Posting Sample; Jefferson Mining District Oregon
- Thread starter M.E.G.
- Start date
goldenIrishman
Silver Member
- Feb 28, 2013
- 3,465
- 6,153
- Detector(s) used
- Fisher / Gold Bug AND the MK-VII eyeballs
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Hummmm An interesting idea but it would not fly in my area. Our claim is in a National Forest so we have to allow others to also use the land for activities OTHER THAN MINING.
Our claim signs only state that you can't remove any of the mineral resources from the claim, but say nothing about trespassing. We have a segment of the Arizona Trail that goes right through our claim from the S.E. corner to the N.W. corner. I enjoy meeting the people that are hiking on the trail as it gives me chances to A: Make some friends B: Teach my new friends something about mining. C: send them on their way with a new understanding that miners are not there to ruin the forest for other people.
Our claim signs only state that you can't remove any of the mineral resources from the claim, but say nothing about trespassing. We have a segment of the Arizona Trail that goes right through our claim from the S.E. corner to the N.W. corner. I enjoy meeting the people that are hiking on the trail as it gives me chances to A: Make some friends B: Teach my new friends something about mining. C: send them on their way with a new understanding that miners are not there to ruin the forest for other people.
ACTIVE!!!
FEDERAL MINING CLAIM
ALL PERSONS ARE WARNED!
THAT ANY INTERFERANCE WITH THE
OPERATION OF THIS FEDERAL MINING CLAIM
OR THE DISTURBANCE OF THE MONUMENTS,
SURFACE, OR IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS CLAIM,
OR THE REMOVAL OF MINERALS OF ANY TYPE
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT,
WILL RESULT IN THEIR PROSECUTION UNDER
THE APPROPRIATE STATE AND FEDERAL
STATUTES.
Time for new signs anyways.....
FEDERAL MINING CLAIM
ALL PERSONS ARE WARNED!
THAT ANY INTERFERANCE WITH THE
OPERATION OF THIS FEDERAL MINING CLAIM
OR THE DISTURBANCE OF THE MONUMENTS,
SURFACE, OR IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS CLAIM,
OR THE REMOVAL OF MINERALS OF ANY TYPE
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT,
WILL RESULT IN THEIR PROSECUTION UNDER
THE APPROPRIATE STATE AND FEDERAL
STATUTES.
Time for new signs anyways.....
Last edited:
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Some of the ready made signs we see for sale at the mining shops reference CFR's; and one wants to avoid using any such signage. ONE MUST REMEMBER CFR's ARE NOT LAWS....ONLY AGENCY GUIDELINES. Accepting inappropriate CFR's can lead one down a contractual nightmare.
Bejay
Bejay
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are Executive agency administrative rules Hefty. They are not law nor are they applicable per se to your mining claim.
The CFR will not protect your claim from mineral trespass. You might as well quote some lines from your favorite song, it would have about the same authority as far as your mineral location is concerned.
No harm no foul - but it is a bit misleading to include it.
The CFR will not protect your claim from mineral trespass. You might as well quote some lines from your favorite song, it would have about the same authority as far as your mineral location is concerned.
No harm no foul - but it is a bit misleading to include it.
Well I will be changing all my signs to read "Granted Mineral Estate" as the one posted above.
It was brought to my attention that once I located and recorded it...It was no longer a "Federal Mining Claim"
It is my "Granted Mineral Estate" which i should have remembered my fight with USFS, I kept telling them "Granted Mineral Estate"
Thanks to MEG for bringing this to my attention.
I hate gettin old....CRS
Last edited:
I would suggest you look a little closer to the requirements for that grant Hefty. It requires quite a bit more than a few posts and a county recording to perfect that grant.
Figure it out before you make up those new signs and save yourself some money.
OP
OP
M.E.G.
Hero Member
- Apr 25, 2014
- 500
- 876
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #11
This below question was asked on another forum where the example POST NOTICE was posted as well, followed by reply:
winners58 wrote:
"what’s your understanding of mining claims on BLM administered lands?
