How Many Small Miners Are There?

[Steve Herschbach]

Truth is all the government cares about is the paper chain and no breaks in it. There is no discovery on nearly all the claims filed by the major mining companies.

[nvchris]

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.

That part of the problem, nothing prevents the locater from relocating or amending the location notice on the 83'ed (or any) day prior. 

[jasong]

Yeah, I had a talk with Ken Loda at the Winnemucca BLM about that exact thing. I saw a bunch of surveyor kids out there just staking claim after claim and I went up and talked to them. They said they were contracting for an unnamed company and were surveyors (not geologists). I never once saw them do any kind of prospecting or make any sorts of discoveries, just hammer stake after stake in grids and wire wrap on their claim papers.

 

So I told Ken that I doubted these were valid claims and he said it didn't matter. But the claims adjudicators in BLM HQ in Denver tell a completely different story and told me plainly that a claim without a valid disocovery is not a valid claim and they would require discovery proof if they had the funding to enforce it, otherwise it's a matter for civil court. They provided me with a number of different cases which I can't remember now since it was years ago.

 

Anyways, from what I can tell, those blanket claims by the huge mining corps COULD technically be renderred BS by the courts if a guy had the time and money to fight them, but they have more lawyers than we have small miners probably.

 

Also, the BLM does occasionally devalidate parts of claims due to not being "mineral in character". Via prudent man rule, etc. They require some sort of discovery or prospecting to show it is. It'd be hard for those companies to do that on every one of their thousands of claims. The BLM just doesn't have the funding to enforce it, especially against companies with lots of lawyers that might render expensive lawsuits against the BLM.

[Clay Diggins]

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.

 

Thanks for that bit of wisdom Dave. You are of course right. Overclaiming someone in hopes that their claim will drop is claim jumping plain and simple. Overclaims don't become valid just because there is no longer a senior claimant.

 

We've found several ways to deal with claims mongers. The first and most effective way is to educate potential claims buyers to the inherent problems and pitfalls involved in buying a claim. With a little education about the process and exactly what you are getting when someone quitclaims their claim interest most buyers wise up to the crooks pretty quick. Once the money dries up claims mongers move on to more productive scams.

 

Most of these claims mongers are looking for an easy mark and are lazy about keeping their "claims". You can take advantage of that.

 

Often these 90 day recordings are not exactly sequential. Days often exist between mining locations expiring for lack of a FLPMA filing with the BLM. Watch for those gaps to come up and have a plan to discover and record a location notice before the claims monger gets the new recording into the county.

 

One usually successful tactic is to overclaim and sue the senior claimant, within 30 days of location, to challenge the validity of their claim. If you time your action right the claims monger is forced into paying the BLM fees and responding to a suit in short order. Make sure you do discovery work and have uninterested witnesses to all your staking and discovery work. Pictures and witnesses trump unprepared claims mongers in court. In most cases the claims monger never shows up for the hearing. They are looking for easy money, not exposure of their methods on the record.

 

Hint: You can get these suits shortlisted for a hearing in most state courts because they involve property rights. You usually have to note that status on your complaint. Requirements vary by state.

 

Probably the most effective method to shut down bad claiming practices is for miners to form a small local mining district. Make a rule that all claims in the district have to prove their discovery work to the district before the claim can be valid. Mining districts can't change State or Federal laws but they can add more regulation than exists at the State or Federal level. I'm a big supporter of the concept that miners should settle miner disputes among themselves and claims mongers are near the top of my miners vs miners list.

 

Hint: "Best practice" mining for a small district can be established within the bylaws and regulations of the mining district. The surface management agency can't produce an expert on best practice mining within your district but you may be able to. You can control the nature and quality of mining within your district if you keep it small and relevant to the deposit type and terrain. Smart self regulation works.

[Steve Herschbach]

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.

Claim filing establishes an order of precedence on the way to "perfecting" the claim. The first person to properly complete the process gets the claim. We are talking federal claims here. A person who never files with the Feds cannot possibly have completed the process required for having a federal mining claim. People rotating at the county level are knowingly trying to circumvent the process in order to not pay the BLM filing fees.

