Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

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

Dizzo

Topographic Software

Recommended Posts

I can understand the confusion here.
While it is true that California and Oregon and possibly other states permit locations by regular aliquot description and do not require corner stakes be placed in those circumstances they (and federal law) also require those claims be "clearly marked on the ground". Arizona and several other states require staking the corners of your location.
Now some food for thought for those who believe the PLSS is a black and white answer to locating mineral claims.
Nearly 1/3 of California has never been included in the PLSS - it is unsurveyed territory. It is much the same situation in most of the western states. I don't think any significant portion of Washington State has been included in the PLSS.
Within a 20 minute drive of Phoenix, in several directions, there are many thousands of acres of lands never included in the PLSS. On one of our smaller mapped areas within a short drive from Phoenix we had to extrapolate the missing PLSS over an entire unsurveyed township (23,040 acres).
Nearly 20% of all surveyed aliquots in the western states are not regular - they are over or undersized, they are not square or they are not arranged on a north-south / east-west axis. In many cases they are all of the above.
I have offered you at least four Supreme Court decisions and several Circuit Court decisions stating that the markers on the ground define the actual location if there is a conflict between the location recording and the actual location markers. No one has provided any information (beyond their opinion) that contradicts those established "law of the land" decisions.
The links provided state the opposite of the conclusion that PLSS surveys in themselves can establish the true location of a claim.
From the most authoritative of the offered links:

MANUAL OF SURVEYING INSTRUCTIONS
Chapter X
Mineral Surveys
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF
THE MINERAL SURVEY
10-4. The survey must be an actual survey
on the ground in full detail, made by the min-
eral surveyor in person after the receipt of the
order. It must be made without reference to any
knowledge he may have previously acquired by
having made the location survey or otherwise.
The record must show the actual facts existing
at the time of the survey. This precludes a cal-
culation of the connections to corners of the
public survey and to location monuments, or of
any other lines of the survey, through prior
surveys, unless it is satisfactorily shown in his
report that he has retraced such lines and found
them to be correct. Veta Grande Lode, 6 L.D.
718 (1888) ; Lincoln Placer, 7 L.D. 81 (1888).
10-9. The survey must be made in strict
conformity with, or be embraced within, the
lines of the location upon which the order is
based. If the survey and location are identical
that fact is to be clearly stated in the field notes.
If not identical, a bearing and distance are to
be given in the field notes from each established
corner of the survey to the corresponding cor-
ner of the location. The lines of the location as
found upon the ground should be laid down upon
the preliminary plat only in such manner as to
contrast and show their relation to the lines of
survey. Philip Dephger, 1 L.D. 581 (1882).
10-11. In acordance with the principle that
courses and distances must give way when in
conflict with fixed objects and monuments, the
mineral surveyor may not change the corners
of the location for the purpose of making them
conform to the description in the record. If the
difference from the location certificate is slight,
it may be explained in the field notes, as indi-
cated in the specimen field notes.
10-12. R.S. 2324 (30 U.S.C. 28), expressly
provides that “the location must be distinctly
marked on the ground so that its boundaries can
be readily traced,” and “that all records of min-
ing claims made after May 10, 1872, shall con-
tain the name or names of the locators, the date
of the location, and such a description of the
claim or claims located by reference to some
natural object or permanent monument as will
identify the claim.” Each location certificate
should give the name of the location.
10-15. If after having obtained an order for
survey the applicant should find that the record
of location does not practically describe the lo-
cation as staked upon the ground, he should file
a certified copy of an amended location certifi-
cate, correctly describing the claim, and ob-
tain an amended order for survey. In fact any
change in the original order including the addi-
tion or dropping of locations or designation of
a different surveyor calls for an amended order.
If someone wishes to dispute the obvious, and often stated, conclusion that surveys and claim locations are defined by the marks on the ground and not the PLSS I'm sure they will have no problem showing the part of the official mineral survey standards where it clearly says that reference to the PLSS makes a mineral location adhere to those lines.
As long as miners stick to long held beliefs when faced with contrary but well established facts they will continue to be left empty handed and amazed when courts ignore their arguments. Claims of crooked judges and crooked courts when we have been proved wrong by long established laws just make us appear as the whacko destroyers of nature the greenies love to portray us as.
As long as we try to impose our misinformed ideas about where we have the right to mine on our fellow miners we will have disputes among ourselves. We seem incapable of giving an eager newcomer a reasonable and well founded answer to what he should do about a neighboring claims possible error? You can count on the courts to continue to settle those disputes based on the law - no matter how "right" you think you are.
As long as we continue to misinform newcomers the more the above situations will be perpetuated into our future mining.
To quote Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us" truly does apply to many small miners in the west.
I don't necessarily agree with all the mining laws but I have educated myself about them so I can act with confidence in my dealings with fellow miners and those who regulate miner's activities.
Miners have specific and well documented rights. I can find nowhere among those rights the right to determine that another locator's stakes are overruled by a notice recorded in the county. I would be happy to have my knowledge of mining locations expanded by any other information any one of you may have. Restating already offered opinions with nothing but belief to back them up never does rise to the level of "information" but those opinions sure do make for a lively discussion. :thumbsupanim
As for those who would like to offer statements from BLM websites as "proof" of the law I leave you with the BLM's required notice:
NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mineral Surveys are for purposes of securing a fee simple patent

