BLM turns into muscle for the greenies

[Oakview2]

This is a highly emotional confrontation between supporters of Cliven Bundy the Nevada rancher that has been fighting the BlM since 1993. They have his house surrounded including snipers, armoured vehicles, automatic weapons and body armour. It used to be that BlM and the forrest service who helped served the interests of ranching timber and mining, now they do all they can to keep the people off of their land, and make legal commerce a crime. This is being done by a Sue and Settle agreement with you guessed it, Center for Biodiversity, under the guise of critical habitat for the Desert Tortise. The second link below shows a sanctuary in LV has lost their funding and are going to close, and will euthanize around half of the 14,000 turtles in their inventory. Apparently if the greenies can't get money to save the endangered species, they just KILL THEM.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA


http://rt.com/usa/desert-tortoises-euthanize-nevada-024/

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

Why on earth should we have to vote to get the people in charge to follow long established laws? They are elected they don't follow due process they should not have their job. Millions in grazing fees since 1993 is a joke....The blm is supposed to encourage and enable the activities we have the right to. their annexation is just plain wrong. Such a whole sale change enacted by them on Cliven is wrong that is why he stood his ground. His own governer backs him... There is gold in Nevada and leasing and exploring for natural gas is mining related and the situation he is in is the same as what all prospectors face and will continue to in the future. So, to me this is a very appropriate conversation for this forum. I feel that just because politicians are involved it isn't a straight forward " political" situation. Its about freedom being taken away. He had done something for years legally then a group comes and stacks the deck against him. And misuses our tax dollars to do so. Its a bunch of crap.When you can see the exploration going on in the area the picture becomes pretty clear.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[jog]

I'm still looking for the gold theme in this thread. Maybe it should be moved to the political forum?



... oh, that's right there is no political forum on TreasureNet ...





I wonder if there might not be other Forums on the internet where folks could post their opinions and insult each other with their political views without breaking forum rules?





I won't be visiting those either.



Good night ... oh and
Heavy Pans

Clay
The BLM is trying to pull this same crap on one of my claims, they are trying to tell me I may need to file a NOI in order to continue using a road that has been there for well over 25 years and if the road is not on there new mapping system "which it was not" then they can shut me down until I get a bond for even doing hand panning. I will give you one guess what I told them.... This crap has gone on long enough and it hits very close to home so I support everything the Bundy's stand for & everyone needs to see the real threat in this country. If it's political so be it, the truth needs to come out. I'm done ranting now!!

 

[2cmorau]

NRS 282.020  Form of official oath.  Members of the Legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:I, ........................., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury» Before Nevada Cattle Rancher Standoff, BLM Killed Off Hundreds of Endangered Tortoises Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mddeW_1FxEs
Harry Reid's Son Representing Chinese Solar Panel Plant in $5 Billion Nevada Deal

 

[TunnelRat]

Gentlemen and Ladies, What has come out is that Your Nevada Rep ( I use that term loosely) Harry Reid and his son are tied up in negotiating a 5 Billion dollar deal with the Chinese to install a solar driven farm to produce electricity in the area of the farm. This as well as many dollars brough in by all of the oil exploration leases in the area make the land near and on the Bundy's farm very valuable. The thing is, the private companies involved want the cattle off of the land first before they will do anything. This is easily verifiable by going to Breitbart.com, Drudge report, and The Blaze. Though I'm not a fan of Alex Jones, Drudge Report posted their story regarding Harry Reid, his son and the Chinese Billions involved with the land in this area.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay
The BLM is trying to pull this same crap on one of my claims, they are trying to tell me I may need to file a NOI in order to continue using a road that has been there for well over 25 years and if the road is not on there new mapping system "which it was not" then they can shut me down until I get a bond for even doing hand panning. I will give you one guess what I told them.... This crap has gone on long enough and it hits very close to home so I support everything the Bundy's stand for & everyone needs to see the real threat in this country. If it's political so be it, the truth needs to come out. I'm done ranting now!!

Learn the law then. The BLM can't require anyone to file an NOI. A Notice of Intent is self initiated by the miner when they are unsure whether their mining related activities will cause a significant surface disturbance (undue and unnecessary damage) to the BLM managed surface estate.

If the miner is convinced by facts, knowledge and experience that his mining related activities will not cause a significant surface disturbance he should not file an NOI.

If the miner is convinced by facts, knowledge and experience that his mining related activities will cause a significant surface disturbance he is required to submit a Plan of Operations.

