John Godfrey Appeal tomrrow in Sacramento

[Goldwasher]

I would like to see pictures as well.
Something interesting to point out... A good number of ski resorts operate on what is on and within National Forest operating under a lease . That lease actually affects operating dates...
When there is a good season sometimes those resorts have to ask the Forest Service to operate paste those dates.

I love to snowboard I worked at several ski resorts.......talk about surface disturbance!!!!
A lot of well healed environmentalists love to ski....snowboard and enjoy the resorts and areas that are sometimes near mining areas... Alta, Utah...Crested Butte...Gunnison.... Mammoth Mountain Ca. and more ....

funny how people don't care when they're having fun.........disturbance compared to other forest users.....Ha ha
I heard a story today about people that were protesting a big shell oil rig that was set to go to Ak.......

"PADDLE IN THE BAY"

talking about the environment and climate change....fossil fuels.......drilling for oil...
and they interview the guy who is leading the protests.....a guy in a PLASTIC KAYAK!!!!!!!!!!!!...A.K.A a MORON...where does plastic come from DUDE??....lame answer RECYCLING BRO!!!!!!!!!!

he will post his protests on social media and drive a car back to his house....as will all of the other protestors...

Miners are horrible OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

man this crap is annoying

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[fowledup]

This is what did not happen in the last two rounds of his case, hopefully it will in round three-

Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəriː dɨˈsaɪsɨs/) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[3] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[3] The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components.

The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts are obligated to follow. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one that courts can and do ignore occasionally.[4]

 

[fowledup]

This is a copy of a post made by "1866" on another forum. We all should know it by heart and have a thorough understanding of it. It pretty much sums it up. The question is; what needs to happen in a court that will force the USFS and others to honor it?


"The point of clarification regarding zoning/ordinances/rules is that patented land (or land with an equiviliant level of title, ie. the unpatented mineral deposit) is not subject to the same stipulations or limitations as land with a Color of Title. (ie. a Warranty Deed).

For example, if you have a warranty deed, a city government (or the county, or the state, or the feds, or even an NGO) can come to you and say "We don't like what you are doing over here. You're building a chicken coop in the backyard. You didn't ask permission to build that thing and so we're going to fine you for that. Also, now you must get a building permit and if you don't we are going to fine you some more. Also, we have an ordinance that says you can't have any chickens without a permit, so we are going to fine you for being out of compliance and you need to get a permit. And we'll be back every month to inspect those chickens. And if you don't let us in to inspect, we're going to bring our law enforcement out here and then you'll be sorry. And oh, by the way, if you don't pay these fines, we're going to put a lien on your property and auction it off on our front step." And even if you go as far as to fight them in court, you are GOING to lose, because as Hal Anthony would put it, your estate is within their layer of the cake of jurisdiction. This happens every day in the United States and elsewhere. But the patent holder is not subject to these "rules". His property has a higher title and he is the absolute ruler of his land. If he wants to build a chicken house, he does so and if someone comes along and says "You can't do that", he regards them as what they are: a hostile trespasser who is trying to deny him of his property rights and he ejects them from his property. Like the man with the warranty deed, they may try to take his property and he too may wind up in court, but this will not be successful provided that the court is within the law.

As a Mineral Estate Grantee, you are no different from the patented land
holder described above in that the title of your property (claim) is considered to be equal to a patent, even though the paramount title is held in trust until formally patented. In this sense, you have the same rights as the patent holder, PROVIDED that you are within the provisions of the Grant. As such, you have the EXCLUSIVE right of possession and enjoyment within the surface of your boundaries, including the use of the water, timber, stone and other resources to further your mineral activities. Provided that you stay on the black and white line of the Mining Law, NOBODY has the authority to come along and challenge your activity unless you are somehow damaging their property. (And in that regard, even if you buried the land owner downstream of you in ten feet of tailings and washed his house into the river because you built a dam on the creek and it suddenly burst, his only challenge to you can be in civil court). This grant, that originated in the Act of 1866, as amended in 1872, carries with it not only the right to go out upon the public lands to search for unpappropriated minerals, but the right to lay claim to them, to develop them, to occupy the claim, to utilize the surface and waters to develop the minerals, but also the right to secure paramount title to the claim. Provided that you comply with the terms of the grant, there is no lawful authority for ANYONE to come along and attempt to interfere with your legitimate mining related activities. Not BLM, not USFS, not the State, not the county, not the city officials, not the "water police" and also not the pesky neighbor. Anyone who does come along and interfere with your granted right without having the lawful authority to do so is a trespasser any attempts to infringe or impair your granted rights is considered not only a takings, but a crime.