In surveyed section, if a placer claim is located by aliqout part, uncontested & not protested in a patent procedure.

No mineral survey is required.

Sadly, since 1993, submitting mining claim patent applications, is something you cannot do.

A valid unpatented placer claim doesnt need to meet the requirements of a mineral survey.

If the did, not many would exist.

You can still use aliqout part descriptions in under/oversized surveyed sections.

You simply pro-rate the acreage, except any Lots, because they show acerage in the survey & on the MTP.

In IBLA Appeals, contests or court, as far as staking physical corners goes, they generally utilize substantial compliance in deciding if an innocent error is fatal.

Meaning, if you substantially complied, you are generally good to go.

In the case of aliquot part legal descriptions, substantial compliance doesn’t cut mustard.

They are either correct, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the main you are correct elder-miner.

Mineral surveys are required before a first half certificate can be applied for. A valid US mineral survey is a significant part of the perfection of a mining claim. As I'm sure you know perfected locations rise above the simple possessory right granted with discovery and location. Perfected claims are the claims referred to by the Supreme Court in WILBUR, Secretary of the Interior, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. KRUSHNIC and many other decisions.

"The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of state and lower federal courts, that, when the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but, so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws, his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent."

Here is Arizona based US Mineral Surveyor Jim Crume's take on this issue in the Professional Surveyors Magazine. Please note that the BLM is now accepting Mineral Survey Applications.

Large mining companies, two of our clients in the last two years and many more locators are obtaining mineral surveys. Anyone desiring a patent when the funding moratorium is lifted or not renewed in the budget bill will be interested in the fact that mineral surveys applications are available and have been for several years. As ruled by the Supreme Court many times these perfected claims are in essence the same as a patent.

This is one of the main reasons I am beyond skeptical of the current attempts by organizations purporting to represent miners complaining of a state taking in respect to dredging in California. The courts have consistently ruled that takings judgements only apply to perfected mineral claims. Read that again if you are unsure what I wrote. It is critical to your survival as small miners to understand the importance of that bit of property law. None of the current California lawsuits even allege that the dredge moratorium is affecting perfected claims.

The fact that current belief among miners that perfected claims are impossible under the patent funding moratorium is a major impediment to miners defending their rights. Once again miners will blame the courts for their own failure to understand the rights and duties associated with their claim to a mineral location.

Learn to prove and perfect your mineral claims and you can move beyond the constant fears of government reprisals that are so commonly found on mining forums. Your government will tread much more lightly around small miners when you raise the price of their interference to the cash value of the minerals and the surface estate. Anything less and you are just another possessory interest, among many, whistling in the wind.

THIS LINK is a direct download of the BLM official Mineral Survey Application in PDF form. For those of you who still believe the BLM can not accept your Mineral Survey Application since 1993 please note the date on the form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elder- Miner is correct about the mineral survey. Another question that needs to be asked,

is how darn old is that manual? Any section corner that has been set with a brass cap since

the mid 60's is accurate for survey purpose ,and is a permanent reference point for any legal

survey purpose. Land surveyors use the closest brass cap as a reference point every day.

The land bordering my claims is private land,and it is defined with a legal survey that follows

the section line. The land behind my claims is state land ,and the section line is the legal surveyed

boundary . The BLM geologist actually gave me the coords for every claim corner for each 40 acre

claim straight from the current survey for that section. If the current survey is good enough for the

BLM,State,private surveyors,and the Federal government, it will stand any test.

I have had lots of land surveyed by licensed and bonded companies. Each time the first thing

they do is try to locate the nearest section brass cap as a reference benchmark.