It is only when the miner is unsure whether his mining related activities would cause a significant surface disturbance that a NOI should be submitted for clarification.

Two questions come to mind.

1. Are you unsure whether your mining activities will cause a significant surface disturbance?

2. What the heck does your mining activity in Oregon have to do with a guy's unpaid grazing bill in Nevada?

Thank you for raising a gold mining issue in an otherwise entirely political thread jog. It doesn't really change the nature of the thread but it does give hope to those of us that are here to participate in a Gold Prospecting forum.

 

[TunnelRat]

I think that the reason this thread was started was to show how the BLM along with other groups are bent on reducing the available land that we the people can use for our passions. If we stay quiet about the land grabs much longer things like fishing, hunting, metal detecting and prospecting will become a thing of the past.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Clay you have issue report it. ..

Opening post explained why he posted thread here.

Just like TV you can change channel, you chose to enter this thread, it is only a single thread not the entire gold forum..






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[NHBandit]

I'm still looking for the gold theme in this thread. Maybe it should be moved to the political forum?



... oh, that's right there is no political forum on TreasureNet ...





I wonder if there might not be other Forums on the internet where folks could post their opinions and insult each other with their political views without breaking forum rules?





I won't be visiting those either.



Good night ... oh and
Heavy Pans

Someone put a gun to your head and made you click on this thread ? I mean no offense but the BLM going way overboard over some cows is not really much different from them clamping down on prospectors, recreational detectorists, etc. Or are you one of those guys who could care less what happens to your neighbors as long as nobody is doing it to you ? And for the record I see nothing at all political about this. No particular party is to blame. Nobody is pointing fingers at Washington. Just a bunch of overpaid civil servants abusing their power. Even if we did have a "political" forum I'm not convinced that would be where threads like this belong. Current events maybe ? With all due respect Clay you say you're here for the gold prospecting stuff. Great. There's a whole section for that. Don't believe in dowsing ? That's cool too. Don't go to that section. But to call to have it shut down simply because YOU don't go there is selfish and not what makes this place what it is. I have said it before and I'll say it again. When you go to the local library to look at books about building a log cabin do you complain loudly that 6 rows over they have cook books and that's not why YOU go there ?

 

[kanabite]

here is a live stream for anyone interested
ThePeteSantilliShow on USTREAM: The People's Media. Other News


this might get ugly , right now . i wish these folks well

 

[kanabite]

this is a very bad idea to try and close the i-15 with horses right where these folks are at .i hope no one gets killed

 

[NHBandit]

DONE... Score: Good guys 1, BLM: 0. We the people have spoken and the answer is NO ! If anyone is confused about what just happened you're not paying attention. Here's a clue.. It's not just about some cows. Maybe we have hit the turning point.. I hope so. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230...le-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm

 

[Terry Soloman]

Clay you have issue report it. ..

Opening post explained why he posted thread here.

Just like TV you can change channel, you chose to enter this thread, it is only a single thread not the entire gold forum...

Be careful Clay. Those of us that disagree with the prevailing winds of this thread are open to ridicule and censorship.

 

[Bejay]

I watched the video posted at the beginning of this thread. I was unaware of the particulars and decided to research the issue further. One can argue in favor or against the rancher. Paying for grazing rights on federally administered lands is the norm. Just how a failure by a rancher to pay the fee is dealt with can be questionable....as BLM seems to have foolishly missed the mark. Civil protest does work...no doubt about it.

I thought the video shoed how civil protest can make a great statement and cause Gov agents to simply fail to exercise their acts prudently...basically they can mess things up royally.....shooting themselves in the foot.

This thread evolved into an issue relevant to mining and I thought I would post some language that may be relevant: So here is some language that miners may find interesting:

As miners we often hear the following:

"As a reminder, in order to work your mining claim, you will need to have an approved Plan of Operation (POO). Please work with our office to get an authorized Plan of Operations for your mining activities at your earliest convenience. Until you have an approved plan, any mining activities, associated equipment or occupancy of National Forest System lands is prohibited."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of the local stay limit, an operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to conduct operations unless the locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, might cause significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

Moreover, as discussed above, an approved plan of operations is not required for locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, unless those operations are likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.

