I have a placer claim, do I have rights to lode gold?

[mofugly13]

I have a placer claim on the South Yuba. Of my 15 acre claim, a small portion is actual river. The vast majority of it is where a lot of lode mining took place in the late 1800-early 1900's. If I were to find a lode occurrence on my claim, would I then need to file a lode claim on top of my own placer claim to secure the rights to mine? Why are there two different types of claims? I assume it is because a lode claim can be a tunnel site and the boundary's can be quite different than the way the boundaries of a placer claim are described.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

If it's within your boundaries no one can prospect or claim it. So you have the freedom to poke around all you want. I don't see a reason to file a,lode claim

 

[Reed Lukens]

Plus being that close to the river, you would have the feds looking at everything you do because of possible water contamination, etc.

 

[Clay Diggins]

You own ALL the valuable minerals on your claim.
Even so to protect and secure any lodes you may discover inside your placer claim you would be wise to claim the lode. Claiming the lode removes that portion of your placer claim so you will need to file an amendment to reflect that acreage loss on your placer.

Tunnel Sites are not a claim on minerals. They are a claim on the right to explore for minerals by tunneling or to gain subsurface access to existing underground mining works. Tunnel Site claims are the width of the tunnel and up to 3,000 feet long.

Lode claims are located for valuable minerals found still enclosed in the local rock. Placer claims are for valuable minerals discovered anywhere else, including loose mineral concentrations in alluvium.

If you discover a valuable lode deposit on your placer claim you, or any invited prospector, can segregate that area from the placer by making a separate lode claim along the discovery strike. Be careful who you invite to prospect your placer claim.

Placer claims can never be made over a lode claim for any reason.

Heavy Pans

 

[Got_4by4]

You own ALL the valuable minerals on your claim.
Even so to protect and secure any lodes you may discover inside your placer claim you would be wise to claim the lode. Claiming the lode removes that portion of your placer claim so you will need to file an amendment to reflect that acreage loss on your placer.

Tunnel Sites are not a claim on minerals. They are a claim on the right to explore for minerals by tunneling or to gain subsurface access to existing underground mining works. Tunnel Site claims are the width of the tunnel and up to 3,000 feet long.

Lode claims are located for valuable minerals found still enclosed in the local rock. Placer claims are for valuable minerals discovered anywhere else, including loose mineral concentrations in alluvium.

If you discover a valuable lode deposit on your placer claim you, or any invited prospector, can segregate that area from the placer by making a separate lode claim along the discovery strike. Be careful who you invite to prospect your placer claim.

Placer claims can never be made over a lode claim for any reason.

Heavy Pans

I respectfully disagree! You need to get the claims guide published by the BLM!

You can file a placer claim OVER a load claim. BUT it must not be within "X" feet surrounding the entrance to the audit.
The lode claimant has first discovery and control over that area.
I don't have the reference in front of me right now but I think it is 100'.

You CANNOT file a lode claim OVER a placer claim because to do so you would have to be standing ON the placer claim,
therefore "prospecting for the purpose of discovery", therefore, claim-jumping!

Like I say, don't take my word, JUST BE SURE TO LOOK IT UP!

 

[Hefty1]

NEXT?

 

[Oakview2]

NEXT?

Not a chance...

 

[fowledup]

I respectfully disagree! You need to get the claims guide published by the BLM!

You can file a placer claim OVER a load claim. BUT it must not be within "X" feet surrounding the entrance to the audit.
The lode claimant has first discovery and control over that area.
I don't have the reference in front of me right now but I think it is 100'.

You CANNOT file a lode claim OVER a placer claim because to do so you would have to be standing ON the placer claim,
therefore "prospecting for the purpose of discovery", therefore, claim-jumping!

Like I say, don't take my word, JUST BE SURE TO LOOK IT UP!

Would be interested to see what you are referencing. This is from the claims guide;

"advice from a mining attorney.

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 lode claim provides no rights to placer deposits and a placer claim provides no rights
to lode deposits (see Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining and Land Company, 194
US 220 (1904)).

The above-cited Supreme Court decision discusses the fact that a person has no right
to enter upon a valid placer mining claim to search for, or locate a lode claim without the
express permission of the placer mining claim claimant. Overly aggressive lode
prospectors may not interfere with the mining operation of the placer mining claimant. The
BLM strongly recommends that, if a lode prospector wishes to search for minerals on a
valid placer claim, written permission be obtained from the placer claimant.

If a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on his or her claim,
they may do so; but, they will have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode mining
claim (see Campbell u. Mclntyre, 295 F.Cas. 45 (9th Cir. 1924)).

When in doubt about these matters, seek advice from a mining attorney."

 

[Clay Diggins]

Thanks fowledup. I knew some knowledgeable miner would step in.

This seems to be one of the harder concepts for new miners to understand. I guess since the claim is named according to the deposit type it leads folks to forget the first rule of mining claims - The locator of a mining claim has exclusive possession of ALL the valuable minerals within the claim no matter what the deposit type is.

