My first claim and how I obtained it

[QNCrazy]

Yesterday I competed the paperwork for my first claim. I want to share how I found the claim and some pictures. I began by doing a search with LR2000 looking for closed claims in a specific section. Directions for using LR2000 in a thread somewhere on this forum and on the BLM website. The search result were numerous dating back several years. I checked each claim beginning with the most recent and I happened to come across one that hadn't been reclaimed yet. Next I checked with BLM who told me it was still available. The Saturday after Christmas I put boots on the ground looking for location notices around the areaI intended to claim as well as surrounding areas. When I didn't find any I began prospecting. There are two feeder creeks on the claim so I began with each of them running a half bucket from each classified to 1/2". Found gold in both. I did he same for the main creek and found more. To finish the day, I constructed my monument per BLM specifications and placed a copy of my signed location notice inside. The following Tuesday I took my original copy to the county recorder. $20. Yesterday I went to BLM. And finished the paperwork. $212. Here are some pics.


I hope this helps those who are trying to get a claim.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Reed Lukens]

I would file a lode along with your placer on this claim if there is actually a lode there. Placer gold is placer gold and even if you are drifting old channel - placer gold it is still placer. But a lode or vein of gold or other minerals would be worth claiming if the potential is there. You may find a good quality lode already established on your claim. One of our placer claims has 2 tunnels on it and good gold from the old lode mine. The gold in the mine is way better if you have it. Here's a pic of some Lode gold straight from the earth. The cab is 4" long for size reference and you can see the quality of the nuggets and then the gold chunks that came out of the quartz. The second pic is a scale of that nugget also for size reference, etc. Lode gold is nice and the advantages of getting the larger pieces make it all worth it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[fowledup]

Ok, i'm slow and thick headed. Am I wrong or not understanding it correctly? In my way of thinking;
I understand that by possessing a Placer Claim I am not entitled to the Lode deposits. I thought I understood that if I possess the Placer claim, without my permission another can not claim a lode on top of me. However should I make a Lode discovery I would need to establish a Lode claim with my Placer claim claim titie to the lode deposits. If my thinking is correct which I know is not always the case- I would wait until such time as I made the discovery and save myself some dough. We are in a situation much like this so I have a strong motivation to make sure I have it right. Thanks guys

 

[Bejay]

So for the sake of further discussion. You have a placer claim...ok...that is nice. But you can not deny me access on the public land...I can come camp right next to you. Your claim is for ALL the surface gold/minerals....ok...got it. I am out on your placer claim looking at the birds and plant life.....ok...got it. I see that there is an outcropping of material that appears to be a significant source of valuable mineral.....ok...I can't sample it...can't make a discovery. Now I go do some research and find that there have been existing lode claims located because of this outcropping; that others have determined had valuable ore deposits. Maybe some monetary benefit has even been derived from the ore body, and my research shows this. Maybe vein mapping has been done that shows this vein (outcropping) is associated with other in place lode deposits.

Now can I place a lode on the existing placer? I know such practices are being done. So sometimes it is better to nip it in the bud as opposed to waiting to see what transpires. This issue of placing lodes on top of placers has become a real issue in some places in Az. Do you suppose the culprits who abuse the mining claim locations are going to NOT abuse? Do you think the BLM is going to come to your rescue...NOT. So what is one left with? OH......a situation needing resolve? How is that done? OUCH!

So the information I have brought forth is one that a miner MAY WANT to address. Then again maybe not. But when and if I had a claim that had a history of both types of "locations" I might find it prudent to make a determination. But I have seen the abuse in areas where I have a claim. So I thought it wise to bring the discussion forward.

