Can you metal detect on a load claim for alluvial or float gold?

[mariposagoldbag]

Would alluvial/float gold be considered placer?  And would anyone feel like this would be a disrespectful move? 

Edited September 21, 2020 by mariposagoldbag

[goldrivermike]

Hi, Does your question ask about discovering Alluvial/Lode gold on a Placer mining claim?

If Yes, then short of starting an argument; on face value, if there is no Lode Claim on this USFS/BLM land and you have found Alluvial/Lode, gold in quartz or rough not stream tumbled smooth, then it would not be Placer gold and not part of the Placer Claim.

But, if the Lode gold fell into a creek on a Placer Claim, then I wouldn’t touch it.

There are areas here in Amador County where both Placer and Lode Claims are filed by different people on the same property.

 

[clay]

It's a basic of mining law that every valid claim, whether lode or placer, gives the claimant the right to all the valuable minerals found in their location.

Placer gold on a lode claim belongs to the lode claim owner. Lode minerals found on a placer claim belong to the placer claim owner.

You can download and read the location rights in the General Mining Act Here.

 

 

[Sonoran Dave]

7 hours ago, mariposagoldbag said:

Would alluvial/float gold be considered placer?  And would anyone feel like this would be a disrespectful move? 

I would consider it very disrespectful, and like Clay pointed out, it IS illegal.   

Since not all hard rock operations chase down the float, you may be able to secure permission...if you ask.

[nugget108]

The way i have always understood it was, is a load claim trumps a placer claim. So if there was a load claim on a piece of ground first, only the owner of the lode claim can file a placer claim on it for it to be valid. But you should differentiate between the 2. Because i believe float minerals that have broke away from the load, no matter the distance found from the lode, are still considered placer right? Its just your responsibility to pick which one will be more profitable to you when you file. Most small miners are not set up to mine a lode claim. I could be wrong, but thats how i have understood it to be. I see clay added a link, but i typed this already before looking at it Haha. Clay is pretty sharp on this subject. 

[clay]

There are no circumstances where a placer claim can legally be located over a valid lode claim.

IF a placer claim owner discovers a valid lode on their valid placer claim they MAY locate a lode claim for that deposit but the lode is not "over" the existing placer it replaces the placer claim within it's boundaries. The placer claim is reduced by the same number of acres that the lode claim encompasses.

These location laws don't seem to make sense unless you realize that the federal government charges twice as much for a lode claim patent as they  do for a placer patent. This is about money not minerals. The law is in place to stop locators from trying to get lode patents at half price and to prevent several of the more valuable lode claims being located as a single placer claim.

Still and always each type of claim, if valid, own ALL of the valuable minerals found within their location. Not just gold, all the valuable minerals.

[mariposagoldbag]

Interesting...  I appreciate the information.  I always thought alluvial gold was basically placer..  I also thought that you can have a placer claim overlay a load claim.  Thank you.

[Morlock]

19 hours ago, mariposagoldbag said:

Interesting...  I appreciate the information.  I always thought alluvial gold was basically placer..  I also thought that you can have a placer claim overlay a load claim.  Thank you.

You can probably file a placer claim over a lode claim and they'll sure take your money but it won't be valid.

[mn90403]

I followed some claim filings in northern Nevada.  Lode claims had been filed on the land on a certain date.  Several were filed adjacent to each other with adjoining borders.  These load claims were sold and the claim filed by the new owners was a placer claim but it used the date of the load claim as the date of discovery.  Is that a valid transfer?

I know of another instance of a claim in southern California where 'partners' were in dispute over an unclaimed parcel and one filed a placer claim and the other filed a lode claim.  They were told by attorneys that if they went to court the judge probably would not consider the type of claim in his decision.  He would weigh heavily the date of the first claim over the date of the second claim, even if within hours.  The parties did not go to court.

[hardtimehermit]

Hey Mitchel, have you asked the Nevada Division of Minerals? If not give a call and they can give you all the info you need. 775 684-7040 in Carson.

-ht

[clay]

9 hours ago, mn90403 said:

I followed some claim filings in northern Nevada.  Lode claims had been filed on the land on a certain date.  Several were filed adjacent to each other with adjoining borders.  These load claims were sold and the claim filed by the new owners was a placer claim but it used the date of the load claim as the date of discovery.  Is that a valid transfer?

When a claim is transferred (sold or given) from one owner to another it does not change from one type of claim to another. Neither a transfer of interest nor a claim amendment can change the type of claim from lode to placer. I seriously doubt the Nevada BLM would or could allow the type of mining claim to change from lode to placer. Read the regulations they are quite clear on these points, there is no gray area.

The new owners may have relinquished the lode claims and relocated the approximate area as new placer claims but there is no process that could change an existing lode claim into a placer claim.

 

9 hours ago, mn90403 said:

I know of another instance of a claim in southern California where 'partners' were in dispute over an unclaimed parcel and one filed a placer claim and the other filed a lode claim.  They were told by attorneys that if they went to court the judge probably would not consider the type of claim in his decision.  He would weigh heavily the date of the first claim over the date of the second claim, even if within hours.  The parties did not go to court.

The lawyer was correct. No matter what type of claim is located the first locator is senior and all things being equal the senior locator has the valid claim.

Edited September 23, 2020 by clay

[mn90403]

Can you see documents like this online?

 

LOCATION DATE, RECORDATION NOTICE, TRF OF INTEREST FILED, MAP IN LEAD FILE, COUNTY RECORDATION 

[clay]

2 hours ago, mn90403 said:

Can you see documents like this online?