BLM will not invalidate a claim simply because it is filed over another. They simply monitor the paper trail but disputes are left up to the court. Do you think any federal person adjudicating the issue will back the guy rotating at county level over the person who has properly gone through the process of obtaining a federal mining claim? I think not. The people doing it know what they are doing, we know what they are doing, and any any judge will see what they are doing. There is no way any judge is going to legitimize the concept that you can have a federal mining claim in perpetuity while never ever filing with BLM.

I am however going to actually pay an attorney if need be to get legal backing for what is admittedly just an opinion on my part.

[LipCa]

Good question jasong.

 

How do you claim land that is already claimed another person without causing a "cloud" on their claim?

 

If someone filed over me, I would demand that they provide me with a Quit Claim of their interest.  They have "clouded my Title"!

 

I guess in your case, Steve, you take the position that they are not going to file with the BLM?

[Steve Herschbach]

I am taking the position that there is already proof they have not filed with BLM and simply keep refiling at the county recorder level. I am not talking about a guy that is following the rules but those trying to circumvent them. If you truly want the ground and truly want to protect your right, why would you not file with BLM as soon as possible? What valid excuse is there to never file with BLM?

I want every claim filed to get on the books with BLM as soon as possible and on LR2000 as soon as possible. People messing with the system at the recorder level are a pain in the ass.

[jasong]

If you truly want the ground and truly want to protect your right, why would you not file with BLM as soon as possible. 

 

Let me say I totally agree that system gaming is bad and one of the big problems we have within the mining community ourselves.

 

But I also wanted to say that there are good (IMO) reasons to stake and county file but then never file with the BLM. I do it occasionally myself when I find a new patch or a nice paystreak while dredging. I've made a discovery and it might support an economic mining operation. But often after further exploration it turns out to be just an isolated patch, or just an isolated pay streak as I explore further. It turns out to be uneconomic. So I never file with the BLM and let it all expire and drop and pull my posts.

 

Saves the BLM time and money, saves me time and money, and keeps land open for prospectors that come after me. There are countless places in AZ with 160 acre claims that were filed over 100x100ft singular isolated patches and it avoids that problem too. Because part of prospecting is being able to explore, to correlate and connect geologic clues across large areas. And that is impossible when everything is claimed up.

 

So, just my opinion, but I think there are valid reason to just stake and file county paperwork. But I absolutely despise the recurring 90 day paper claiming tricks ebayers use.

[Clay Diggins]

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.

 

The only time an Notice is required by the BLM is when an existing POO has not completed their reclamation and wish to conduct new operations on the unreclaimed lands. That a far cry from requiring an NOI (Notice of Intent) in all circumstances that are not casual use.

 

Here is the only regulation making an Notice mandatory, look closely and you will see that the regulation refers to "notice of your operations" - not a notice of intent:

§ 3809.21

You must submit a complete notice of your operations 15 calendar days before you commence exploration causing surface disturbance of 5 acres or less of public lands on which reclamation has not been completed.

 

Here is the definition of reclamation:

43 CFR Subpart 3809

§ 3809.5

Reclamation means taking measures required by this subpart following disturbance of public lands caused by operations to meet applicable performance standards and achieve conditions required by BLM at the conclusion of operations.

 

I'm not suggesting that NOIs don't have a valid purpose or should never be submitted. I am saying that there is no law or regulation that would permit the BLM to insist that the miner submit an NOI. NOIs are self initiated by miners who are unclear whether their use will constitute undue or unnecessary surface disturbance that requires a plan of operation. It's a consulting action on the part of the miner - not a requirement that can be enforced by the BLM.

[Steve Herschbach]

OK, let me try again. I am not talking about a guy that stakes ground, and in 90 days does not file with BLM and walks away. No issue with that at all. I am talking about the guy the files with the recorder and in 90 days does it again and in 90 more days does it again and in 90 days does it again and on and on. They want to hold the ground but they do not want to pay BLM fees so they play this game.