Bejay

 

[fowledup]

Thank you for slowing down for me to the point of patronizing condescension. I believe we've had a misunderstanding. I was approaching this from the legality stand point and you are apparently addressing it from the could and does happen stand point. I've gotten accustomed to you approaching discussions from the legal side of things, my bad. I know it happens, I want to clarify whether the claim claimant has a legal leg to stand on in defense of his claim, should it happen. What I was trying to bring into the discussion is if it is a warranted additional expense to file for a lode over/with your placer. Does the benefit outweigh the expense. As you, Clay Diggins, and others have always said, the discover has to prove the claim as part of the location process. It needs to be made clear to new claim holders that just because they have a placer claim doesn't mean they can automatically file a matching lode claim, especially one they can't prove discovery on. Historical precedence or not, It wouldn't matter if you had copies of the claims mineral report in your hand. Until such time as the placer claim holder gives you permission to prospect you can't prove discovery and make a legal location. The discussion points of the Clipper v. Eli case appear to back up my last statement.

 

[Bejay]

All is good. Not trying to be condescending in any way. Appreciate your contribution. No mis-understanding. Just pointing out the other side of the coin if you will.

In Oregon I have no need to address such an issue as I pointed out...simply because my placer has no lode potential. In Az though this Lode/Placer contention is rampant in certain parts of the State. There is a legal side and then there is the "not so legal aspect". When the "not so legal aspect" occurs one is faced with some interesting facts. The ability to "outdo" the lode location can be extremely frustrating. That said; one might want to take the consideration seriously.

Now please note my tone! It is not done to form any argument against anyone contributing such valuable information as you did. But I am currently dealing with the issue, and have had occasion to consider it before.
The "overclaim" issue is one I believe we all want to avoid. The ability to abuse the "locators right" is happening. Nothing really lawful about some of it. But in dealing with it the: "this is a real pain in the you know what" is not something I enjoy. I just spent time addressing the issue this morning with my Az mining partner. And now I am faced with the lode/placer issue again on another spot.

So as you point out, and rightfully so, there are cost factors involved. Dealing with "culprits" is not enjoyable. The method of doing so is spelled out in the 1872. So such dealings involve costs. But more aggravating is the frustration of having to deal with ignorance and a legal system that is, or can be: "SLOW".

No argument here. Just one miner trying to convey some information. The tone of such conversation on the net is hard to determine. All is good.

Take care.

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

Thanks everyone. Heading out early in the morning for a day of work. Wait a minute, is it work if you love what you are doing? The claim was originally established in 1980. The original monument is still there. Four people started the claim, two with a lode claim and two with a placer claim. In the early 90's, two of the claimants bailed out, the lode claim was abandoned and the whole area was claimed as a placer claim by the claimants who had the lode claim. Fortunately for me, the claimant is still local. I have sent them a letter hoping they will be willing to make contact with me and share their information about the claim. Work smarter not harder, right? Again, thanks all and I will keep everyone posted. I guess I will have to start an adventure thread.

It was because of this notation I felt my info was of value.

Bejay

 

[fowledup]

No worries, I concur -all is good. These types of discussions tend to raise the hackle, we just need an intent font or smiley. Please accept my apologies for getting testy, I always look forward to and have learned a ton from your posts. This discussion is very apropos (and stressful) at this time for our partnership as well. We are trying to decide if we should go ahead and make it a non issue now or takes our chances, nothing worse than being forced to spend your money how you don't want to. But then you hear the rumors and stories of it happening in your area and the paranoia starts taking hold. If you asked a miner, which would he say is worse- being an expectant father or waiting on a claim filing? I'm leaning towards the later,lol.

 

[QNCrazy]

'Placer claims have an equality both in procedure and right with lode claims, but a lode claim provides no rights to placer deposits and a placer claim provides no rights to lode deposits' - Clipper mining v. Eli mining and Land Co. 194 US 220 (1904)

A lode claim can have access to a placer with prior express written consent.

Man, I thought this was supposed to be a happy moment. Now I have to worry about a load claim being filed over my placer claim? I don't think so. Fowled, to continue on your quote of the Supreme Court decision which "discusses the fact that a person has no right to enter upon a valid placer mining claim to serach for, or locate a lode claim without the express permissioin 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.

Pursuant to Campbell v. Mcintyre, 295 F.Cas.45 (9th Cir., 1924) "If a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on their claim, they may do so; but they will have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode mining claim.