It is true that a lot of federal land has not been surveyed nor has been realigned with a modern

survey. In that case if you are serious about a claim, and want to be accurate enough to stand

up in court get a survey by a real survey company .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the main you are correct elder-miner.

Mineral surveys are required before a first half certificate can be applied for. A valid US mineral survey is a significant part of the perfection of a mining claim. As I'm sure you know perfected locations rise above the simple possessory right granted with discovery and location. Perfected claims are the claims referred to by the Supreme Court in WILBUR, Secretary of the Interior, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. KRUSHNIC and many other decisions.


Here is Arizona based US Mineral Surveyor Jim Crume's take on this issue in the Professional Surveyors Magazine. Please note that the BLM is now accepting Mineral Survey Applications.

Large mining companies, two of our clients in the last two years and many more locators are obtaining mineral surveys. Anyone desiring a patent when the funding moratorium is lifted or not renewed in the budget bill will be interested in the fact that mineral surveys applications are available and have been for several years. As ruled by the Supreme Court many times these perfected claims are in essence the same as a patent.

This is one of the main reasons I am beyond skeptical of the current attempts by organizations purporting to represent miners complaining of a state taking in respect to dredging in California. The courts have consistently ruled that takings judgements only apply to perfected mineral claims. Read that again if you are unsure what I wrote. It is critical to your survival as small miners to understand the importance of that bit of property law. None of the current California lawsuits even allege that the dredge moratorium is affecting perfected claims.

The fact that current belief among miners that perfected claims are impossible under the patent funding moratorium is a major impediment to miners defending their rights. Once again miners will blame the courts for their own failure to understand the rights and duties associated with their claim to a mineral location.

Learn to prove and perfect your mineral claims and you can move beyond the constant fears of government reprisals that are so commonly found on mining forums. Your government will tread much more lightly around small miners when you raise the price of their interference to the cash value of the minerals and the surface estate. Anything less and you are just another possessory interest, among many, whistling in the wind.

THIS LINK is a direct download of the BLM official Mineral Survey Application in PDF form. For those of you who still believe the BLM can not accept your Mineral Survey Application since 1993 please note the date on the form.



A perfected mining claim is one that is properly described, recorded, monumented, properly maintained with the State & BLM…… and drum beat.…. fully supported with a Valid Mineral Discovery of a marketable mineral (marketability test). In other words, if contested by the BLM/USFS, it will pass a VALIDITY CONTEST with flying colors.

A winner for example

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/kaibab/home/?cid=stelprdb5376026

One can certainly have a perfected mining claim, without a mineral survey covering it.
Once “perfected”, it is covered by Constitutional protection from “’taking” without just compensation.

An (unpatented) mining claim has been "perfected" where, assuming the performance of the requisite acts of location and recordation, a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit has been made within the physical limits of the claim. See, e.g., United States v. Mavros, 122 IBLA 297, 301-302 (1992); United States v. Nickol, 9 IBLA 117, 122 (1973); Clear Gravel Enterprises, Inc., A-27967 (Dec. 29, 1959).

"When the location of a mining claim is "perfected" under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The right of the owner is taxable by the state; and is "real property", subject to the lien of a judgment recovered against the owner in a state or territorial court. The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.

If a discovery of a "valuable mineral deposit" is made, the claim can be held indefinitely so long as the annual assessment work is performed, the necessary filings are made, fees are paid, and a valuable mineral deposit continues to exist. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336, 83 S.Ct. 379, 382, 9 L.Ed. 2d 350 (1963).

This possessory interest entitles the claimant to "the right to extract all minerals from the claim without paying royalties to the United States." Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).

The holder of a claim supported by a discovery need not seek patent; his unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory right. 30 U.S.C. § 39; United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 86 (1985).

Federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).

Even though title to the fee estate remains in the United States, these unpatented mining claims are themselves property protected by the Fifth Amendment against uncompensated takings. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334 (1963); cf. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 766 (1876); U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5; North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. U.S., 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 U.S. 330; United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 107, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 1799, 85 L.Ed. 2d 64 (1985); Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981); Rybachek v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 222 (1991).

Such an interest may be asserted against the United States as well as against third parties (see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 50 (1885)) and may not be taken from the claimant by the United States without due compensation. See United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920); cf. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., supra.

"Uncompensated divestment" of a valid unpatented mining claim would violate the Constitution. Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981).

A valid location, though unpatented, is a grant in the nature of an estate in fee and if such an estate is taken by the United States, just compensation must be made. See U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. U.S., 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 U.S. 330.