An operator, consequently, is not required to notify the Forest Service prior to conducting locatable mineral operations which involve occupancy of NFS lands providing that those operations meet two conditions: (1) The occupancy is reasonably incidental to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing and (2) those proposed (or ongoing) operations, including such reasonably incidental occupancy, cumulatively will not cause (or are not causing) significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

To the extent that respondents fear the Forest Service might cite an operator who is camping on NFS for the operator's failure to submit a notice of intent to operate when one is required, those fears are groundless. None of the prohibitions set forth in 36 CFR part 261, subpart A, including those adopted by this final rule, prohibit an action requiring a notice of intent to operate. Rather, the prohibitions applicable to occupancy of lands in conjunction with locatable mineral operations that require prior notice or approval apply when an operator acts ''without *** an operating plan when such authorization is required.'' For purposes of 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, Sec. 261.2 defines the term ''operating plan'' to mean a plan of operations that has been approved. There is no prohibition applicable to acting without a notice of intent to operate when it is required by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that is what is meant by "occupation" in the new (2008) regs. The Forest Service are stuck with it now, you can hold them to those definitions in a court of law. The courts can not allow "deference" to any other definition of what those regs mean.

Also by publishing those definitions in the Federal Register all Forest Service personnel are now put on actual and constructive notice of what those regs mean. No excuses.

Now do you understand how important it is that you have written proof that the district rangers intend to enforce those regulations without regard to their actual meaning? Color of law. Intimidation and harassment.


Bejay
_________________

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Be careful Clay. Those of us that disagree with the prevailing winds of this thread are open to ridicule and censorship.

Terry multiple posts were removed not just yours.

In case you forgot our Terms Of Service...

" Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators, however, disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the forums. Please feel free to PM the person directly rather than air your dirty laundry in public."

"We make no guarantees as to the lifespan of a post or thread, or attachment. We reserve the right to delete any post at any time for any reason."


American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[Clay Diggins]

Someone put a gun to your head and made you click on this thread ? I mean no offense but the BLM going way overboard over some cows is not really much different from them clamping down on prospectors, recreational detectorists, etc. Or are you one of those guys who could care less what happens to your neighbors as long as nobody is doing it to you ? And for the record I see nothing at all political about this. No particular party is to blame. Nobody is pointing fingers at Washington. Just a bunch of overpaid civil servants abusing their power. Even if we did have a "political" forum I'm not convinced that would be where threads like this belong. Current events maybe ? With all due respect Clay you say you're here for the gold prospecting stuff. Great. There's a whole section for that. Don't believe in dowsing ? That's cool too. Don't go to that section. But to call to have it shut down simply because YOU don't go there is selfish and not what makes this place what it is. I have said it before and I'll say it again. When you go to the local library to look at books about building a log cabin do you complain loudly that 6 rows over they have cook books and that's not why YOU go there ?

My opinion doesn't really matter here and neither does anyone else's. The facts and the law will determine whether Mr Bundy loses his cows. This has been going on since 1993. I've read all the court cases and followed this since 1998. Bundy is a liar, his family land is not at risk. The issues he brings up now have never been raised by him in his many appearances in court through the years. I'd think if he were standing on his principles he might have made clear just what those principles are sometime in the past 20+ years and dozens of court depositions.

People would like to believe that Harry Reid is up to no good in all this. I don't doubt that he is. He's a politician. He has also been on the side of mining for years. The same publication that is connecting Harry Reid to the Bundy fiasco is also one that has complained that he's in bed with the mining industry. Where's the Gold mining/Grazing Rights connection in that?

Both the Reid family and the Bundy family are large, wealthy and well connected Mormons. Bundy has 27 children and several family run ranches in the west. Do you think maybe there is more here than has been made public?

This is from the 2013 Federal court judgement, reaffirmed again, that is being enforced this week.

In an order dated November 3, 1998, this court permanently enjoined Bundy from
grazing his livestock within a different area, the Bunkerville Allotment, and ordered Bundy
to remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30, 1998. U.S. v. Bundy, No. CV-
S-98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998). The court also ordered that the United States was
entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after
such date.

In its complaint, the United States alleges that, not only has Bundy failed to comply with
the court’s orders that he remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment and pay the financial
penalties, but that Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville
Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New
Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by
the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the
Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The United States seeks an order enjoining Bundy’s
unauthorized grazing on the New Trespass Lands.

None of the Bundy family's personal land or ranches are at stake here. There is no "prescriptive easement" or adverse possession issue being claimed or adjudicated. The desert tortoise is not at issue, it has nothing to do with this matter. The lands being cleared have never been Nevada State land. As you can see above it is BLM managed land, National Park land and National Recreation Area land. The area from which Bundy's cattle are being rounded up are not even part of his family's historic grazing lands.