Placer material on a Lode claim always belongs to the lode owner.

From the 1872 Mining Act SEC. 3

That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral veln, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim exists at the passage of this act, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth

Placer claims located over lode claims are never valid. There are no exceptions in the law. This has been restated many times by the courts including one of the most important mining cases of all time. Cole v Ralph was decided by the Supreme Court in 1920 and it addressed many of these misunderstandings about the difference between the nature of a mineral deposit and the type of claim located on the deposit.

Cole v Ralph decided many unclear mining rights and in particular restated many of the rights and duties inherent in claiming a mineral location. No matter what your level of interest I would suggest every miner read and understand Cole v Ralph.

From Cole v Ralph

While the two kinds of location–lode and placer–differ in some respects, a discovery within the limits of the claim is equally essential to both. But to sustain a lode location the discovery must be of a vein or lode of rock in place bearing valuable mineral, and to sustain a placer location it must be of some other form of valuable mineral deposit, one such being scattered particles of gold found in the softer covering of the earth. A placer discovery will not sustain a lode location, nor a lode discovery a placer location.

A lode claim can be located within the bounds of a placer claim in two very specific circumstances. These lode claims do not lie over the placer but instead replace that portion of a placer claim with the lode. The reason for this rare exception is best explained by the law itself:

Once again from the 1872 Mining Act SEC. 11

That where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer-claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof; application shall be made for a patent for the placer or lode claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case (subject to the provisions of this act and the act entitled "An act to amend an act granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes," approved July eighteen hundred and seventy) a patent shall issue for the placer-claim, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer-claim, or any placer-claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in the second section of this act, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer-claim, all application for a patent for such placer-claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer-claim has no right of possession but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer-claim is not known, a patent for the placer-claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof.

Obviously the government wants their money. Lode claims cost twice as much ($5.00 per acre) to patent as placer claims ($2.50 per acre).

Once you understand the concept of "discovery" you will realize that an invited prospector on your placer claim can claim any lodes they discover.

Uninvited prospectors have no such right. Those that commit mineral trespass are legally prohibited from making lode claims on existing valid placer claims. You might want to have a clear understanding (in writing) as to just what is on offer when you invite others to prospect your placer claim.

Heavy Pans

 

[pgfhgs]

Ha Ha you both are wrong because you are counting on the government to do the right thing by the owner of the claim FAT CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Clay Diggins]

Ha Ha you both are wrong because you are counting on the government to do the right thing by the owner of the claim FAT CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!

The government has no part in settling disputes between miners about mining claims. It is up to each miner individually to possess, keep and occupy their claims against other prospectors.

The very first ever mining law 1865:

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

The government let everybody know right from the beginning that it's not their job to settle claim disputes.

Heavy Pans

 

[bobw53]

Once you understand the concept of "discovery" you will realize that an invited prospector on your placer claim can claim any lodes they discover.

How does that work in New Mexico where the discovery aspect was eliminated in 1981?

Can I just start dropping lode claims over placer claims in areas that I want?

I'm sure I'm missing something, this mining claim stuff can get complicated. and it seems there
Is seldom a black and white answer.

 

[fowledup]

Bob you are confusing 'Dicovery' with 'Dicovery Work' What they did was eliminate some of the old requirements like digging a 10' deep hole to show work and proof of an attempt to validate discovery of minerals. It was more of a safety deal. Doesn't change the posting requirements for 'Discovery' for location.

 

[Clay Diggins]

New Mexico didn't change the requirement for a valid discovery in the Mining Acts, States can't change Federal laws.

It is still the law that mining claims can only be valid when based on an actual discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. Claims made without the prior discovery of a valuable mineral can not be defended against later junior claimants who do make a discovery to support their location.

What New Mexico did in 1981, like the rest of the mining States, was to eliminate the State requirement that annual labor must be performed. The State of New Mexico called it Discovery Work because that's the only labor type that is permitted to be charged against the $100 requirement.

New Mexico was just making sure mining claim owners could use the option to use the new federal annual maintenance fee instead of being required to perform annual labor. If they hadn't changed it they would have been opposing federal mining law on Public lands. Each of the western mining states have a clause in their enabling Act that says they agree to respect federal control over the Public lands. The mining states had no choice but to change their location laws in 1981.

The State of New Mexico called it Discovery Work because that's the only labor type that is permitted to be charged against the $100 requirement.
The discovery of a valuable mineral deposit is not the same as "annual discovery work". Not just any work can be used to fulfill the annual labor requirement. Labor can only be credited as part of the annual $100 amount if it is performed in the development of the already existing discovery - that's why it is known as "discovery work".

Heavy Pans

 

[Hefty1]

See it was just a matter of time...

 

[Hoser John]

This is what is going on now as the state(calif) is/has changed federal law in respect to dredging and now almost all forms of mining under attack in this insane econutz state. Federal preemption simply puts the laws right-after a appeal is won, to mine as economicaly as possible with the absolute minimal impact-John