Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Arent meteorites / meteorite hunting with a metal detector still exempt from placer or lode claims? I know there has been some nice meteorites found in the Rye area's. Just be sure to leave the gold right where its at if you detect it on someones claim... :)

Dave

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DolanDave said:

Arent meteorites / meteorite hunting with a metal detector still exempt from placer or lode claims? I know there has been some nice meteorites found in the Rye area's. Just be sure to leave the gold right where its at if you detect it on someones claim... :)

Dave

I don't know how that rumor got started Dave. There is no such exemption and never has been.

All valuable minerals on a mining claim belong to the claimant. Meteorite minerals are valuable. Heck they are usually sold by the gram which puts them right up there with the most valuable minerals found.

Mining claims have been located, mined and granted patents for the meteorite minerals discovered on the claim. If you get right down to it all the minerals on every claim were put there my meteorites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DolanDave said:

Arent meteorites / meteorite hunting with a metal detector still exempt from placer or lode claims? I know there has been some nice meteorites found in the Rye area's. Just be sure to leave the gold right where its at if you detect it on someones claim... :)

Dave

The laws regarding meteorite ownership in the U.S. are very clear, and it has nothing to do with the mineral rights: a meteorite legally belongs to the owner of the land it is found on. So technically on public land that has a mineral claim, one has the right to search for and collect meteorites. But since meteorite law is not common knowledge, trying to convince a claim owner that sees you detecting for meteorites on his gold claim could be problematic! However, there are new BLM rules in place that allow only a certain amount to be collected per person per year. Not only that, but if the collection of meteorites on BLM land is for commercial purposes, i.e., with the intent to sell the meteorites, then a permit must be obtained, the cost of which is set by the local BLM office.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Clay Diggins said:

All valuable minerals on a mining claim belong to the claimant. Meteorite minerals are valuable. Heck they are usually sold by the gram which puts them right up there with the most valuable minerals found.

This is a common misperception and simply is not the case; the meteorite laws in the U.S. clearly state that since meteorites are not part of the earthly estate of minerals, they are not locatable under the mining law and belong to the owner of the land they are found on.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/MediaCenter_PublicRoom_Nevada_Meteorites1.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mining claims are not public land Lunk. The minerals are segregated from the public, they belong to the claim owner. 

It's true that if a meteorite falls on private property it belongs to the property owner. The public lands of the United States do not belong to the government they belong to the public. When a mining claim is located the minerals are granted to the locator. All members of the public that are citizens and have reached the age of majority can make a mining claim on lands open to location.

You can not locate a mining claim for meteorites but you can locate a mining claim for meteorite minerals.

On public lands where the minerals are still open to the public recreational and commercial collecting laws are in effect. As I recall those are based on a certain number of pounds per year. Commercial collection requires permits and taxes the same as any other lease or sale of public land materials.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lunk said:

This is a common misperception and simply is not the case; the meteorite laws in the U.S. clearly state that since meteorites are not part of the earthly estate of minerals, they are not locatable under the mining law and belong to the owner of the land they are found on.

There are no "meteorite laws" in the United States. Which is probably why they aren't common knowledge. If you know of one I'm sure you will share it here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meteorites found on public land actually belong to the Smithsonian Institution as laid out in the meteorite law.

Being a meteorite hunter myself, I know there are definitely meteorite laws in the United States, and  they have been used in court battles over meteorite ownership disputes.

MediaCenter_PublicRoom_Nevada_Meteorites

And also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite_hunter

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Barry, it seems that the courts have ammended the common laws of property to decide meteorite ownership cases, but it is certain that the federal government has asserted that a meteorite does not qualify as a “valuable mineral” as defined under the 1872 Mining Law. So I would now have to say that the legality of collecting meteorites on federal land containing a mineral claim would have to ultimately be decided by the courts. I for one would approach the claim owner beforehand to avoid any misunderstandings.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clay Diggins said:

There are no "meteorite laws" in the United States. Which is probably why they aren't common knowledge. If you know of one I'm sure you will share it here.