So if all this is correct, if someone files a lode claim on my placer, it will not be valid. I know, I know, I would be better off filing a lode claim rather that the costly court fees trying to fight it after the fact. I'm not trying to start a debate here either, only that this discussion forced me to research the California Mining Claims Guide to come to my own conclusion. If the guide is wrong, I am wrong.

 

[QNCrazy]

But thanks everyone for the information. So today I went out highbanking. Not much to show for my efforts but still trying to figure out the claim. Went through the first layer, very little gold. Found hints of a second layer, however, there was a flat rock impeding my progression. I worked on it for two hours before deciding to give up and come back later with the right tools to get the rock out of the way. The material that i did retrieve from the second layer showed promise. 20 acres is a lot of area and will take time to cover. Until next time.

 

[rodoconnor]

Clear as mud . Right ? G/L

 

[fowledup]

Man, I thought this was supposed to be a happy moment. Now I have to worry about a load claim being filed over my placer claim? I don't think so. Fowled, to continue on your quote of the Supreme Court decision which "discusses the fact that a person has no right to enter upon a valid placer mining claim to serach for, or locate a lode claim without the express permissioin 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.

Pursuant to Campbell v. Mcintyre, 295 F.Cas.45 (9th Cir., 1924) "If a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on their claim, they may do so; but they will have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode mining claim.

So if all this is correct, if someone files a lode claim on my placer, it will not be valid. I know, I know, I would be better off filing a lode claim rather that the costly court fees trying to fight it after the fact. I'm not trying to start a debate here either, only that this discussion forced me to research the California Mining Claims Guide to come to my own conclusion. If the guide is wrong, I am wrong.

Sorry for the little thunder cloud over the parade, Seriously, congratulations it is a happy and joyous occasion to be sure. Best part is you did the research and made up your own mind.

 

[Vance in AK]

So today I went out highbanking. Not much to show for my efforts but still trying to figure out the claim. Went through the first layer, very little gold. Found hints of a second layer, however, there was a flat rock impeding my progression. I worked on it for two hours before deciding to give up and come back later with the right tools to get the rock out of the way. The material that i did retrieve from the second layer showed promise. 20 acres is a lot of area and will take time to cover. Until next time.

It should be a happy moment!!! Just enjoy & don't worry too much about all of the "What ifs". If it turns out to be the "Bonanza" you might want to look into additional steps, but for now work hard, work smart, & have fun.
So is the flat rock the surface of bedrock or just a large flat rock?

 

[Armchair prospector]

This is a valuable post all the way around. I am going to download this for future reference.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Man, I thought this was supposed to be a happy moment. Now I have to worry about a load claim being filed over my placer claim? I don't think so. Fowled, to continue on your quote of the Supreme Court decision which "discusses the fact that a person has no right to enter upon a valid placer mining claim to serach for, or locate a lode claim without the express permissioin 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.

Pursuant to Campbell v. Mcintyre, 295 F.Cas.45 (9th Cir., 1924) "If a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on their claim, they may do so; but they will have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode mining claim.

So if all this is correct, if someone files a lode claim on my placer, it will not be valid. I know, I know, I would be better off filing a lode claim rather that the costly court fees trying to fight it after the fact. I'm not trying to start a debate here either, only that this discussion forced me to research the California Mining Claims Guide to come to my own conclusion. If the guide is wrong, I am wrong.

You are right QNCrazy. Unless you invite someone to prospect your claim and they discover a valuable mineral lode in place no one else can make a valid lode claim over your placer claim. Likewise unless you discover a valuable mineral lode in place you can not make a valid lode claim over your placer.

With no lode discovery any lode claim is invalid. Overclaiming your own placer without discovering a lode first is foolish and won't gain you any more protection.

Enjoy your placer claim.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

Well I am going to have to disagree to some extent here.

Granted one must admit to the relevancy of "Valid lode claim" and "Valid placer claim". No doubt this is the standard that should exist. Making discovery:....of course this is the standard that should be met. No disagreement at all here; as it is all spelled out in mining Law and relevant cases.