This is what I found and appears to be BLM’s understanding of surface rights
United States Statutes at Large, Volume 69, 84th Congress, 1st Session ... -Pg367.pdf (page 369 section 5)
DETERMINATTION OF SURFACE RIGHTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 84-167 (1955)
Prior to 1955, claimants had certain surface rights associated with their mining claim. Public Law 84-167 required BLM to publish each township in each state where the United States wished to acquire complete surface management rights. Most townships were published between 1955 and 1968. The Master Title Plat for a particular township (and the Historical Index) will show if the township was published, give the date of publication, and list the claims( by claim name) that responded or were adjudicated surface rights under this Act. To maintain these surface rights under this determination, the chain of title cannot be broken.
USE AND OCCUPANCY—Use and occupancy inquiries should be directed to the appropriate field office.
Staking or operating a mining claim does not give the claimant exclusive rights to the surface resources
(unless a right was determined under Public Law 84-167). the right to establish residency. or block access to other users.
Regulations managing the use and occupancy of the public lands for development of locatable mineral deposits by limiting such use or Occupancy to that which is reasonably incidental are found in 43 CFR3 715.These regulations apply to public lands administered by BLM. They do not apply to state or private lands where minerals have been reserved, nor do they apply to Federal lands administered by other agencies (such as the Forest Service)."
Reply:
Specific to your question, limited to “mining claims”, with respect to what the BLM would be speaking to as an ongoing authority over the public land it has authority to manage, you are asking about Saleables and Leaseables on public land. These are disposed by contract or lease, not by grant. Part 3715 regulations would be included in those contractual agreements.
Not that you necessarily intended it, but Your question is a bit of a trick question if I am anticipating your actual inquiry as it relates to a Locateable mineral deposit. BLM administers to all public land, but no appropriations/disposals on public land are managed by the BLM. These appropriations may be monitored but not managed. And where, as in a Locatable mineral deposit claims, the title is held in trust the BLM administers the muniments of title but does not manage these.
The CFR, rule, implements a United States Code, “law”. In practice, an agency will send a notice including a CFR section It claims you "must" follow. Read back through the authorities for 3715. You'll find 3809 and that is answered the same as before by reading the Scope and Purpose of 3809 to see whether those rules apply to a Locatable mineral deposit location where you have located it. Most likely probably not. EXCLUSIVE USE and OCCUPATION, i.e., possession and use, is Granted, not managed by the agencies. Go find those Terms in the Mining Law. Grantees do not maintain an occupancy of public land but are granted Occupation of the public domain.
So “DETERMINATTION OF SURFACE RIGHTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW” for Locatable minerals was done in 1872, which included the entire surface within the limits of the claim, not in 1955 as the BLM will get you to believe. The 1955 Act limited surface and property rights to common mineral material mining claims, not Locatable mineral deposit claims, i.e., 'Locatable minerals'. The BLM necessarily limits its authority to 1955 and does not include the 1872 or the 1947. The BLM hides this fact of limited authority in plain sight only mentioning mining claims after 1955, but never actually refers to Locateable mineral deposits. A locateable mining claim is NOT a Locateable mineral deposit.; Very slick deception by the BLM here. The BLM gets you to believe the limitation applies to everything, but this is a deception a subtle fraud by omission. And you need to read those acts to know this for yourself. Then you'll understand better why the 3809/3715's don't apply to Locateable mineral deposits in unappropriated public land, and as the expressed exception makes certain in 30 USC 612 (b), and as you can plainly read for yourself in the 3809 pamphlet.
Not being under BLM public land management authority though administered by the BLM, under the 1872 Mining Law, amending, a Locatable mineral deposit is located where?
winners58 wrote:
"what’s your understanding of mining claims on BLM administered lands?
