AMRA President cited on their LEGAL mining claim

In order to construct the campground including the construction of the sh***er I assume the FS had to do some digging what is the legal soup of them digging on your claim? I assume they are Scott free as it’s a construction project but what about the dirt they dug up?
 

Not knowing the details into the fs building this improvement on this particular location BUT I don't see how they could / would win in ANY court given AMRA's paper work on "their" legal claim ! BUT it will cost them (AMRA) for their lawyer & and court filing fees. I predict this will be very embarrassing for the USFS for NOT doing their own research into the laws OR thinking that their "laws" OR their interpretation of the mining law would take a precedent to the ACTUAL LAW ! Whom ever the FS chose to make this decision to build on this claim ought to have his position / job in question !
 

I'm just passing the info along for everyone's info if they are into a situation similar to this . I know there has been in the past a lot said about this man BUT I don't know !
 

N-Lionberger said:
In order to construct the campground including the construction of the sh***er I assume the FS had to do some digging what is the legal soup of them digging on your claim? I assume they are Scott free as it’s a construction project but what about the dirt they dug up?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what happened in the AMRA case. I haven't watched the video. Please don't take this as a comment on that situation. Below is the answer to your question. It was a good question and an explanation of how these things roll might help readers understand some of the issues involved.

When the FS decides on a recreation site the land is restricted from mineral entry (withdrawn). This helps prevent the rather messy situation where a miner shows up and starts digging up the campground and suing the FS for obstructing their ability to mine the minerals they own.

Before the land can be withdrawn from entry the land status has to be checked then the public and anyone who has prior rights (like a mining claim) has to be legally notified. After the land is withdrawn it is the duty of the mining claimant to do their due diligence and avoid locating their claims within areas that are not open to location.

In the case of a prior existing mining claim no recreation area can be built within the bounds of the claim IF the mining claim owner has proof of a valuable mineral deposit. Existing mining claims will be challenged to provide their proof of a valuable mineral deposit.

If the claim owner provides the proof the FS has two choices, exempt the mining claim from the withdrawal and remove the claim area from the recreation plan or pay up the value of the proven portion of the deposit minus the cost of mining, refining and marketing the proven deposit. If the claim owner does not have proof of a valuable mineral deposit the claim will be closed and the rec area can be built.

That's the brief version. In all cases everyone gets the chance to appeal any decision so sometimes these things can take a long time. That's why the FS generally tries to avoid putting rec areas where there are existing mining claims. However this is in ... California?

Heavy Pans
 

Clay Diggins said:
I have no idea what happened in the AMRA case. I haven't watched the video. Please don't take this as a comment on that situation. Below is the answer to your question. It was a good question and an explanation of how these things roll might help readers understand some of the issues involved.

When the FS decides on a recreation site the land is restricted from mineral entry (withdrawn). This helps prevent the rather messy situation where a miner shows up and starts digging up the campground and suing the FS for obstructing their ability to mine the minerals they own.

Before the land can be withdrawn from entry the land status has to be checked then the public and anyone who has prior rights (like a mining claim) has to be legally notified. After the land is withdrawn it is the duty of the mining claimant to do their due diligence and avoid locating their claims within areas that are not open to location.

In the case of a prior existing mining claim no recreation area can be built within the bounds of the claim IF the mining claim owner has proof of a valuable mineral deposit. Existing mining claims will be challenged to provide their proof of a valuable mineral deposit.

If the claim owner provides the proof the FS has two choices, exempt the mining claim from the withdrawal and remove the claim area from the recreation plan or pay up the value of the proven portion of the deposit minus the cost of mining, refining and marketing the proven deposit. If the claim owner does not have proof of a valuable mineral deposit the claim will be closed and the rec area can be built.

That's the brief version. In all cases everyone gets the chance to appeal any decision so sometimes these things can take a long time. That's why the FS generally tries to avoid putting rec areas where there are existing mining claims. However this is in ... California?

Heavy Pans
Click to expand...
it's a claim in LaPanza Ca. they were approached last year as well. The ticket is for "defrauding an Innkeeper" there is a third part concession that maintains the campground. As you and I know that is pretty common. I guess they told the club they need to pat the day use/ camping fee.

I don't agree with that . Neither does Shannon.

He says the claimis eight years old and I guess the shade shelter and Bathrooms are newish and built after the claim was located.

what bugs me about Poe most is his hyperbole. This is the same dude that claimed a member got a dredging ticket in his own driveway because he had dredge hose visable in his truck and lived within a hundred yards of a creek.

I personally challenged Shannon on that asking him for proof it happened.

His resolution was to kick me off the AMRA facebook page.

Considering that i've testified to commities at the same time as him and introduced him to the lobbyist that got Assmblymen Bigelow to author a bill that would clarify sb 637.

I found it pretty lame of him to get butthurt for being challenged for exaggerating and fabricating situations. Especially by a pretty well informed peer.
So, since you didn't watch the video don't worry barry I bit a chunk out of a large grain of salt for you too.

I'll look up the area and claim situation later.

If he really cared he would have pro actively approached the district ranger after last years run in.
 

so, the claims in the section that has the campground were located in 2013
it's the Navajo Flat campground.
Ariel photo 2013 no campground in the flat (buildings and parking)

Ariel from 2015 . five shade Cabanas. new pit toilet. organized parking thingamajiggary.

we all know that FS can't get crap done overnight so the project had to be in planning before the clains were located there.

I didn't check on a withdrawl. 29S 16E section 29
 

Is this the same campground Los padre National Forest? Navajo Flat Campground, off-highway vehicle (OHV) Trailhead and day use area is an ideal location for OHV enthusiasts to enjoy the many trails in the surrounding area. A multi-use trail system that includes routes designated for motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) is located adjacent to this campground, known as a mecca for motorized fun.
 

southfork said:
Is this the same campground Los padre National Forest? Navajo Flat Campground, off-highway vehicle (OHV) Trailhead and day use area is an ideal location for OHV enthusiasts to enjoy the many trails in the surrounding area. A multi-use trail system that includes routes designated for motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) is located adjacent to this campground, known as a mecca for motorized fun.
Click to expand...
yes
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Chilkoot and willow creek

⬅️ Previous Thread

Rebirth of a dredge

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top