I'm not a fan of the BLM, I think that is well known in the mining community. I think the BLM royally screwed up this whole thing with the Bundy's and are only making it worse with their heavy handed tactics. I don't agree with the way the public lands are being managed by the BLM. I have a great and historical sympathy with the land rights movement and in particular with the Sagebrush Rebellion. My family are miners from Nevada and have had a part in forming the rural attitudes about land in the west. I'm about as far from being a supporter of government agency heavy handedness as you will find.

Having studied the facts I can tell you clearly, the Bundy's are not innocent victims here. If you were to ask me to choose a poster child for government abuse the Bundy's would be the last ones I would choose. Believe what you will but the facts in no way fit the image being presented here. Choosing to associate the Bundy family with mining rights is a mistake that will hurt prospectors and miners into the future. Study the facts and I'm sure you will see that all this amounts to little more than a freeloader caught repeatedly with his hand in your public cookie jar.

As far as the implication that I have made a "call to have it shut down" I find that offensive. My opinion is stated above and my original post remains unedited. There is nothing there in any way asking to have this thread shut down. My objection was, and still is, that this thread is political in nature and has nothing to do with the subject of "Gold Prospecting".

I know how to turn the channel. I chose not to and posted into this thread. I see that upset you. I know the difference between opinion and fact. I have now chosen to respond with facts. My choice to post what I did was motivated by seeing prospectors jumping on a train headed for a wreck.

Yes I am here for the "Gold Prospecting stuff" including the discussion of how laws and agency actions affect gold prospectors. And you are right "There's a whole section for that" - right here on the forum where this thread is taking place.

I know when a subject is being "spun" for the benefit of news ratings. I'm sorry that my opinion of the value of this subject to "Gold Prospecting" has been mischaracterized as a call for censorship. Feel free to discuss your thoughts on this subject as long as the moderators agree to allow it.

Just respect my right to call it misguided.

 

[NHBandit]

Clay for someone who was just complaining a couple posts back that this discussion dosn't belong here at all you sure know alot about the subject and have a strong opinion about it. Could ya please make up your mind... Just sayin..

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Any time a government agency uses excessive force it is tyranny. There is video of excessive and unnecessary force by agents using tasers and unnessary physical force against family members.






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[Bejay]

So the question about a POO and bond involves a contract with an administrative agency. When you have that contract (Plan of Operations). That POO and the agency's regulations should be all you need to understand your obligations under the contract you signed. If you and that agency disagree with the meaning of your contract an administrative hearing will clear those disagreements up.

I'll only deal with mining law and will let the administrative agency a miner may contract with be sorted out at the miners discretion. I know many miners end up doing so, and have thus attempted to contract with the Forest Service. The USFS regulations are similar to BLM but not the same. The "BLM regulations" are found at 43 CFR and the "Parks, Forests ,and Public Property" regulations are found at 36 CFR.

To give a start I will just leave this here:

36 CFR
228.13(d) When reclamation has been completed in accordance with §228.8(g), the authorized officer will notify the operator that performance under the bond has been completed: Provided, however, That when the Forest Service has accepted as completed any portion of the reclamation, the authorized officer shall notify the operator of such acceptance and reduce proportionally the amount of bond thereafter to be required with respect to the remaining reclamation.


Miners may wonder if a contract (POO) is terminated when you sell, lease or transfer your claim.

§ 3809.593 What happens to my financial
guarantee if I transfer my operations?
You remain responsible for obligations or conditions created while you conducted operations unless a transferee accepts responsibility under §3809.116, and BLM accepts an adequate replacement financial guarantee. Therefore, your financial guarantee must remain in effect until BLM determines that you are no longer responsible for all or part of the operation. BLM can release your financial guarantee on an incremental basis. The new operator must provide a financial guarantee before BLM will allow the new operator to conduct operations.

§ 3809.116 As a mining claimant or operator, what are my responsibilities under this subpart for my project area?