This is what I found and appears to be BLM’s understanding of surface rights
United States Statutes at Large, Volume 69, 84th Congress, 1st Session ... -Pg367.pdf (page 369 section 5)
DETERMINATTION OF SURFACE RIGHTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 84-167 (1955)
Prior to 1955, claimants had certain surface rights associated with their mining claim. Public Law 84-167 required BLM to publish each township in each state where the United States wished to acquire complete surface management rights. Most townships were published between 1955 and 1968. The Master Title Plat for a particular township (and the Historical Index) will show if the township was published, give the date of publication, and list the claims( by claim name) that responded or were adjudicated surface rights under this Act. To maintain these surface rights under this determination, the chain of title cannot be broken.
USE AND OCCUPANCY—Use and occupancy inquiries should be directed to the appropriate field office.
Staking or operating a mining claim does not give the claimant exclusive rights to the surface resources
(unless a right was determined under Public Law 84-167). the right to establish residency. or block access to other users.
Regulations managing the use and occupancy of the public lands for development of locatable mineral deposits by limiting such use or Occupancy to that which is reasonably incidental are found in 43 CFR3 715.These regulations apply to public lands administered by BLM. They do not apply to state or private lands where minerals have been reserved, nor do they apply to Federal lands administered by other agencies (such as the Forest Service)."
Reply:
Specific to your question, limited to “mining claims”, with respect to what the BLM would be speaking to as an ongoing authority over the public land it has authority to manage, you are asking about Saleables and Leaseables on public land. These are disposed by contract or lease, not by grant. Part 3715 regulations would be included in those contractual agreements.
Not that you necessarily intended it, but Your question is a bit of a trick question if I am anticipating your actual inquiry as it relates to a Locateable mineral deposit. BLM administers to all public land, but no appropriations/disposals on public land are managed by the BLM. These appropriations may be monitored but not managed. And where, as in a Locatable mineral deposit claims, the title is held in trust the BLM administers the muniments of title but does not manage these.
The CFR, rule, implements a United States Code, “law”. In practice, an agency will send a notice including a CFR section It claims you "must" follow. Read back through the authorities for 3715. You'll find 3809 and that is answered the same as before by reading the Scope and Purpose of 3809 to see whether those rules apply to a Locatable mineral deposit location where you have located it. Most likely probably not. EXCLUSIVE USE and OCCUPATION, i.e., possession and use, is Granted, not managed by the agencies. Go find those Terms in the Mining Law. Grantees do not maintain an occupancy of public land but are granted Occupation of the public domain.
So “DETERMINATTION OF SURFACE RIGHTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW” for Locatable minerals was done in 1872, which included the entire surface within the limits of the claim, not in 1955 as the BLM will get you to believe. The 1955 Act limited surface and property rights to common mineral material mining claims, not Locatable mineral deposit claims, i.e., 'Locatable minerals'. The BLM necessarily limits its authority to 1955 and does not include the 1872 or the 1947. The BLM hides this fact of limited authority in plain sight only mentioning mining claims after 1955, but never actually refers to Locateable mineral deposits. A locateable mining claim is NOT a Locateable mineral deposit.; Very slick deception by the BLM here. The BLM gets you to believe the limitation applies to everything, but this is a deception a subtle fraud by omission. And you need to read those acts to know this for yourself. Then you'll understand better why the 3809/3715's don't apply to Locateable mineral deposits in unappropriated public land, and as the expressed exception makes certain in 30 USC 612 (b), and as you can plainly read for yourself in the 3809 pamphlet.
Not being under BLM public land management authority though administered by the BLM, under the 1872 Mining Law, amending, a Locatable mineral deposit is located where?
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Quote MEG:
Federal Mining Claim?
I want to call your attention to the fact that a federal mining claim is not a private claim but one owned by the U.S. government, the miner of which is an 'operator' under contract.
Grantees don't Claim federal land or maintain federal mining claims, those are federal, or U.S. Claims. In effect, by posting such a notice exampled by goldenIrishman on Posting Sample; Jefferson Mining District 'Oregon' it says the U.S. owns the claim and you are just working it for the Feds.