At this stage, based on your comments, I would say that you are still under the assumption that some type of authority does extend to your activities while on your claim. As well, you seem to assume that the Layer Cake was really about who has jurisdiction. If that is what you gleaned from Hal's "Layer Cake" discussion, then you misunderstood the point he was making. I know Hal very well, consider him not only a mentor, but also a good friend, so feel that he would agree that you may have somewhat misunderstood what the Layer Cake was about. The basics of that presentation was to illustrate that there are different layers of land out there. The two layers that he most wanted to differentiate between was Public Land and Public Domain. (I believe that what really spurred Hal on to discuss how and why they differ probably has much to do with some comments in the media over the recent Tracy case and especially the statements by Prosecutor Fong to the jury at the trial that the place where Cliff was working was "THEIR land". Hal and I had a couple of conversations about those public statements, both agreeing that they were not only irresponsible, but also very dangerous, because they would encourage Joe Q. Public to trespass on people's claims).

Public Land is a term that we all know, but that very few people actually understand. While many people desribe it as "the public's land" or "everyone's land", it is not this way at all. Lawfully, what Public Land is, is land that is held in trust by the United States Government for disposal to the people in the hope that they will put it to good use that will create a benefit for all. As such, Congress passed a number of pieces of legislation which would dispose of these lands. These included, but were certainly not limited to the Homestead Act, the several Mining Acts, the Desert Reclamation Act, the Grazing Acts and others, all of which conveyed a right to the people to go out on the public lands and to lay claim to them for varying purposes, as outlined and in accordance to the Acts. In a few instances, Congress even passed a few acts that granted specific individuals with the right lay claim to public lands for a specific project that would be of a particular benefit to the country at large. The Suttro Tunnel Act, which specifically granted to a mining engineer named Suttro the right to drive a tunnel for mine drainage and venilation on the Comstock Lode is probably the best example of an act passed to grant a property right to one individual that would ultimately impact the country at large. Railroad grants also come to mind in this regard.

Once a claim or right is established upon the Public Land by a person (typically called a "settler", which we miners very much are), the land in question ceases to be Public Land and becomes Public Domain. Public Domain can best be defined as land which is currently claimed or under occupation under the varying land laws, but in which the paramount title is still held in trust by the government. Even today, mining claims are not the only lands which are part of the Public Domain, as Grazing Lands, as well as lands claimed under the Desert Reclamation Act are also considered to be on Public Domain. In the case of the mining law, the claims are so far removed to the Public Domain, that when the National Forests were first set up, mining claims were to be regarded as a segregated estate from the Forest System and were to be "removed" from the sytem. Lawfully, this is still true today, but it's one of those issues we have with USFS acting outside its authority.

In all of the above cases, it is the position of the law that each claimant's entry is to be assumed to have been made in good faith and there was no provision for the government to come in and interfere with the claimant on the grounds that his entry might be illegitimate. Despite this, a "safety mechanism" was installed in each law to protect the grantor (and therefore other grantees) from those persons who filed claims with the intention to obtain free land for some purpose other than prescribed by law. In the case of the Desert Reclamation and Homestead Acts, the settler had to "prove up" on his claim within a period of five years in order to obtain the patent. Originally, the mining law had no such safety provision and this was the primary reason why the Acts of 1866 and 1870 were amended in 1872, which provided not only a method to validate the existence of a valuable mineral discovery, but also a method to determine whether lands were better suited for mining or for agricultural.

However, there is also another layer to the cake, in that these varying acts granted differing estates of the Public Lands. For example, the Grazing Acts, the Desert Reclamation Act and also the Homestead Act only granted the surface estate of the land as their intention was to utilize the surface for some beneficial use - in all cases for food production (farming or ranching). The Suttro Tunnel Act, as another example, only granted the subsurface, as tunneling through the subsurface to create drainage, venilation and transport between the varying existing mines on the Comstock was the intention. Suttro received no mineral rights. The mining acts however, were different in that Congress recognized that merely granting the minerals was not enough on its own. Without the use of the surface and the waters, these minerals could not be properly developed and extracted, so the Mining Acts granted not only the minerals (the subsurface), but also the surface, including the resources that would benefit the miner's work.