(a) Mining claimants and operators (if other than the mining claimant) are liable for obligations under this subpart that accrue while they hold their interests.
(b) Relinquishment, forfeiture, or abandonment of a mining claim does not relieve a mining claimant's or operator's responsibility under this subpart for obligations that accrued or conditions that were created while the mining claimant or operator was responsible for operations conducted on that mining claim or in the project area.
(c) Transfer of a mining claim or operation does not relieve a mining claimant's or operator's responsibility under this subpart for obligations that accrued or conditions that were created while the mining claimant or operator was responsible for operations conducted on that mining claim or in the project area until—
(1) BLM receives documentation that a transferee accepts responsibility for the transferor's previously accrued obligations, and
(2) BLM accepts an adequate replacement financial guarantee adequate to cover such previously accrued obligations and the transferee's new obligations.

Only the entity or his lessees are a subject of the POO contract. Subsequent mineral estate grantees are not bound by that contract. They are not obligated by previous POO or NOI contracts to make a NOI or POO themselves no matter what a prior claimant or grantee did. The POO quite clearly encompasses much more than reclamation, only the bond or financial guarantee relates to the reclamation portion of the POO.

There is no difference in the law between what you call a land claim or a dredge claim. You are still mining minerals whether they are covered by water, dirt or poo.

All of this relates to administrative contracts. There is no obligation to file a NOI under the law if the Mineral Estate Grantee does not believe his planned mining will create a significant surface degradation on the adjacent public lands.

Until a grantee makes a contract with an surface administration agency the CFR is just a rule book for administrative employees. Once an NOI or POO is submitted the whole text of the relevant CFRs becomes a part of that contract by reference. It then becomes the sole obligation of the miner to refute, administratively; any portion of those regulations he feels should not apply to his contract. Good luck with that futile effort - you may as well quote Lincoln to the "Judge" (administrative hearing officer).......IMHO


As long as you stay under 5 acres of disturbance, you can file a SMES (small miner's exclusion statement). If you go over 5 acres, you have to file an EIS (environmental impact statement). You don't want to get involved with as EIS, because it could take years, and thousands of $ to get approved. And yes access roads are included in the 5 acres.

Consider that the courts have ruled that each circumstance is different. They have ruled that significant surface disturbance may be reached by:

Any portion of a steep slope in a particular portion of an old growth forest.
5 acres or more in a particular portion of a pinion/juniper forest.
Unlimited amounts of a particular desert scrubland.
And many more particular to the location and circumstances.

Please note that underground tunnels and workings are exempt from consideration because they are not on the surface, however the tailing piles and ponds are of particular interest because they are, by nature, surface events.

I think where a lot of the confusion about this issue comes from two false assumptions:

1. That the CFR is law and controls mining under the mineral grant.
2. That the term "significant surface disturbance" applies to the actual mining on the surface of your mineral grant.

Neither of these assumptions apply to the mineral grant. They may be applicable to leased, sold or non-locatable minerals.

It seems quite obvious to me that the CFR intentionally mixed these different types of rights, privileges and licenses into one big mass so as to fool miners under the grant and enrich the lawyer friends of the lawyers who wrote the CFR. No matter what I think of the intent that has certainly been the effect of the CFR. When one reads the 1955 Multiple Use Act this confusion becomes quite obvious....at least for me it was.

If you study the actual mining laws and put the CFR and the USC out of your perception for now you will gain a much clearer and simple view of the rights and responsibilities associated with the mineral grant. Gaining a clear understanding of the very real difference between Public Lands subject to claim of right under the mineral grant and Public Domain that has been claimed under that grant will complete the picture. One must understand the issue of public domain.


At this point of my dissertation I have no interest in the administration of the NOI and POO contracts some miners exchange for their grant. I leave that for those I believe are foolish enough to argue their contractual agreements after they have committed their word and bond to an ever changing Code of Federal Regulations CFR's). If you have entered one of these contracts you are bound by law and your bond to bow to that agencies wishes and interpretations. You can hold their feet to the fire over procedural missteps but you can not rely on the mineral grant to provide any guidance or rights within the administrative sphere you have contracted into. The potential penalties possible when in the administrative contract are truly unlimited. The bond can only be applied to reclamation as per your agreement, and can be raised, refused or the conditions modified at the will of your counter party (BLM or Forest Service). Any other infractions of your contract, whether willful, inadvertent or perceived can and will lead to monetary fines. It is virtually impossible to meet the conditions of your NOI or POO contract when regulation is a moving target changed at the moments notice by the current local unit administrator's opinion on the meaning of any particular regulation.....such as ESA, EPA, Clean Water Act etc etc etc.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to make contract. It does not guarantee us the wisdom to refuse contracts that are against our own interest. Each NOI or POO is a privately negotiated contract. If we think about it it becomes obvious that there is no way to make an open ended contract fair to either party, yet we still have the right to make such a contract. Perhaps some miners may be capable of making an agreement, that is in their favor, to give up their mineral estate grant in exchange for administrative oversight. I have yet to witness that but I do know that large mining companies do so to their advantage so I must admit there is a possibility of an individual miner doing so.

