How Many Small Miners Are There?

[Steve Herschbach]

I have had federal claims and even though I qualified for the small miner exemption I elected to pay the fee. Does that mean I was a "big miner"?

I still have state mining claims in Alaska. Alaska state claims there is no exemption. You pay annual rental fees, and they escalate every five years.

[Steve Herschbach]

It's the 90 day wonders that fly under the radar.

Seems like half the "claims" being offered on ebay and such sites are just filed @ the county level and refiled every 90 days.

Ive even seen them in withdrawn areas and filed (county) over active claims.

This denies BLM the fees and data, and where applicable local taxes.

FWIW beware of any claim offering that has a document fee...

Risky business. Let's say a guy is doing that, just refiling at county every 90 days. I become aware of this. So I go in and quietly stake the ground just before the 90 days runs out, except I go straight to BLM and file with them also. If guy waits until the 90 day mark and refiles at county level, the chain to perfecting the claim breaks and they are now my claims.

[Clay Diggins]

I find it ironic that most claim owners view the small miners waiver as an exemption from paying the maintenance fee.

 

In 1992 when the feds started charging an $100 annual fee for mining claims the fees were sold to miners by Congress as an exemption to ("in lieu of") performing the mandatory annual labor that had been required for the previous 121 years.

 

Large mining companies loved the mandatory fee and had lobbied to drop the labor requirement.

Small miners were blindsided and insisted on a labor alternative  (The average wage in 1993 was half of what it is now).

 

As a result the mandatory $100 fee was abandoned the following year and the small miners waiver was introduced along with the mandatory maintenance fee for claimants with more than 10 claims. A compromise that lasted nearly 20 years.

 

To me it's obvious that:

The maintenance fee favors larger mining companies.

The labor requirement favors small miners.

The maintenance fee overall encourages reduced claim development and more corporate "banking" of mining claims.

The labor option encourages er... requires claim development.

 

Just some personal historical observations. Which is better is a matter of perspective.

[Quick]

You can bet the small miners waiver will be changed in the near future.

To tell you the truth I would love to see it go below 5 claims. There are just so many claims being tied up and not being mined because of the 10 claim limit.

Back before my time If you had a claim you had to do your assessment work of at least 10 feet of digging on a load or placer claim. My father said the old timers that couldn't get it done would hire the local teen age boys to do the work for them. It was guaranteed the government man was going to be out checking. If the work wasn't done he was going to invalidate your claim.

Now I think it is just about the money.

Clay Diggings I would love to see a graph on how much money the BLM receives every year.

[Clay Diggins]

Clay Diggings I would love to see a graph on how much money the BLM receives every year.

 

I'm working on that one Root. Since the placer fees went up the State BLM offices get to keep that money locally. It's really changed the way they deal with placer claimants now that their picnic fund is affected.

 

It's looking like about a 55 million a year bonus program this year. That's a whole lot of picnics.

[Clay Diggins]

Yeah, even not all BLM NOI's are created equal. For instance Canon City district now requires a NOI and bond to operate any motorized equipment on the Arkansas river. But it's only like $250. A small scale backhoe operation is 10x as much for reclamation bond, so they aren't really the same thing. even the BLM office refers to dredging as "recreational" or "casual" while still requiring their NOI and bond. The USFS in Medicine Bow Nat Forest in Wyoming requires NOI's for a 2" dredge that I can outdig with a hand shovel too and they cap the nozzle size to 3" even though you have to do a NOI...go figure. 3" is a toy.

This is a common misunderstanding jasong. NOIs are self initiated by the miner. There is no provision in law or regulation for the BLM to require an NOI of a miner.

 

POOs can be required after a determination and notice to the miner. Whole different deal on a plan than a notice.

 

Now if we could only get the BLM to read their own regulations and stop spreading BS.

 

Also in some cases the BLM handles the NOI for the USFS, also from personal experience in Colorado, same way they manage mineral leasing on other agency's land too.