One thing you might notice here is that the Homesteaders, Desert claimers and Grazing owners were not usually granted the subsurface which would contain the minerals. Ideally, the system was to designed so that mineral lands would never be claimed for agricultural use or vice verse, but as you can appreciate, it really does not work that way. Sometimes very good agrcultural lands located in river bottoms also contain very valuable placer deposits. In this case, even though a farmer may own the land, he does not necessarily own the minerals. (Most people don't understand this). This is yet another layer of that layer cake. Even today, there are still specific provisions for filing a claim on land that is other than Public Land, be it upon the Public Domain of a grazing claim or even upon private property. In some cases, a claim can be filed
on grazing lands, while in others, the minerals may possibly be reseeved to the United States and only be available by sale or lease.

In all cases, an absolute property right is conveyed that others may not interfere with (no, not even the government, provided that the grantee stays on the bright line of the requirements of the grant).

Note that even though you drew the conclusion that Hal was mostly talking jurisdiction of law, thus far, I have not mentioned much of anything regarding jurisdiction. The fact is, even though Hal did certainly talk about varying jurisdictions, this was not really what the layer cake was about, apart from one simple point:

The management agencies - BLM and USFS - are managers of Public Lands and that is where their authority largely ends. USFS, as one example, has ZERO authority regarding the mining law, while BLM's authority is limited to overseeing the orderly disposal of the Public Lands. Neither of these two agencies have authority on the Public Domain.

Another thing that is not quite correct is your list of law.

For example, the United States Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land in this country. If you're religious, you might possibly refer to this as "God's Law", as it was the intention of its authors that the document provide protection to rights which they believe originate from a higher power. But even if you're not religious, the way to see it is that the founder's recognized the contents of that document as rights that all are born with. The purpose of this document was to draw a line in the sand, over which they believed government had no right to cross (ie. the rights SHALL NOT (a powerful term) be infringed).

Congressional Law is simply federal law, as Congress is responsible for the creation of all federal law. The Mining Law (Acts of 1866, 1870, 1872) is part of this body of law. Federal Law is subserviant to the Constitution.

I assume that by "Miner's Law", what you really mean are the customs, rules and regulations of the miners within the varying mining districts.

There is no such thing as Sec. of the Interior's Law, although the Department of the Interior does have administrative guidelines that help to govern its organization. Neither do BLM or USFS have "law". Again, these are administrative policies ONLY. Often they can talk miners into believing that their policies apply to them.

State Law. While State's have laws, as well as constitutions, their actual authority in our activity is incredibly limited. This is specifically identified in Section 3 of the Act of 1872, which states that the states may make rules and regulations governing the possessory title to claims. That is to say that the states may adopt particular laws related to claim filing, but ... these laws must be subject to federal law. (ie. they may not violate the Mining Law, which incidentily also reconizes the authority of the miners to make laws). Beyond that, the states have no authority, but like BLM and USFS they sometimes dupe miners into believing they have a lot of authority. In truth, the Mining Districts have greater authority than the states, having not only the same authority as the states to create laws governing the possessory title (sec. 3 of 1872), but also having an authority that is somewhat equal to that of the United States that the states do NOT have (see Sec. 1 of 1872).

The county's really do not come into this at all apart from having taken over some recording duties. Obviously, the County Sheriff is important because he is the supreme law enforcement officer inside the county, while your commissioners often have a communication line with other branches of government. Having county leadership that is pro-mining is a blessing, but having county leadership that is anti-mining is a bane.

All of this said, if you are looking for a genuine layer cake of lawful authority, the proper list would look like this:

U.S. Constitution
Congress (the Grantor)
The Miners (the Grantees)

Lawfully, the states and BLM are bit off to the side, as their roles are limited to assisting with orderly disposal ONLY. Neither is vested with any authority to actually regulate the ativities of miners, though they do have SOME authority regarding claim filing. Both however, often operate under a Color of Authority.

