agenda 21 at work here? Baby steps toward it is what I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, it seems to say before, on or after that date all claims will have to pay. I don't think it is retroactive. I am assuming the small miner waiver will still be in effect, but I wonder if they will count each 20 acre section towards the 10 claim limit for that exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its all called "THE SQUEEZE" and now its commin at the prospectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where/when did this come about?

I'd really like to get more info on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this in the presidents voted down budget ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was attached to the omnibus bill that provided funding to the VA among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just contacted a BLM official and here are my inquiries and the responces.

"This change was just brought to my attention by a fellow prospector.

I can't seem to find any info showing the new fees.

Can you provide an actual cost per 20 acres?

Please find an excerp below.

Sec. 430. Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f)

`(2) PLACER MINING CLAIMS- The holder of each unpatented placer mining claim located pursuant to the mining laws of the United States located before, on, or after August 10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1 of each year, the claim maintenance fee described in subsection (a), for each 20 acres of the placer claim or portion thereof.'; and

(2) in subsection (b), by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: `The claim main tenance fee under subsection (a) shall be paid for the year in which the location is made, at the time the location notice is recorded with the Bureau of Land Management.'."

RESPONCE,

"The fee will still be $140 but will be required for every 20 acres or portion thereof of a placer mining claim. The fees remain the same for lodes, mill sites and tunnel sites…$140 per claim. For example, if a claimant locates and records a 40-acre placer claim, the initial and annual maintenance fee will be $280 for that claim. If a claimant locates and records a 66-acre placer claim, the initial and annual maintenance fee will be $560.00 ($140 for each 20-acres and $140 for the remaining 6 acres). As soon as the new regulations are published in the Federal Register, we will begin collecting the fees based on the acreage in a placer claim.

The BLM will be publishing regulations soon which explains the new fee. I’m sorry I don’t have a specific date when they will be published. We have the new regulations prepared and hopefully they will be published soon."

My follow up question,

"Am I to assume that the new fee schedual will come into effect on the normal filing dates, at the end of the 2012 mining season?

Will there be any provision for a "Small Minor's Waiver"?"

RESPONCE,

"The new fee schedule will be effective upon publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the fee rate for placer claims. If we are successful in getting the notice published in May, then any new claims recorded after the publication will require payment of the new fees. In addition, the annual maintenance fee payments due on or before September 1, will have to be paid according to the new fee schedule. The BLM will give claimants a chance to cure their payments should they not be paid according to the new schedule. We understand there will be claimants that don’t know about the new schedule, so they will be notified and give a 30-day period in which to cure their payment."

My follow up question,

".....and reguarding the "Small Minor's Waiver"?"

RESPONCE,

"The maintenance fee waiver (small miner’s waiver) is not affected by the new fee schedule. No matter what size the claim is, it will count as one claim under a waiver."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, Now more fees to discourage mining. Closing roads everywhere to keep us out! It does not matter what the public in put is. I have been through this here in California before. it started with closing the best spots for fishing on our Central coast hundreds of fisherman showed up to stop it and show that the information they used for the closures was false. They closed it anyway. I sold my ocean boat. The water board is starting their agenda against farming here in three counties in California soon to spread across the U.S. To farm 50 AC. of wine grapes is going to cost me under Tier 1 Ag the least restrictive about $2000.00 more a year I am on drip irrigation. My friend who has overhead sprinklers for frost control and drip is in Tier 2 Ag.150 ac. $15,000.00 a year to the water board. Vegetable growers here are in Tier 3 Ag From what I heard cost about $1000.00 an acre to comply. If you don't comply you are hit with $1000.00 a day in fines to you cooperate with them. they were fought by every farm group in the counties and they did their agenda anyway. If you try and stop them you will be labeled a domestic terrorist.This is to police our fertilizers and eventually our water usage. Also to test the cattle ranches for any nitrogen in their water runoff. Watch your food bills they are going to skyrocket. they are starting to close roads and even campgrounds here in the Los Padres National Forest. The public meeting to try and stop all these are BS. We our at war to protect our mining rights and our freedom from this administration talking ain't doing it. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Congressman McClintock said, crap rolls downhill, so this crap needs to be stopped at the top..... Talk to everyone you can about not voting for the Liar-in-cheif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's......"LIAR 'N' THIEF"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoW! I'll be looking for some Claims to open up North of me here come September!

rkscarediv_e0.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAson

That is not entirely fair. This was the sneaky way of passing bad legislation by attaching an amendment to a bill that funds the military and the VA. A bill that always passes with a giant margin. Finding out who slipped the amendment into the bill would be a better tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress needs to stop pulling this crap in my opinion. Who doesn't want to help Vets, or kids or women? The devil is in the details.