OK that was a trick question Lunk. You can't share any meteorite laws with us because there are none.

Many years ago I was constantly getting different answers about what was written in the law. Seems nobody could come up with a verifiable answer. It was all like this thread, different opinions and a lot of "everybody knows". I tried looking up the laws but that turned out to be full of lawyerspeak and Not Yours! attitudes in secret libraries far away from any working man. So I did the obvious - I went to law school and learned how to find and understand the actual written laws. Back then that wasn't an easy thing. Took years to figure the system out. Try looking up Shepardizing to get a hint as to how onerous the process was.

Lucky for us now in the modern times we can look up any Federal law quick and easy. No need for years in law school. It's like Google Search for law.  Here's a link to that search function direct from the folks that keep the law records. I've even done the search for you. As you can see the word meteorite is nowhere to be found in Federal law. I think we can agree that if the word meteorite is not to be found in the law then the law has nothing to say about meteorites? Feel free to play around there it's a great resource.

Of course being curious when I first heard these theories about meteorites not being valuable minerals I had to investigate every new theory being proposed.

One of the big fantasies in the meteorite circles was there was a case called "The Old Woman Meteorite". Supposedly this was the big case that established that meteories were not subject to location and belonged to the Smithsonian. Well such a case actually exists so I got a copy and read the case and it doesn't address meteorite ownership, mining claims or the actual meteorite itself.

The Old Woman case was about the right of the Secretary of the Interior to bypass normal established administrative process in awarding study materials under the Antiquities Act. No issue was raised and no decision was made regarding meteorites, meteorite ownership, public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. The 9th Circuit simply was carrying out their duty to review a challenge to an administrative decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. Although the decision was judicial it was strictly the final decision on a single administrative action and did not interpret or define anything in regards to meteorites, minerals or mining law.

You can read the Old Woman case HERE.

As for that BLM "Internal Memorandum" you might observe that expired a year after it was issued? It was neither law nor regulation and was not a public document. It really doesn't matter though because the woman who wrote that memo was in the archaeological resources office. Her job is to enforce the Antiquites Act. The Antiquites Act specifically exempts stone or mineral that has not been worked by men. The writer of that "Internal Memorandum" had no right to make any rules or regulations about stone or minerals. Even if the stone had been worked by a man the object and work had to be more than 100 years old and Archaeologically significant.

Quote

        (1) The term "archaeological resource" means any material
      remains of past human life or activities which are of
      archaeological interest, as determined under uniform regulations
      promulgated pursuant to this chapter. Such regulations containing
      such determination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery,
      basketry, bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures
      or portions of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock
      carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any
      portion or piece of any of the foregoing items. Nonfossilized and
      fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece
      thereof, shall not be considered archaeological resources, under
      the regulations under this paragraph, unless found in
      archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an
      archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph
      unless such item is at least 100 years of age.

Even if there were some traction under the Antiquities law mining claim locations are specifically exempt.

Quote

 

Sec. 470kk. Savings provisions

    (a) Mining, mineral leasing, reclamation, and other multiple uses
      Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to repeal, modify, or
      impose additional restrictions on the activities permitted under
      existing laws and authorities relating to mining, mineral leasing,
      reclamation, and other multiple uses of the public lands.

 

You can read the whole Antiquities Act HERE.

Now we still have the big elephant in the room. The fact that mining claims have been located, mined and patented for meteorite materials. After many court cases challenging those mining claim patents they are still as valid today as the day the claims were located. Despite all the meteorite collectors rumors and invisible "law" that big elephant is sitting right in the middle of one of the most significant falls in the world. Proof that mining claimants own all the valuable minerals within their mining claim - including the valuable meteorite materials. You can ignore that or pretend it's a one off case but several courts disagree with you. In fact the man that made those meteorite claims was the author of "The Law of Mines and Mining in the United States" - still in print today 120 years later.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe in trespassing on others claims, but someday it will be written in law on what a meteorite will be considered. I tend to think it will swade in way of the claim owner.... good info from everyone... thanks Lunk and Clay for the input. I am surprised with all the lawsuits nowadays, there hasnt been a civil case on this subject yet.