One of the biggest issues that arises is that there is a popular assumption that some Acts of Congress, particularly the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act effect the Mining Law, since like the Mining Law, they too are Acts of Congress. This would be so were it not for the fact that the U.S. Constitution protects property rights from being infringed. Basically, a law that infringes an existing right is not considered to be lawful."

 

[Hefty1]

How was he found guilty on any of these counts?


36 CFR 261.1 - Scope.

§ 261.1 Scope. (a) The prohibitions in this part apply, except as otherwise provided, when:
(1) An act or omission occurs in the National Forest System or on a National Forest System road or trail.
(2) An act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers property of the United States administered by the Forest Service.
(3) An act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers a person using, or engaged in the protection, improvement or administration of the National Forest System or a National Forest System road or trail.
(4) An act or omission occurs within the designated boundaries of a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
(b) Nothing in this part shall preclude activities as authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964 or the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 as amended.
(c) Unless an offense set out in this part specifies that intent is required, intent is not an element of any offense under this part.
(d) None of these prohibitions apply to any person engaged in fire suppression actions.
[42 FR 35958, July 13, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 32136, July 25, 1978; 46 FR 33519, June 30, 1981; 66 FR 3218, Jan. 12, 2001; 73 FR 30307, May 27, 2008]

 

[Hefty1]

§ 261.9 Property. The following are prohibited:
(a) Damaging any natural feature or other property of the United States.
(b) Removing any natural feature or other property of the United States.

If breakin rocks is in violation 36CFR 261.9(a) then I want the USFS to remove all their rocks or natural features off my claim as I am not responsible for any broken natural features.

Leave all the gold ones alone!

 

[fowledup]

In keeping with Hefty's post #44
"Where valid mining claims exist, that land is no longer public land. The federal agencies have management authority only over public land, not privately settled public domain. The public land that is disposed by claims under the act of 1872 is public domain as stated in that act (USC 30 S26). Locatable minerals are not mining claims on public land, but mineral deposits on public domain. The act of location of a mineral deposit, restores the land to public domain and the mining law provides the locator of such segregation. The locator “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations”.
Surface management agencies, such as USFS and BLM, have no authority over disposed public domain. Further, a valuable mineral deposit location is a specific use on public domain, not a special use of public land as is regulated by 43 CFR 3809. Both the USFS and the BLM are required to adhere to the congressional public land management mandate of the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA), which expressly states at 43 USC 1732 (b), that “… no provision of this section or any other section of the Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress". Any assertion of federal authority by agency, such as the BLM or USFS, impairing, obstructing, or closing access against, or managing the surface of locatable mineral deposit property on public domain in-holding the public land, or otherwise interfering in any way is committed contrary to the laws of the United States of America, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an intentional and negligent trust tort."

 

[fowledup]

Lastly and what should be the icing on the cake you need to look at the authorities (actual laws) for 36 cfr part 261 9 & 10 cited as the regulations (NOT laws) for counts 3 & 4;


U.S. Code › Title 16 › Chapter 2 › Subchapter I › § 472
16 U.S. Code § 472 - Laws affecting national forest lands
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall execute or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands reserved under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, or sections supplemental to and amendatory thereof, after such lands have been so reserved, excepting such laws as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying, certifying, or patenting of any of such lands.


They also cited 36 cfr part 228 in refrence to the need for an NOI and a subsequent POO, this is from Bejay:

Here is the authority for 36 CFR § 228:

Quote:
30 USC 226 - Lease of oil and gas lands

30 USC 352 - Deposits subject to lease; consent of department heads; lands excluded

30 USC 601 - Rules and regulations governing disposal of materials; payment; removal without charge; lands excluded

30 USC 611 - Common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders, and petrified wood


How about that! When we look at their authority for these regulations it's all about leasable and salable minerals. Nothing there about locatable minerals at all.