The BLM is the only federal subsurface manager so they handle all mineral leases and mining claims no matter which surface management agency is involved.

 

The BLM is also the surface management agency for lands entrusted to their care. The BLM and all Interior Department surface management regulations are found in 43 CFR.

 

The Forest Service is strictly a surface management agency. They do not handle mineral leases or mining claims. The Forest Service and all Agriculture Department surface management regulations are found in 36 CFR. You might find 36 CFR 228.41 (c - e) enlightening.

 

If you read through those CFRs you will find that the regulations pertaining to surface disturbance by mining are very different. The BLM and the Forest Service have entirely different approaches to regulating surface disturbance. As an example only the BLM feels a Notice requires a bond.

 

Considering the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior have different duties and different regulations and there is no MOU or agreement between them as to shared surface management duties I'm puzzled how you got the impression the BLM, could or would, handle a cross agency NOI?

[nvchris]

Risky business. Let's say a guy is doing that, just refiling at county every 90 days. I become aware of this. So I go in and quietly stake the ground just before the 90 days runs out, except I go straight to BLM and file with them also. If guy waits until the 90 day mark and refiles at county level, the chain to perfecting the claim breaks and they are now my claims.

 

Thats (or a similar method) worked for several of us fighting this "practice". 

[jasong]

There is no provision in law or regulation for the BLM to require an NOI of a miner.

 

POOs can be required after a determination and notice to the miner. Whole different deal on a plan than a notice.

 

Now if we could only get the BLM to read their own regulations and stop spreading BS.

 

 

I'm puzzled how you got the impression the BLM, could or would, handle a cross agency NOI?

 

I don't understand your first statement, NOI's are in the CFR same as POO's. 3809.1 defines the difference between casual, notice, and plan level operations and 3809.11 defines when a miner must submit a NOI. Each office defines casual use based on whatever their local criteria is, and anything exceeding that requires a NOI. I don't agree with that process personally, but I'm certainly not self initiating my NOI's, the BLM is requiring them from me.

 

Are you just saying the line between casual and NOI level mining isn't defined properly in the CFR thus NOI's  should not technically be required? Good in theory, but look at any mining that took place before the 90's, NOTHING was ever reclamated at all. People would just go around ripping stuff up...if enviros are mad now, think how it would be if every joe with a backhoe went around digging up land and leaving it legally. I'm not so certain the NOI requirement is a bad thing personally, even if it's a pain.

 

On the second point: it's not an impression, it's my personal experience. I have a claim on USFS that the BLM requires me to file a BLM NOI and bond to dredge. Not just my claim either, they were requiring it were all claims including those on USFS land on the Arkansas river. I explained to them it was not their land and they insisted it didn't matter so I quit pressing the matter. Unless something has changed in the last few years I believe that requirement is still in place. Feel free to take that one up with them though.  Royal Gorge field office in Colorado.

[auendave]

Risky business. Let's say a guy is doing that, just refiling at county every 90 days. I become aware of this. So I go in and quietly stake the ground just before the 90 days runs out, except I go straight to BLM and file with them also. If guy waits until the 90 day mark and refiles at county level, the chain to perfecting the claim breaks and they are now my claims.

seems to me that if you file the claims with the county and then go to the blm and file before the 90 days are up you would not become the owner of the claims after the previous claim owners 90 days are up because your claim is invalid because you over filed his, you would still have to beat him to filing the papers after the 90 days are up.

[jasong]

The question I have with that method is staking before the 90 days is up requires you to make a discovery first. How do you make that discovery on a valid claim without comitting mineral trespass?

 

I guess you could make a discovery on an adjacent portion of unclaimed land (assuming there was one) and make your borders enclose part of the other person's claim. With a placer claim I guess you could show in court that the deposit was easily inferred to be located on the other claimaint's land. With a lode it might not fly though, especially if your discovery had no actual exposed veins.