Take a close look way down under the bottom line in the fine print of the “trespass” sign posted by goldenIrishman, and tell me, Whose claim are you telling others that is, really? And if you post that sign haven't you just given notice and changed your status from a grantee to that of an operator?
I'll be posting something else when I get to it regarding the No Trespass sign I posted that people are missing the points to. This Claim miss-designation and where a granted claim exists is, as is the improper interpretation and application of the 1955 Act, causing continued misunderstanding and real trouble.
End Quote MEG
Federal Mining Claim?
I want to call your attention to the fact that a federal mining claim is not a private claim but one owned by the U.S. government, the miner of which is an 'operator' under contract.
Grantees don't Claim federal land or maintain federal mining claims, those are federal, or U.S. Claims. In effect, by posting such a notice exampled by goldenIrishman on Posting Sample; Jefferson Mining District 'Oregon' it says the U.S. owns the claim and you are just working it for the Feds.
Take a close look way down under the bottom line in the fine print of the “trespass” sign posted by goldenIrishman, and tell me, Whose claim are you telling others that is, really? And if you post that sign haven't you just given notice and changed your status from a grantee to that of an operator?
I'll be posting something else when I get to it regarding the No Trespass sign I posted that people are missing the points to. This Claim miss-designation and where a granted claim exists is, as is the improper interpretation and application of the 1955 Act, causing continued misunderstanding and real trouble.
End Quote MEG
OP
OP
M.E.G.
Hero Member
- Apr 25, 2014
- 500
- 876
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #14
I feel compelled to clarify and correct a number of apparent miss-interpretations about the POST NOTICE No Trespass sign, why it is important and where it exists:
The Notice is currently being used on our Locatable mineral deposit claim. It isn't an experiment.
It is intended for use and being used on our claims, (as are others) appropriating unappropriated public land, whether managed by the BLM or Forest Service.
It is not intended for any “BLM Claim”.
It is not intended for “BLM Land”.
It is not intended to be placed upon “Federal land”, or land subject to a prior entry.
It is not intended to be placed upon a “Federal mining claim”.
It is not intended for use by an “operator”, or "an “owner” of a leaseable or saleable mineral".
It is not intended to be placed on the forest reserve or agency lawfully improved 'Forest Service system land'.
This Notice is not intended to include any prior right of way, Highway or trail. To the extent it might appear to cover some area with any vested right accruing prior to 1866, or by priority, where posted, it would be invalid, i.e., it would not cover any prior existing roads or trails constructed over the land claimed for mineral deposit entry.
The POST NOTICE No Trespass sign is notice of a private real estate in-holding the forest reserve the trespass of which will find any trespasser subject to state law remedy, either for simple trespass or for felony theft by extortion for trespass committed under color of authority pursuant to the state law listed.
This notice is not an opinion.
It isn't an experiment.
It isn't just an interesting idea.
It is a notice like any other to protect a granted exclusive possession of enjoyment and use under and pursuant to state law. It is only to be used by those possessing exclusive of every other interests, such as those granted to a Locateable mineral deposit claim of unappropriated public land.
This sign is currently placed at and about one of our claims which is a private in-holding of a forest reserve, i.e., National Forest, and is absent of any pre-existing rights of appropriation. It is in an area highly desired by GangGreen for Wilderness expansion.
The private in-holding, referenced, is established by Act of Congress of land restored to public domain removed from Forest Service management authority within the forest reserve, i.e., “National Forest”.
Being the mining law requires a claimant protect against ALL trespass, this sign provides the notice that we are and will.
The Notice is currently being used on our Locatable mineral deposit claim. It isn't an experiment.
It is intended for use and being used on our claims, (as are others) appropriating unappropriated public land, whether managed by the BLM or Forest Service.
It is not intended for any “BLM Claim”.
It is not intended for “BLM Land”.