Whoops! There is just one more authority given 94 STAT. 2400:

Quote:
94 STAT. 2400

Valid mining claims.
PUBLIC LAW 96-487—DEC. 2, 1980
(f)(1) Subject to valid existing rights and the provisions of this Act, the lands within the Monuments are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation or disposal under the public land laws, including location, entry, and patent under United States mining laws, disposition under the mineral leasing laws, and from future selections by the State of Alaska and Native Corporations; (2)(A) After the date of enactment of this Act, any person who is the holder of any valid mining claim on public lands located within the boundaries of the Monuments, shall be permitted to carry out activities related to the exercise of rights under such claim in accordance with reasonable regulations promulgated by the Secretary to assure that such activities are compatible, to the maximum extent feasible, with the purposes for which the Monuments were established. (B) For purposes of determining the validity of a mining claim containing a sufficient quantity and quality of mineral as of November 30, 1978, to establish a valuable deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States within the Monuments, the requirements of the mining laws of the United States shall be construed as if access and mill site rights associated with such claim allow the present use of the Monuments' land as such land could have been used on November 30, 1978. (g) MINING IN THE PARKS ACT.—The Act of September 28,


So now we know where their authority to call you an operator and demand POOs applies to - pre existing mineral estate claims within the boundaries of Parks and Monuments.

 

[Hoser John]

The problem is the Judges now do not follow the law. As a matter of record they deny the law even exists. I copied the RR parking laws in a case here in Shasta county.Went to court with Blackbone and showed the judge the pics of measurements(parked 75' from RR tracks and the law which specifically mandates 50'. He said so what---he had to get closer to the tracks getting there so he's guilty and if I bring up the law in his court room again I'd get booked on contempt. Contempt >>> That does NOT even cover of what I think of these insane rulings that break the laws they were hired to protect-sic sic sic world.John

 

[The Gilded Lens]

I know of others with trouble on the Yuba... he should contact the Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association as soon as possible.

Interested to know what went down on the Yuba and any outcomes.

 

[beekbuster]

i tried to give the judge the benifit of doubt, instead of beat him up, try to get an understanding of the situation, without bias. most judges im sure probably havnt read too far into the mining laws, neither have i for that fact. i knew id get a lot of good commentary and lots of solid facts with the stance i took. and we all appreciate solid facts. once again this is a case of trial by emotion rather than a trial by facts. it is also no secret miners are literally hated by many in gov't, not to mention the extremist groups. i read the court document and stated it as it was written. this man had no defense and the forest service had a field day with it. as for cutting ditches to divert water, there is quite the contradiction in law between fish and shame code and the mining law, and im sure theres many more.

 

[minerrick]

. as for cutting ditches to divert water, there is quite the contradiction in law between fish and shame code and the mining law, and im sure theres many more.

Who said anything about cutting ditches? He laid about 80 feet of 6" pipe in the water on the side of the creek, to get enough head to run his sluice. No cutting, just laying PVC pipe on the side of the creek.

 

[beekbuster]

page 14 line 12 is the only mention i can find of it. when i first read it i thought i read it in a witness testimony. after reading the report again i cant find it. would the forest service give authorization or permit for a miner to maintain a trail and cause a significant disturbance. what would the cost be, and would they make you get an environmental evaluation? an unobtainable permit. it would be doing the same thing they are doing to dredging. if this is so then the only thing were allowed to do is take samples. guess im going to have to take my gravity dredge waaaay out in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Hoser John]

Maintaining your access ,and regress, trail is a approved form of annual labor mandated by the mining laws. Permit? you do NOT need no stinking permit to obey any federal mandate-John

 

[Clay Diggins]

U.S. Constitution
Congress (the Grantor)
The Miners (the Grantees)

one thing you are forgetting that the U.S.Constitution CAN be amended or changed with the appropriate actions and numbers by the 3 branches of government

You are mistaken in your assumption. A mining claim is a self initiated claim of right. Therefore each claim is created by the actions of the locator - not by Congress.

The Locator is the Grantor.

The Claim is the Grantee.

You would know this simple fact if you had ever recorded a claim. It's basic property law. Once the Grantee's (claim) Location is perfected the Grantor (locator) has completed the grant. Congress can not amend or change that grant once perfected. Mining law 101.

This is not Real Estate. Throw out all your preconceived notions and study the law governing grants and mining claims. You might start with Fletcher v Peck (1810) so you can get these silly misconceptions about the power of Congress to amend a land grant out of your thought process. Move on to Summa Corp (1984) if you don't believe basic land grant law hasn't changed since 1810.

There are dozens of Supreme Court cases and thousands of lower court cases that have never varied from the concept that a land grant once made can not be voted or regulated away by government.