Dave

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Clay Diggins
      A review

      Anyone who uses the BLM LR2000 search function knows it can be a challenge to get meaningful results. Often the service is down but you aren't notified of a problem with the system until you go through the whole complex search process to discover there was an "error". Frustrating at times.

      Well it appears the BLM decided it was time to change the look and feel of the LR2000 search function. They notified users months ago that they were working on an improved version but they caught a lot of people by surprise when they introduced the NEW! IMPROVED! LR2000 on November 1 and shut down the functions of the OLD! BAD! LR2000 at the same time.

      Problem was they didn't tell anyone. The old LR2000 still appears to be there and will allow you to do a search. That search returns an error, as mentioned earlier that's not unexpected or uncommon when using the LR2000. I use the LR2000 a lot when I need the most recent information on a land or claim case file. It took me nearly 24 hours after the changeover to get fed up enough with the old LR2000 not working to try the new LR2000 which has been available but not working for the last nine months. I'm hoping the BLM will set up that old LR2000 web address to redirect to the new LR2000 page so others won't have to waste their time beating a dead search system like I did.

      The old LR2000 was clunky. It reminded me of an old unfamiliar broken down right hand drive truck with a Japanese language repair manual. It was really that awkward and counter intuitive. There were many blogs, manuals and videos devoted to explaining the esoteric mysteries of the BLM's version of public access to public records, I even helped write a few myself. I made good use of the old LR2000 on the days it was working and I was glad to have it when I could get results but it needed fixing.

      The new LR2000 has a cleaner less intimidating interface with a slightly simpler set of options. I really don't like the "black topo" background the BLM now puts on all their web pages. If you like the black topo theme you are probably going to like the look of these new search pages better than the old ones.

      The behind the scenes search function has changed a lot from the old LR2000. I tried it on several browsers and three operating systems. I had problems on every browser and system. The Search seems to hang in some circumstances, in others it returns results as quickly as the old LR2000. The actual search itself seems to be slower sometimes. Every browser I tried had problems when it had run a few searches. The searches would eventually hang and several loops would keep the browser so busy it would lock up. That's not something I'm used to experiencing. This is a new system so I'm hoping the BLM will get these glitches out soon.

      The results of each search now displays in a new interface. Essentially there will be a window frame on the results page with the document displayed inside the frame as a PDF. Like the old LR2000 there are options to download the document in several formats including Excel, PDF and HTML. You can now modify or start a new search from the results page.

      Land Matters has made an effort to bypass the clunky old LR2000 interface and allow you to directly access any claims BLM serial register page directly with a few clicks on a map. This turned out to be a lot quicker way to get information on claims in a specific area without having to pound through the old LR2000. Being a direct live link to the BLM the information is as current as possible unlike other mapping programs that present static information updated every month or so.

      When the unannounced changeover in LR2000 search systems happened it broke Land Matters system of direct access. With more than 380,000 mining claims being actively tracked Land Matters had a problem. Claims Advantage Members also get several reports a month. In the last two days Land Matters had released two reports with a combined total of more than 20,000 maps and direct links to a broken LR2000. That's 400,000 missing documents. Sometimes life can be.... interesting.

      Needless to say I have been busy. It took 24 hours but I deciphered the new LR2000 system, fixed the links to the serial register pages and corrected, compiled and uploaded new member reports. The mining claim serial register pages linked to on the maps load more quickly than the old ones did. If you have any problems with those maps or the Member Reports please let me know.