 

LOCATION DATE, RECORDATION NOTICE, TRF OF INTEREST FILED, MAP IN LEAD FILE, COUNTY RECORDATION 

Those aren't documents Mitchel. They are required action code titles in the BLM mining claim case file system. Most of those action codes only require a submission or completion date be added by the BLM State office to the Serial Register Page for the case file.

The documents that initiate those codes are the Mining Claim Location Notice and the Quitclaim/Transfer of Interest. Both those documents are recorded in the County in which the claim is located. Some County Recorders do have online access to copies of those public records.

Most Arizona and Nevada County Public Records are available online. I don't know of any County Recorders in California that make those Public Records available online. It varies from County to County you just have to check with the County Recorder in question. Often, if your request is specific enough and limited to a few records, County Recorders will email you a photocopy for free or a minimal fee.

Edited September 30, 2020 by clay

[mn90403]

Ok Clay, thanks. I had looked at the file and seen the dates but could not see any additional details on the BLM.  When I went to Pershing County to see documents online it gave me the county menu rather than take me to the recording office directly as I had seen on your links before.  I'll have to try again.

[clay]

Pershing County does have online recordings. There is no direct link, you have to navigate the Recorders site and learn a slightly different search system. It's slow but they do provide the public records online.

[Chuckwalla]

So, is what your saying that if you have a Lode claim you automatically have all of the placer gold/minerals as well?  A newby question but:  If I find a pile of ore outside of a mine that shows a valid lode claim, can I still check out the ore for gold/minerals or is that considered part of the lode claim?  Thanks!

[clay]

3 hours ago, Chuckwalla said:

So, is what your saying that if you have a Lode claim you automatically have all of the placer gold/minerals as well?  A newby question but:  If I find a pile of ore outside of a mine that shows a valid lode claim, can I still check out the ore for gold/minerals or is that considered part of the lode claim?  Thanks!

It's not about what I say, it's what the law says. Each valid mining claim location grants ALL the valuable minerals to the claim owner.

If there is ore on the ground on a valid mining claim the ore belongs to the claim owner. It doesn't matter if the claim is a lode or placer there are no exceptions to that law. Taking gold from a mining claim you don't own or have permission to mine is theft in every state.

[Chuckwalla]

Got it.  Thanks for clarifying

[goldrivermike]

Per the BLM “ Location and Validity of Mining Claims and Sites in California “ , “Location of Lode Over Placer Mining Claims and the Reverse”, 

“Placer mining claims have an equality both in procedure and rights with lode claims, but a load claim provides no rights to placer deposits and a placer claim provides no rights to lode deposits. (Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining and Land Company, 194 US 220 (1904)).

Furthermore,

“ If a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on their claim, they may do so; but, they have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode claim (Campbell v. McIntyre, 295 F.Cas. 45(9th Cir.,1924)).

I’m sure not if this answers the original question but does need to be stated in response to replies above. 
 

Just sayin...

[Idaho Jim]

After reading Nevada law, operating a lode mine on a placer claim invalidates the placer claim. Same with operating a placer  mine on a lode claim. You have to have the correct type of claim for the mining you're doing.

Jim

[clay]

14 minutes ago, Idaho Jim said:

After reading Nevada law, operating a lode mine on a placer claim invalidates the placer claim. Same with operating a placer  mine on a lode claim. You have to have the correct type of claim for the mining you're doing.

Jim

Is that a new law Jim? I can't seem to find it in my files.

[chrisski]

1 hour ago, Idaho Jim said:

After reading Nevada law, operating a lode mine on a placer claim invalidates the placer claim. Same with operating a placer  mine on a lode claim.

I would think a Nevada law would apply to whatever process the state uses on its land.  In Arizona, we have state trust land with its own specific set of rules.  Arizona law makes it very hard to prospect on state trust land, but those same restrictions do not apply on BLM land managed by the federal government.  I hear in other states, this is just the opposite, but I have no reason to prospect in Alaska, so I can't say if its true Alaskan state law makes gold mining on state managed land easier than federal laws make mining on federal managed lands.

I also do not know any Nevada mining law, so perhaps it is in that law for state and not federal lands.

Federal lands definitely against statute law.  While it may be rather common that someone goes on a load claim and prospects, and never gets in trouble, this does not make it correct.  Its still high grading.  I've heard stories about and from people who were removing minerals from a claim accidentally, unknowingly, or even willingly, but this does not mean that its not high grading.  A lot of these stories are told so many times, the new to mining people think that things like this are OK.

[Mike C...]

Ive been to a couple of hardrock claims where all they wanted was the hardock they didnt give 2 $h!ts about the placers just stay out of the mines-so find out status and ask permission.Why would you want a claim anyway ??? That just shows everyone that wants to know that theres something there and attracks unwanted guest-Mums the word 

[chrisski]

2 hours ago, Mike C... said:

That just shows everyone that wants to know that theres something there and attracks unwanted guest-Mums the word

As little luck as I've had, I've had a lot more luck in areas that are all claimed up. 

I've spent a bit of time looking at geology of gold producing areas and trying to find a similar area on a geological map where the ground is not completely claimed, but no luck with the gold; fun adventures though. I don't think placing the 26th claim in a Section (1 mile X 1 mile) attracts all that much attention any more than it does being the one person out in the middle of a section where there's 40 unclaimed acres when you hiked a mile to to detect.  Those claims are for drywashing after metal decting.

[Idaho Jim]

23 hours ago, clay said:

Is that a new law Jim? I can't seem to find it in my files.

I'll dig out the place I found that. I ran onto it while researching the claim process for that place I found the large copper nuggets, just in case I found the source and wanted to file. I'll ;post that today, if I don't get too busy.

Jim