Educate yourself and prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[diverrick]

This, to me gets to the root of these issues. "A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Id. at 108-09 (footnotes omitted)."

That, and the rules regarding a SIGNIFICANT disturbance. Maybe that rule should have a number attached, such as more then XX yards of material per year or similar to clarify what a SD is in real life. One person might say a shovel full removed is significant.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Last time, keep politics not directly related to treasure hunting out of forums!

 

[Clay Diggins]

clay that was a copy of another post, my point to him was that congress can amend and change the Constitution

Yes I see now that you were quoting another poster. It appeared to be your writing because you didn't indicate it was a quote. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

That doesn't change the fact that the statement

Congress (the Grantor)
The Miners (the Grantees)

shows a misunderstanding of the mineral grant.

I think Treasure Hunter addressed your "point" already?

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

That, and the rules regarding a SIGNIFICANT disturbance. Maybe that rule should have a number attached, such as more then XX yards of material per year or similar to clarify what a SD is in real life. One person might say a shovel full removed is significant.

The courts have addressed this several times. The "rule" of "significant surface disturbance" is an agency reinterpretation of the law they are supposed to be enforcing. The law is this:

In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.

The legal standard has nothing to do with surface disturbance. The legal standard is simply that any mining that takes place must not be "undue or unnecessary". Nothing about surfaces or disturbances in there.

So what is undue or unnecessary mining? According to the Supreme Court:

a reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.
'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted.

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.
995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)

(Read the case - I guarantee it will enlighten you.)

So even though the BLM or the Forest Service would like you to think "significant surface disturbance" is your problem the legal standard you should be concerned about is proper professional mining procedure designed to avoid bad practices. That is going to change depending on what you are mining, what the terrain is like and the methods available.

An open pit mine might be the most due and necessary method in a desert copper porphyry deposit but it would be undue and unnecessary if you were mining a hard rock vein. In an important case a claimant prospecting a low grade copper deposit by bulldozer was considered "undue and unnecessary" because sample drilling would have been more effective and less destructive on that deposit type. The bulldozer was not best practice mining on that particular deposit. It could be on another type of deposit.

There is no single answer to your question. For each deposit the answer changes. The courts have ruled on different occasions that in one circumstance, involving desert scrub land, there was no effective limit to how much land could be disturbed by mining and in another case, on a steep slope in a sensitive hillside, that no amount of disturbance would be acceptable because there was a less destructive alternative. The cost of mining can not be a factor in these decisions - only what best mining practice is.

Professional miners know this stuff as part of their business. It's not a strange concept in the mining industry. If you plan your mining according to best practice for your conditions you too can define how much disturbance you need to create to mine your deposit.

Asking for more defined regulations will restrict miners. Be careful what you wish for. For now you have the right to mine your deposit in a professional manner. Setting regulations that create a strict area definition for "significant surface disturbances" will take that right and subject it to regulation.

Heavy Pans

 

[fowledup]

Did my post just get deleted? My post was in no way political, I was the one who posted the copy of a post from a very knowledgable individual on another forum that Kayakpat was responding to. I merely pointed out that his comment did not apply or have any bearing on what the quoted poster was saying. What he (KP) singled in on was a very small portion of a rather lengthy post, wasn't even part of the main jist of the post or relative to the point of the discussion. There were NO POLITICS in my last post or anything bad or off handed at all for that matter. I simply stated that an amended constitution would not change the levels of lawful authority. if a discussion on who possess what levels of lawful authority over mining is not a topic we are "allowed" to discuss then ban me now.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Did my post just get deleted? My post was in no way political, I was the one who posted the copy of a post from a very knowledgable individual on another forum that Kayakpat was responding to. I merely pointed out that his comment did not apply or have any bearing on what the quoted poster was saying. What he (KP) singled in on was a very small portion of a rather lengthy post, wasn't even part of the main jist of the post or relative to the point of the discussion. There were NO POLITICS in my last post or anything bad or off handed at all for that matter. I simply stated that an amended constitution would not change the levels of lawful authority. if a discussion on who possess what levels of lawful authority over mining is not a topic we are "allowed" to discuss then ban me now.

Your post was in reply to a political post by another member. Discussing constitutional convention and amending constitution is politics.

As per rules if you have issue with moderation handle it through PM not in open forum...