My point is that under the mineral estate grant all non relative comments ring false. There has been no diminution of that grant. The mental mixing of administrative regulations and our organic right to claim, work and patent valuable mineral lands open to entry is just that - mental mixing. There is no valid intersection between the two despite the efforts of some of our government servants to convince us so. Their are a number of cases proving that to be a fact.

So we may want to give thought and choose to enjoy your mineral estate grant. If a miner were to be so bold as to damage the Public Lands (or private lands) beyond their mineral claim they will almost certainly be charged with a tort for that damage. By all right and law you would be liable for that damage. There is no need or sense in attempting to follow regulations that do not apply to the mineral grant on some misguided idea that the government has made an incursion on your mineral rights. There is no such law.

So one might consider that they may choose to avoid blindly signing any form of agreement, without first understanding what door might be opened; that may very well later haunt you.

I would think that I personally am not in favor of giving away, or allowing any right to be taken away from any miner, nor would I support the concept that a miner should do a filing of paperwork that is not needed or required. Knowing where an authority starts and where it must cease to exist is key.
However such paperwork may be true of the administrative contract involved in leased, sold or non-locatable minerals. There has been no abridgment of the mineral estate grant unless you consider the mining of hydrocarbons and building stone to be an integral part of the organic grant.

Let me reiterize and continue to point out to those willing to ask, to learn the mining laws, obey them, know what documents you are required to sign, know the ramifications of doing so and be good stewards of the land. In todays world such knowledge is as important as the act of mining itself.
Even with such knowledge it is challenging to say the least.
Questioning gov agency authority requires vast knowledge.


Bejay

 

[NHBandit]

Latest update that I just watched on the news is that they are returning the cattle to him that have already been rounded up. Clay, Mr Soloman, with all due respect this is most certainly not about cows or whether or not the man owes grazing fees. It's about the blatant over use of force by sending helicopters, snipers, and 200 federal agents carrying automatic weapons to deal with a fairly minor issue. THAT is why the citizens took up arms and made a stand and said this kind of crap can NOT happen anymore in this country. If you don't "get" that I can't help you. If that's the kind of country you want to live in and to have your children live in I feel sorry for you. You want to keep it on the topic of treasure hunting ? Cool. You're on BLM land prospecting and you haven't filed a claim. Admittedly you're in the wrong. So you're happily panning away while your family is making dinner. You look up to find yourself surrounded by 200 military types in full battle gear, Choppers circling overhead, snipers on the high ground, your son has been tasered and your wife is face down on the ground with someones knee in her back... You OK with that ? Without naming names I truly believe that some of the folks on here just like to argue...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Here is what is really going on.....

Bombshell: Harry Reid behind Bundy cattle ranch scandal, according to purged documents

April 12, 2014


Amid the growing standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, reports are growing that Senate Majority Harry Reid’s little-known ties to a Chinese solar energy giant could be playing a major role in the confrontation.



Reid, D-Nev., and his oldest son, Rory, a former chairman of the Clark County, Nev., County Commission, are both deeply involved in a plan by ENN Energy Group to build a huge solar farm in southern Nevada, according to a Reuters report from August 2012.

Land the Bundy family has been using for cattle ranching is getting in the way of that project, according to documents formerly posted on the Bureau of Land Management’s government website but since removed.

The acting director of the Bureau of Land Management is Neil Kornze, a former senior policy advisor*for Reid.

Here is a screenshot of one crucial document from Google’s cache.

The most interesting line might be:

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.”

The federal government’s story so far is that the whole showdown is necessary for the protection of gopher tortoises.

Here’s how The Blaze’s Dana Loesch puts it in “The Real Story of the Bundy Ranch”:

BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

From the document purged from the BLM website, it’s clear there are more than tortoises at stake.

There’s a $5 billion foreign energy project in the works, with Reid and his son directly involved, and his former go-to guy on development issues in the driver’s seat at the Bureau of Land Management.

And there’s an American citizen and cattle rancher standing in the way of federal agents armed with guns and the full power of the federal government behind them.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04...-scandal-according-to-purged-documents-112136







American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......