FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO JUST DON"T "GET IT"

jog

Bronze Member
Nov 28, 2008
1,364
682
Tillamook Oregon
Detector(s) used
Whites MXT / GMT
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
This is for all those people who don't think this is important, so maybe this will help you understand.......:BangHead:

MINING UNDER THE 1872 MINING LAW
AND
RECREATIONAL MINING
IN OREGON
Prepared by Tom Kitchar, April. 8, 2014
A growing problem for individual prospectors and miners in Oregon today is the seemingly total misunderstanding by regulatory agencies, the general public, and even many within the mining community of the differences between mining pursuant to the U.S. Mining Law and so-called “recreational mining”. This misunderstanding has led to more and more regulation and restrictions on mining and in some cases to actual prohibitions. For the purposes of this report: “Mining” means: prospecting, exploration, and actual mining along with all uses reasonably incident to mining on lands owned by the United States that are open to Location & Entry under the U.S. General Mining Act(s) of 1866, 1870, and 1872,[1] on mining claims, and private property. “Recreational mining” means: prospecting, exploration and mining on lands closed to Location and Entry under the U.S. Mining Law on federal lands withdrawn from mineral entry, or on state and county owned lands – with the permission of the owner. Note that all mining (including prospecting) on lands of the United States open to mining under the Mining Law is performed as a Congressionally granted statutory right to all citizens (and others) which cannot be taken or prohibited; whereas any mining or prospecting on state or county owned lands is performed with the express permission of the land owner as an allowed activity or privilege which can be regulated to the point of a prohibition similar to other recreational activities such as hunting or fishing. Under the U.S. Mining Law, there is no such thing as “recreational mining”. On lands open to Location & Entry under the Mining Law, any and all locatable mineral extraction activities are “mining”. As far as the rights of miners are concerned, it makes no difference what-so-ever if the miner is having fun or working under miserable conditions 18 hrs./day, getting rich or starving, or operating large excavators and bulldozers or just simply panning for gold.[2] On these lands, mining is mining. It is only under Oregon statutes that “recreational mining” exists. Under ORS 517.120(4): "Recreational mining" means mining in a manner that is consistent with a hobby or casual use, including use on public lands set aside or withdrawn from mineral entry for the purpose of recreational mining, or using pans, sluices, rocker boxes, other nonmotorized equipment and dredges with motors of 16 horsepower or less and a suction nozzle of four inches or less in diameter. (emphasis added) By definition, “recreational mining” cannot occur on lands of the United States open to mining under the Mining Law - as any such activities are neither a hobby nor casual use – they are “mining” (and as such are performed and protected by authorization granted by Congress). BACKGROUND NOTES: Presented here to help understand the difference between “mining” and “recreational mining”; as considering them as the same is akin to mixing apples and oranges: Yes, both are mining (as apples & oranges are both fruit), but one form is a Congressionally granted statutory right while the other has no rights attached and is performed at the whim of the land owner. A. The Congress of the United States, as authorized by the Constitution, has the “exclusive” [SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP] power “…to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;” (Article IV).
B. According to the U.S. Mining Law:

“… the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and subject also to the local custom or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States.” (H.B. 365, 39TH CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 19, 1866, Sec. 1). (emphasis added)
C. “Locators' rights of possession and enjoyment”: According to 30 USC, Chpt. 2, Sec. 26:
“… so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title …shall have the exclusive right [SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][/SUP] of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations…” (emphasis and footnote added)
Note that on mining claims located after the effective date of the 1955 Multiple Use Act are subject, when a patent has not yet issued, to a right in the United States to manage surface resources and allow others to use surface resources, though these uses: “…shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto. (30 U.S.C. 612(b)). (emphasis added)

D. Property rights: Under both federal and state laws, unpatented mining claims are considered real property in the highest sense: 30 USC 26.94 - Unpatented mining claims are "property" in the highest sense of such term, which may be bought, sold and conveyed and will pass by decent. ORS 517.080 Mining claims as realty. All mining claims, whether quartz or placer, are real estate. The owner of the possessory right thereto has a legal estate therein within the meaning of ORS 105.005. [SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][/SUP]
E. Congressional Intent:

The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs... (Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970) (emphasis added)
F. Summary: As can be seen in the above: 1. Those mining under the U.S. Mining Law enjoy very real specific rights, to property and the right to mine that property. Even the federal government land management agencies are barred from endangering or materially interfering with such mining. Any and all regulation must be reasonable and necessary to protect specific concerns; and cannot be prohibitive in nature; whereas 2. Those “recreating” on lands closed to the mining law do not enjoy these rights but instead are a mere social guest of the landowner who is free to allow, restrict or even prohibit the activities.