It is not intended to be placed upon “Federal land”, or land subject to a prior entry.
It is not intended to be placed upon a “Federal mining claim”.
It is not intended for use by an “operator”, or "an “owner” of a leaseable or saleable mineral".
It is not intended to be placed on the forest reserve or agency lawfully improved 'Forest Service system land'.
This Notice is not intended to include any prior right of way, Highway or trail. To the extent it might appear to cover some area with any vested right accruing prior to 1866, or by priority, where posted, it would be invalid, i.e., it would not cover any prior existing roads or trails constructed over the land claimed for mineral deposit entry.
The POST NOTICE No Trespass sign is notice of a private real estate in-holding the forest reserve the trespass of which will find any trespasser subject to state law remedy, either for simple trespass or for felony theft by extortion for trespass committed under color of authority pursuant to the state law listed.
This notice is not an opinion.
It isn't an experiment.
It isn't just an interesting idea.
It is a notice like any other to protect a granted exclusive possession of enjoyment and use under and pursuant to state law. It is only to be used by those possessing exclusive of every other interests, such as those granted to a Locateable mineral deposit claim of unappropriated public land.
This sign is currently placed at and about one of our claims which is a private in-holding of a forest reserve, i.e., National Forest, and is absent of any pre-existing rights of appropriation. It is in an area highly desired by GangGreen for Wilderness expansion.
The private in-holding, referenced, is established by Act of Congress of land restored to public domain removed from Forest Service management authority within the forest reserve, i.e., “National Forest”.
Being the mining law requires a claimant protect against ALL trespass, this sign provides the notice that we are and will.
Thanks for pointing that out Bejay.
It isn't anything to do with the 1955 Act though. Federal mining claims couldn't exist before 1976 so any connection to the 1955 Act is iffy at best.
Even after 1976 the feds could only own a mining claim through a wholly owned corporation - not as Executive agencies or Congressional entities. So even in the case of a wholly owned corporation the claim owner would have private citizen status, not a "Federal" status.
From the 1976 FLPMA:
There is no such thing as a "United States mining claim". "Federal mining claim" is only used by government agencies to distinguish a claim under the Congressional mining acts and those permitted under some State's land laws.
Of course none of that really amounts to a hill of beans when you realize that Congress holds the title to the land (and minerals) on your mining claim. They are the ultimate landlords.
_________________________
On to the concept, recently advanced here, that most mining claim locations made under the 1872 Mining Act are actually being treated as leased minerals claims I'm thinking there is a pretty easy way to establish if that is indeed true.
Although not often studied in relation to gold prospecting there are some pretty strict requirements as to what the BLM must do before classifying minerals as leasable:
Was that all done for your mining claim? Were you issued a lease or license?
There are a lot more requirements for minerals to be leased or sold - including a whole bunch of paperwork and money paid under contract and regular reporting and auditing requirements.
Occams Razor still applies.
Heavy Pans
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Occams Razor still applies.
This is an endless study. Never heard of this before. Think I need a caffeine burst and a whole lot of patience.
Bejay
This is an endless study. Never heard of this before. Think I need a caffeine burst and a whole lot of patience.
Bejay
Caffeine perhaps Bejay but no popcorn please. This may take awhile (years?) and we need you well for the duration.
You are one of the few who have an inkling just how big my library really is.
You are also the only one, at this point, who knows how little time I have to share it here. We have plans to change that but it won't be tomorrow.
Patience please.
Heavy Pans and Safe Journeys Brother
You are one of the few who have an inkling just how big my library really is.
You are also the only one, at this point, who knows how little time I have to share it here. We have plans to change that but it won't be tomorrow.
Patience please.
Heavy Pans and Safe Journeys Brother
Top Member Reactions
-
3492 -
2003 -
1919 -
1130 -
1078 -
1006 -
860 -
849 -
843 -
744 -
743 -
675 -
665 -
576 -
499 -
462 -
443 -
418 -
401 -
398