The bottom line is prospectors, miners and ATV enthusiasts are right up there with smokers at this point. Bend over and enjoy the ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent an hour trying to find out who slipped this in but only found a headache...... they make this kind of research tough. Govm't is just to complex for the common man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something just not right that they can draft a bill dealing with Procurement of Jet fuel and it effects something like the price of Peanut Butter! What ta Hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something just not right that they can draft a bill dealing with Procurement of Jet fuel and it effects something like the price of Peanut Butter! What ta Hell?

THATS WHAT ALL THE bullcrap IS ABOUT, HAVING ONE OF THESE JOBS IN GOVT.

ONCE YOURE IN YOU CAN WRITE UP THIS CRAP CONCERNING WHOEVERS INTERESTS THAT HAVE YOU IN THEIR POCKET AND GET A BILL UP FOR VOTE.

ALL THIS CRAP HAS BECOME "MINDBOGGLING" HUNDREDS OF LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS WRITTEN INTO BILLS OR WHATEVER THEY ARE CALLED THEN ALL THE CRONIES GET TOGETHER AND AGREE TO VOTE EM IN AN THEY ALL ARE IN SOMEBODYS POCKET GETTING A REWARD IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER FOR GETTING IT DONE.

THE LAWS CONCERNING WHAT AND HOW THEY WRITE THIS CRAP UP IS WHAT NEEDS "REGULATION"

ITS GOTTEN SO COMPLEX AND HIDDEN BEHIND THE SCENES ITS NOTHING BUT A BIG 3 RING CIRCUS AND JOKE TO MOST AMERICANS, ITS LIKE WE KNOW WE ARE SCREWED AND WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

WHY YOU SAY, BECAUSE THERE AIN'T NO MORE "JOHN WAYNES"

YOU CAN'T GET A SERIOUS MAN APPOINTED TO A POSITION THAT CAN MAKE A CHANGE FOR THE MAJORITY THAT BENEFITS US ALL. ONLY THE BIG MONEY SHITS AND THE BIG CORPORATIONS ARE IN CONTROL OF US ALL.

SO THEY THINK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fellers

This all sucks,with the way it was pushed off on all of us ,by the so called elected

officials in a half assed attempt at the job we elected them to do.

Terry's post above is worse news,if it is correct. I have no reason to doubt it either.

I had to use some self control to refrain from posting ,when the claim thing was posted.

Out of respect to Bill ,and the members,I left it alone until my blood pressure dropped

a couple hundred pounds. Sometimes it does help to cool off and think things over.

There is always more than one way to look at things,no matter how rotten ,and low down

they look at first glance.

In a way those ,less than honorable politicians,took care of some of the long running

complaints voiced on all the prospecting forums. This new law will put a lot of paper

filers,and mining claim peddlers out of business. It will also cause lots of claims that

are of questionable value,or validity to be dumped. I suspect that the BLM will use some

of the new funds to take a closer look at assessment work requirements and filings too.

I sure as hell don't like the idea of getting charged double fees on a claim that met the

legal requirements of being one claim when located and filed . Hell they have already

increased the fees since they were claimed . Some how they have totally abandoned

the mining laws and rules with this act. How can a 40 acre claim be treated as one claim

by the mining laws and rules,but be treated as two claims for fee payments? I believe

that the courts may view this a little differently if confronted.

I will not be dumping any of my claims,but I don't have to like this crap either. This is an

underhanded ,and lazy way to run a government at best. Laws are supposed to be

deliberated and debated not just thrown in a package deal ,without an honest debate or

care. In my opinion both parties are guilty ,and it is not something that can be blamed on

either party. Where was the Republicans when this crap was going on? Why didn't they

bring this to the public's attention,or at least look it over? How can any of these losers

claim to represent the public's interest,or be called a law maker? They are nothing but

over paid deal brokers and shysters on both sides,trading our rights,freedom,and country

away one piece at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think the new maintenance fees are bad, there's more that they're doing to stop all production in the USA so we will be dependent on other countries for what we need in day to day life.

This was posted on "SWOMA" South Western Oregon Mining Association.

Most of this is already posted in this thread, but the last part is what I'm referring too.

http://www.jefferson...ees.html#update

"Change in BLM Maintenence Fees for Association Placer Claims - UPDATED April 19th

April 18th, 2012

The NorthWest Mining Association is reporting possible changes to BLM's maintence fee structure on Association Placer claims. They report that: "effective with the claim maintenance fees due September 1, each 20 acre placer claim will require a separate claim fee. Association placer claims will require a claim fee for each 20 acres or fraction thereof. Thus, a 160 acre placer claim will require 8 claim fee payments instead of one."

Here is the language of that change:

SEC. 430. Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f) is amended

(1) in subsection (a) (A) by striking so much as precedes the second sentence and inserting the following:

"(a) CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE

(1) LODE MINING CLAIMS, MILL SITES, AND TUNNEL SITES.