Prepared by

Tom Kitchar
President, Waldo Mining District
P.O. Box 1574
Cave Junction, OR 97523


[1] The true nature of ‘‘public lands.’’ ‘‘Public Lands’’ are ‘‘lands open to sale or other dispositions under general laws, lands to which no claim or rights of others have attached.’’ The United States Supreme Court has stated: ‘‘It is well settled that all land to which any claim or rights of others has attached does not fall within the designation of public lands.’’ FLPMA defines ‘‘public lands’’ to mean ‘‘any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several states and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management.’’ (From the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—Extensions of Remarks, October 23, 2000, Determination of Land Ownership within Federal Forest Reserves CHAIRMAN’S FINAL REPORT CONCERNING THE NOVEMBER 13 SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH HEARING IN ELKO, NEVADA


[2] …panning for gold is quintessentially a mining operation.” (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. STEVE A. HICKS, JAN 0 9 2009)
1 of 3
[3] Exclusive. Appertaining to the subject alone, not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others. Sole. Shutting out; debarring from interference or participation; vested in one person alone. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Edition, 1979) (emphasis added)
[4] Exclusive right. An exclusive right is one which only the grantee thereof can exercise, and from which
all others are prohibited or shut out. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Edition, 1979) (emphasis added)

2 of 3
[5] ORS 105.005 Right of action; recovery; damages. (1) Any person who has a legal estate in real property and a present right to the possession of the property, may recover possession of the property, with damages for withholding possession, by an action at law. The action shall be commenced against the person in the actual possession of the property at the time, or if the property is not in the actual possession of anyone, then against the person acting as the owner of the property…
3 of 3

 

Last edited:
Upvote 0
MEG Quote:

" I have advocated from the beginning that miners use only the words of the law that grants their property. To my astonishment miners refuse. For instance, continuing to use the term dredge, or dredging, or suction dredge where that term is a term of art for an operation under the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction . . . . and why grantees think they need a sewage treatment plant permit otherwise is beyond me."
========================================================================

This is a very constructive discussion, and for many miners may be a little overwhelming at times. But I would like to interject something that I believe is relevant per the above quote by MEG. Knowing the laws/rules/regs/policies is one thing, but knowing how to maneuver through the hearings and court process is yet another. Whether one should or should not be subject to a court presence is one thing. Knowing that one will undoubtedly be required to enter a court is still another. The reality is that a miner will and can be drug into a hearing or court proceeding. That said the miner will find himself/herself in a position of requirements....those being how to tactfully maneuver through the system. The courts require tactics and is basically a strategic game. The LAW and its relevant presentation is one thing....but a court proceeding entails a lot more.

Of course words mean everything in LAW and the point regarding the terminology of a dredge is relevant. But calling a zebra a horse or vice versa seems irrelevant, except MEG posted an effective alternative when confronted on the Rogue River. I'll have to look up the definition of the word dredge and see if the shoe fits.

For me the quote by MEG regarding the failure of miners to "fight" is not worthy of acknowledgement......as the scope of such a confrontation in court(s) is frightening and overwhelming to the majority of miners.

That quote hits home for many miners who would like to challenge but are reluctant to do so without some assistance. In the majority of cases I have seen; that challenge required the procurement of attorneys who led the miner astray and cost the miner significant $$$$. If there was an easy answer to this issue of court challenges everyone would be using it. IMHO

Bejay

PS: All the dredge definitions were about the same:


n. noun

1.Any of various machines equipped with scooping or suction devices and used to deepen harbors and waterways and in underwater mining.

2.A boat or barge equipped with a dredge.


3.An implement consisting of a net on a frame, used for gathering shellfish.



v. verb

1.To clean, deepen, or widen with a dredge.


2.To bring up with a dredge.

dredged up the silt.


3.To come up with; unearth
 

Last edited:
Keep it up

This is a very informative thread. It brings to light the problem. Even the learned ones cannot form a consensus. The discussion is very helpful in the understanding of the history and placement of were we are today. :thumbsup:
 

This is just to good of a thread to allow to "get lost" so here's an update on a confrontation that is coming to a head in California:
The New 49'ers :: Members Forum :: Suction dredging uncertainty is rapidly coming to a head!

One more "update". I was doing a little research at the Grants Pass Oregon BLM office and mentioned the new moritorium on dredging to take place here next year and the gal behind the counter didn't have a clue what I was talking about........
 

This sheds some light, too, on the post regarding the federal government discussing relinquishing federal lands to the states. In view of what was posted here, I am even convinced it would result in even more loss of freedom. As frustrated as I get at the feds, and after witnessing what has happened in California and Oregon, I can't imagine what would happen if the states had sole jurisdiction over mining on what is now federal jurisdiction.

Thanks for the information and discussion, especially Bejay and Clay Diggins.
 

All these armchair legal experts, need to realize it takes years of study not only of the English language but a vast array of legal precidents and opinions set down by many legal scholars over the years. It is a tough field to navigate to go against the tides of opinions about certain laws, at specific times. It takes a real knowlegable and astute vocal legal represintive to win cases OR "LOTS OF MONEY" to influence judgements
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top