      Please try out the new LR2000 and share your experiences here. Try the Mining Claims Maps at Land Matters and marvel at the new search results. If you like the way the map link system works we can add the feature for a lot more types of research.
      Barry
    • By DolanDave
      Got out yesterday with 2 buddies to Franconia, AZ. meteorite hunting. It's been a long time since getting back out there. I didn't miss all the hot rocks, WW2 bullets and trash, digging 2 foot .50 cal bullets, ect. The GPZ handles hot rocks pretty good, but not out there, there are some hotter than a goats ass in a pepper patch. 😁 But overall it was a nice day, and we all beat the skunk. Here are some H Metal Iron meteorites found out there.
      Dave

    • By Clay Diggins
      The beginning of the Federal mining year is September 1st of each year. That's the date all mining claims owners need to have either paid a maintenance fee or filed a small miners waiver. If they don't meet the deadline or submit all the proper fees and forms their claims will be marked CLOSED in the BLM case files.
      Even though the final date is September 1st the BLM takes a lot of time updating their records. Generally most claimants that didn't file anything will be closed by January but the Small Miners claims are often not updated until the following year beginning in January.
      This is the time of year to watch for good mining lands to open up to claim. The closures dribble in in chunks throughout these months. Each BLM State Office sets their own priorities and deadlines internally so some States get their claims updated quickly - others take forever. This year Utah completed updating virtually all of their claims files in September yet California traditionally runs nearly a year behind.
      At Land Matters we track the progress on these claims updates. The most recent closures are reported to Claims Advantage members twice monthly. Those members get an interactive list of of the recently closed claims listed by state. It's not possible to get this list from the LR2000 because all closed claims actions are backdated to their effective date, usually September 1st.
      Here is a look at how many claims have not yet been updated to 2016 in the BLM databases and have not been closed. These claims are the ones that might still be closed by the BLM but have yet to be determined. Many of these claims are Small Miners status that won't be settled out until January or February of next year, many are in adjudication and many are claims the BLM State office just hasn't gotten around to updating.
      This chart is from November 1st. There hasn't been a lot of change in those numbers with the exception of Idaho. As Claims Advantage members know Idaho has since CLOSED 1,474 claims, opening up another 29,000 acres of land to claiming.

    • By Clay Diggins
      I made this chart to provide a basis for discussion of some other comparative charts I'll be posting soon. Just to be clear this chart does not include Alaska or the few claims that have not been posted to the LR2000 yet. Data is from November 15, 2015.
       
      This chart was a little awkward to make because of the elephant in the room. See if you can spot it. First one to spot it gets a free eBay claim (doc fees and shipping not included).
      Hint: It's blue.
       

       
       
    • By Rail Dawg
      We own several claims in Rye Patch and unfortunately we have witnessed something disturbing.
      BLM land is in squares next to private land that used to belong to the railroads.
      The private land for the most part is owned by some of the big mining companies like Newmont Mining.
      Recently there were several prospectors seen on both claimed land and on the private land owned by Newmont.
      We have been going to Rye Patch for years and know many of the claim owners.
      Prospecting on private land or on anothers claim without permission goes against the "code" we miners hold dear.
      They weren't on our claims (fortunately).
      We probably should have stopped by and asked if they had permission but we aren't the police and didn't want conflict.
      I'm posting this here because "claim-jumping" from what I understand is a felony.
      Perhaps these prospectors had the required permission but if not any gold obtained is basically stealing...
      Something most of us are very much against.
      Not sure what to do the next time we see these types of prospectors although if they are on our claims I know very well what we will do.
      Any advice appreciated.
    • By Clay Diggins
      I know a lot of you are waiting for the new updated Land Matters Mining Claims Maps. That update should have been available on Monday but the BLM is having some technical difficulties with its Secure Transfer Server and we have been unable to update the active mining claims information on our maps.
      Our contact at the BLM says the problem has been identified and  should be corrected tonight.  We should be able to access the data in the morning.
      I know this is a critical map update for a lot of our users. I'll post here as soon as the maps are updated.
       
×