The holder of each unpatented lode mining claim, mill site, or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining laws of the United States on or after August 10, 1993, shall pay to the

Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1 of each year, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts, a claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim or site, respectively.";

and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

"(2) PLACER MINING CLAIMS.

"The holder of each unpatented placer mining claim located pursuant to the mining laws of the United States located before, on, or after August

10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1 of each year, the claim maintenance fee described in subsection (a), for each 20 acres of the placer

claim or portion thereof.";

and

(2) in subsection (b), by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: "The claim maintenance fee under subsection (a) shall be paid for the year in which the location

is made, at the time the location notice is recorded with the Bureau of Land Management."

UPDATE

Note: Jefferson Mining District recently contacted the Oregon, California and Nevada offices of the BLM to authenticate and clarify this information. A return response from Mineral Leasing Specialist, Sonia Santillan, of the Solid Minerals Division at the Oregon State BLM office was quite helpful and has confirmed that the news is correct, but remarks that the initial interpretation of the change was not entirely correct.

She remarks: "There will be a change in the way the fees for placer mining claims is computed and will be based on the total acreage in the claim. The amount of the maintenance fee is not reverting back to $100, however, and is still $140 in accordance with current regulations. The Act reflected the original amount that was initiated for the maintenance fee since it was quoting the original maintenance fee act. As requested, I am providing a copy of the Act for your information. The BLM will be publishing updated regulations soon in the Federal Register to implement the statutory change."

The "act" that Ms. Santillan refers to is Section 430 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, which on a side note also failed to appropriate funding to patents which were not filed prior to September 30th, 1994, just as has been done since that date.

Under this new policy, it should be noted that the annual maintenence fee for a 160 acre Association Placer mining claim will be a whopping $1120 per year!

In a shared communication with Tom Kitchar, who is President of <a href="http://waldominingdistrict.com/">Waldo Mining District, Ms. Santillan also remarked extensively on Kitchar's questions about the small miner waiver, which allows for miners with not more than ten (10) claims to sign a form that waives the related fees. She remarked that the new agency policy would have no impact on the small miner waiver, nor would the new fees be retro-active and require more money for the previous year. She also noted that once the new regulations are published, any new filings of association placers would be required to pay the new fee ($140 per 20 acres). Any miner paying their fees now will also pay the new rate since the fee is for 2013.

In a follow-up to Jefferson Mining District, Ms. Santillan also remarked: "We also don’t want claimants to be surprised and that is why we are hoping to get the regulations published as soon as possible. You should also know that we will offer a cure period that if a claimant pays the maintenance fee at the previous rate for a placer claim, they will be given the opportunity (30 days) to pay the remaining amount due. This cure period will be for those payments due on or before September 1, 2012 for the 2013 assessment year. Also, another thing you might want to note is that since September 1 falls on a Saturday this year, claimants will have until Tuesday, September 4 (Monday, September 3 is a holiday) to make their payments. So, any payment made on or before September 4 will be acceptable and if it’s not for the correct amount (for a placer claim), the claimants will be given a 30-day notice to cure. Payments for lodes, mill sites and tunnel sites continue to be $140 per claim or site and full payment must be received by the due date."

Additional research by miner-researchers in Jefferson Mining District have uncovered some alarming provisions found in the Obama Administration's 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Budget report which calls for the implentation of assorted legislation that would entirely dismantle the General Mining Act of 1872, several of which provisions have already been administratively enacted.

On March 20th, 2012, BLM Director Bob Abbey gave testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee which supported many of the provisions found in the FY 2013 Budget report.

In support of the far reaching, draconian "reform" of Hard Rock Mining outlined by the Obama Administration's FY 2013 Budget and also by House Resolution 3446, Abbey remarked that:

"The budget includes legislative proposals to address abandoned mine land (AML) hazards on both public and private lands and to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from hardrock production on Federal lands. The first component addresses abandoned hardrock mines across the country through a new AML fee on hardrock production. Just as the coal industry is held responsible for abandoned coal sites, the Administration proposes to hold the hardrock mining industry responsible for abandoned hardrock mines. The proposal will levy an AML fee on all uranium and metallic mines on both public and private lands that will be charged on the volume of material displaced after January 1, 2013.

The receipts will be distributed by BLM through a competitive grant program to restore the Nation's most hazardous hardrock AML sites on both public and private lands using an advisory council comprising of representatives of Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and non-government organizations. The advisory council will recommend objective criteria to rank AML projects to allocate funds for remediation to the sites with the most urgent environmental and safety hazards. The proposed hardrock AML fee and reclamation program would operate in parallel to the coal AML reclamation program, as two parts of a larger effort to ensure that the Nation's most dangerous coal and hardrock AML sites are addressed by the industries that created the problems.