There are still qualified Mineral Surveyors.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/cadastral_survey/mineral_surveyor_program.Par.53554.File.dat/mineral_surveyor_roster_updated.Jan2011.pdf

But, they are not getting many done, since the patent moratorium took effect.

In the late 70”s & early 80’s I personally patented two (2) mining claims & worked on several others that resulted in patents being granted.


 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elder- Miner is correct about the mineral survey. Another question that needs to be asked,

is how darn old is that manual? Any section corner that has been set with a brass cap since

the mid 60's is accurate for survey purpose ,and is a permanent reference point for any legal

survey purpose. Land surveyors use the closest brass cap as a reference point every day.

The land bordering my claims is private land,and it is defined with a legal survey that follows

the section line. The land behind my claims is state land ,and the section line is the legal surveyed

boundary . The BLM geologist actually gave me the coords for every claim corner for each 40 acre

claim straight from the current survey for that section. If the current survey is good enough for the

BLM,State,private surveyors,and the Federal government, it will stand any test.

I have had lots of land surveyed by licensed and bonded companies. Each time the first thing

they do is try to locate the nearest section brass cap as a reference benchmark.

It is true that a lot of federal land has not been surveyed nor has been realigned with a modern

survey. In that case if you are serious about a claim, and want to be accurate enough to stand

up in court get a survey by a real survey company .

1973

Link to the whole sheebang, warning LONG

http://www.blm.gov/cadastral/Manual/73man/id1.htm

New one came out 2009.

Info-Link > http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/cadastralsurvey/2009_edition.html

Not online yet in PDF format.

You can buy one, but not cheap.

Most state BLM offices have one you can reveiw & make copies of pages you are interested in.

Cheapest way to get an official survey done, if you are fairly skilled yourself.

Find & flag nearest existing official survey corners.

Brush & clear the lines, so an RLS has a clear veiw.

Run the lines yourself, with an old school transit or electronic theodolite.

Clear the ground around the area where the corners will be.

Map everything & take digital pictures.

Take all that that to a local RLS & dicker with him.

Sometimes you can get good deals.

Because the grunt work is done & that saves a lot of time for the RLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say thanks to everyone for all of your great information! I know more than I did when I started reading which is excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one happens to “discover” a marketable valuable mineral deposit on public domain open to mineral entry. It behooves that person to do everything possible to protect that discovery, and private property rights associated with owning a “valid” mining claim.

In other words, do it “right”. If not done “right”, more often than not, one way or another, you will eventually get screwed out of it. By either a USFS/BLM regulatory Decision that the mining claim is invalid, for failure to meet some requirement. Or, by someone who takes advantage of fatal errors on your part, then files over the mining claim with a valid one.

If you really want to “bone up” on mining law. One of the very best sources is “United States Code ANNOTATED, Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining (with updates). Not only does it provide the Statutes, it also provides the case law behind them in annotated form. It is often available at any county or State law library. Sometimes from various book stores or on found for sale on eBay. Another good one is Mining Law: from location to patent - Terry S. Maley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9hj8gj.jpg

bjj2o7.jpg

Off topic, but my HARDWARE, will take about any software

GPS enabled PanasonicToughbook with touchscreen in a storm case, with several hand helds (for redundancy, if one bites the dust).

Serves every need I have ever had.

With an inverter in your vehicle, you don't run the battery down & can recharge it, whenever needed.

I don't do well with the little screens on handhelds.

Plus want a lot of RAM, big Gig HD & CD ROM discs.

With a good digital camera plugged in, it's nice to log the GPS position of photos you take in the feild + notes you made standing there.

a4ia.jpg

Mapping residual, grading into eluvial placer

(Note- Circa 1865-70 gin pole sidecast cobbles, area under stacked cobbles unmined, said to be as rich as origanal workings, 1 ounce per sq yard of bedrock exposed)

That way you know exactly where every picture was taken & can go back to that exact spot, as needed.

Saved, you can map-chart-trace-plot old placer workings that don't show on topo's, plus plot on google earth.

Sitting in the comfort of your vehicle there, at your campsite nearby, or home or office, days, weeks or months later.

For the old topo's, look here.

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/status/index.html

Nice setup, yours is shinier than mine, me jealous. I see you like the old-school Garmin and compasses too. People tease me about my old Garmin GPS 12 from back in 1997, yeah it doesn't have a voice or tell me where the next gas station is, but doesn't argue with me either and i am still alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...