No doubt the placer discovery exists, and from previous research lode potential exists....so the discovery aspect could be available.....And an assumption can be made, most likely is available for discovery. But with that said we can agree that a claimant who has both types of discovery could obtain BOTH mineral via filing valid claims.

But now we can see that what is right and correct is not always being observed. We see fraud in locating....I think we can agree on that point. The other thread discussing such occurrences and why people even predate location notices is occurring. Right or wrong it occurs.....(fraud).

I believe you would agree that many lode claims are not valid for the simple fact they are not correctly legally located. I think you would agree that over claiming is and does exist.....and many such instances can be brought forth.

I believe we might agree that the discovery aspect of locating and filing mineral claims is abused...as many claims are done without boots on the ground "discovery".

So if we can agree that the VALID issue is relevant, and if we can agree that the challenge aspect could be relevant, why would a placer claim owner who had a potential lode discovery option not want to utilize that option?

I fail to understand why such a security would not be beneficial.

I believe you are going to point to the legal aspect. I know you are going to point to the fact that other than following the legal location aspect an improperly located claim is thus invalid. But I know you are aware that improper locations exist to a large degree.....and such over claiming exists.

When, and if such invalid occurrences are filed/recorded, the valid claim owner is the one dealing with the "culprits";.... if you will.

Of course you may point out the ease by which this "resolve" can occur. But my experience has not shown this to be as easy as one might think. There are time factors......cost factors, and a "pain in the you know what" factors.

Yes...VALID is a very meaningful word. But how that issue is abused today seems relevant.

Knowing what I know. I would take the option and make that lode discovery (using the history and previous claim owners having access to) and file the lode claim. That all seems more pleasant than a potential adverse claim issue.

I am not advocating the placer claimant should make an improper lode location. But I am making the contention improper fraudulent locations are made by others.

So I'll ask the question: Simply for the sake of consideration. Does the recorder (land office) check to see if other claimants occupy the same location (placer or lode)?. Does the BLM care how many claims exist on the same piece of ground? So "valid" is a very important word. In the end who has to get the resolve? In the end one can point to the mining law aspect of "possession". When things are getting nasty in the end one can call the sheriff.

I don't know...maybe it is just me. But I would prefer to illuminate a concern I feel relevant. Nothing will completely illuminate fraudulent filings. But a lot of ignorance seems to be bringing forth such over filings.

Worse case scenario would be a fraudulent lode filing by a "culprit". Then the "simple" court case could be presented to make the "culprit" go away with the help of the Sheriff. And it can be argued that "culprits" are out doing their thing no matter what the existing claim standing is: placer or lode.

So I believe we disagree Clay.

Bejay

 

[QNCrazy]

Wow! Thanks for not making this a debate Bejay.

 

[QNCrazy]

It should be a happy moment!!! Just enjoy & don't worry too much about all of the "What ifs". If it turns out to be the "Bonanza" you might want to look into additional steps, but for now work hard, work smart, & have fun.
So is the flat rock the surface of bedrock or just a large flat rock?

It appears to be a large flat rock but I don't think the bedrock is too far below. I've decided to work this hole to the bedrock or waist deep whichever comes first. At least I can get an idea how deep the bedrock is in that area. The bedrock is exposed at the upstream end of the claim. Not sure about the downstream end.

 

[Bejay]

Personally I always begin my dredging at the immediate sight of bedrock...no matter where it is on the claim. So I would always start at the upstream open bedrock area. All cracks and crevices/pockets should hold gold. The easiest to get is that which has very little or no overburden.

Bejay

 

[QNCrazy]

Bejay, thanks for the PM. Interesting point about previous claimants. As far as my search, I agree I need to start with the exposed bedrock and stay with it. Seems like that would make the most sense. But as they say the gold is where you find it.

 

[fowledup]

Get yourself 6'-8' of 1/2" round stock, sharpen one end to a point and cut a foot off the other end and weld it on top to form a handle, use it to probe and follow the bedrock