The budget also includes a legislative proposal to institute a leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain minerals (gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum) currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal lands would be governed by a leasing process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than five percent of gross proceeds. Half of the royalty receipts would be distributed to the states in which the leases are located and the remaining half would be deposited in the Treasury. Pre-existing mining claims would be exempt from the change to a leasing system, but would be subject to increases in the annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872. However, holders of pre-existing mining claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue in the Department of the Interior will collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts."

Mention that the proposed hardrock AML program would operate in parallel of a coal AML program is interesting for the simple fact that the day before giving Abbey's (obviously pre-planned) testimony, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, announced a merger of The Bureau of Land Management with the Office of Surface Mining despite earlier reports that such a merger was not taking place. OSM is the agency responsible for the management of coal mining reclamation. As well, BLM has been ramping up its existing AML program that closes historic hard rock mines. Jefferson Mining District has reported on that topic in the past and has been actively working to monitor the AML program.

Considering the fact that BLM appears to be slowly implementing Abbey's idealogy, it appears that the very core of the 1872 Mining Act is under immediate threat and that a time will come when there is a hard push to convert locatable minerals into a leaseable status, thereby destroying the granted rights in the Mining Law and lowering miner-settlers to mere renters or tenants.

Laura Skaer of the North West Mining Association testified at the same hearings as Director Abbey, and remarks by e-mail that: "My view is that the President’s budget proposals are not going anywhere. They are dead on arrival in both the House and Senate. They won’t get a hearing in the House as long as the Republicans are in control. None of the proposals in the President’s budget can be implemented administratively. They require an Act of Congress and that isn’t happening under the current make up of Congress. We have to remain vigilant and willing to fight for mining rights. Electing a new president of the United States and more pro natural resource development Members of Congress should be a high priority for everyone involved in mining."

We asked Ms. Santillan outright if the changes which are yet to be published contain anything pointing to possible conversions from granted minerals to leasable minerals. In response, she clarified her position at BLM, noting: "I work mainly with mining claims but am assigned to the WO-320 office which is the Division of Solid Minerals. Our Division includes coal leasing and the leasing of other solid minerals. I am the contact for all the state offices when it comes to mining claim location, recordation and maintenance and the majority of my time is spent on locatable minerals." She then added that "As of this moment, I know of no change to convert certain locatable minerals to leasable minerals under the 1920 Act."

Despite this, it will be very important for miners everywhere to actively monitor the "bright ideas" of Abbey and others when it comes to radical changes in the Mining Law. Ultimately, we must remain alert and vigilant, keeping watch as guards against those who desire to undermine the mining rights which were granted to the American people by our forefathers in 1866 and 1872."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

El dorado,

Get your head out of your a**, all your Republican representatives voted for this bill as did all the Republican representatives from AZ. So, you got screwed by your Repub boys you voted for. After all, they are in the majority in the house.

Oh yeah, the bill was introduced by one of your Republican buddies from Texas who is a Tea Party boy. So, I don't think this part of the bill attacking the miners was an amendment but part of the bill coming out of committee but was part of the bill to help fund it. BTW, since your Repubs control the house, they controlled the commitee also. If you think not, then read the amendments and you won't find where it was attached by any Democrat.

Personally, I am betting this was part of the bill to assist in providing funding for the bill. So, prove me wrong with the facts, but I bet you won't be able to do that.

So, thank your Republican buddies and quit blaming the wrong people in an attempt of pushing your BS politics which don't make sense anyway.

Reg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that pretty much cinches it. All it takes is a governmental "perceived" emergency and "Ceasar" rules. I don't hold much optimism at all for the days ahead. (...and it really doesn't matter who is in office, the stage is set.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

El dorado,

Get your head out of your a**, all your Republican representatives voted for this bill as did all the Republican representatives from AZ. So, you got screwed by your Repub boys you voted for. After all, they are in the majority in the house.

Oh yeah, the bill was introduced by one of your Republican buddies from Texas who is a Tea Party boy. So, I don't think this part of the bill attacking the miners was an amendment but part of the bill coming out of committee but was part of the bill to help fund it. BTW, since your Repubs control the house, they controlled the commitee also. If you think not, then read the amendments and you won't find where it was attached by any Democrat.

Personally, I am betting this was part of the bill to assist in providing funding for the bill. So, prove me wrong with the facts, but I bet you won't be able to do that.

So, thank your Republican buddies and quit blaming the wrong people in an attempt of pushing your BS politics which don't make sense anyway.

Reg

Reg, I don't even know where to start. This is about gold prospecting being put to sleep.. Wake up and stop throwing stones at the wrong people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...