Jump to content

A Really Disheartening Prospecting Experience


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, jasong said:

We can agree to disagree, as we always have there Clay. First: CFR's absolutely can be presented in, and taken in consideration in a federal court room. Second, the same discovery requirement is found in both US code (Title 30, sec 23) as well as the General Mining Act of 1872. They all require a discovery to be made, usually prior to location.

We have two different interpretations of mining law. Yours tends to follow the corporate friendly interpretation where blanket staking 1000 claims with no prospecting work is within the bounds of the law. And mine tends to be an small scale mining and individual prospector interpretation where such things are not what mining law was intended for and can be challenged in court. 

 

Please don't try the strawman argument with me jasong. I respect you and your opinions but that respect will dissolve quickly if you try to put words in my mouth. I never even implied that a discovery wasn't necessary to locate a mining claim. My post was in response to your demonstratively false assumption that location discovery also had to be proof of a valuable mineral deposit for a claim to be valid. There is no such requirement or law.

Yes I often do work with those big mining companies as well as small miners like yourself. I don't see any need to defend their location practices. I have never experienced a mining or exploration company that didn't make a genuine effort to prospect and discover valuable minerals before locating mining claims. Not only would that be economically foolish but it would get their stock promptly delisted from the exchanges. There are strict due diligence and reporting rules for those who offer mining stock to the public. Those security exchanges rules are based on, and closely follow, the mining laws and court decisions.

I imagine some fly by night "mining" company may have foolishly tried to locate without discovery - crooks abound in all industries. Assuming a mining company hasn't made a discovery before locating claims is due to ignorance that is easily remedied. Look over the heavily regulated public statements mining companies are required to make when they add mining properties and you will find clear, well defined statements as to what their discovery, and location, are based on. It's public information.

And no - CFRs are not law, they are agency regulations. They can be presented in court along with public records, individual statements, pictures and affidavits from your mother stating what a nice boy you are. If your mother disagrees with the CFR regulations the court will give deference to the CFR over your mother's opinion but an actual law will always trump a  CFR. That's why the federal agencies are often ordered by courts to change their faulty CFR regulations to comply with the actual law.

I'm not engaging in an argument with you jasong. I'm attempting to educate yourself and others how the law actually works and what it means. Education is the key to cleaning up mining industry problems and misinformation just creates rancor and obstructs the goal of a clean working mining claim system. I appreciate you engaging with us on this subject, hopefully a better understanding of the issues for readers will be the result.

Ultimately I think Steve nailed it. The real base of the problem is unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the ignorance of uninformed claims buyers. When the rubber meets the road no mining claim is even worth the cost of the staking, recording and filing fees without evidence of mineable valuable minerals. A quit claim isn't a promise of value it's just one way to relinquish your individual right (or lack of rights) to a property - even if that property has no value or even if you don't own it. If we can communicate that simple fact to potential future claim buyers a lot of these problems will be solved.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ok. I've said my piece, you've said yours. We disagree on that topic, and that's ok but I am not interested in going back and forth about it on forums. I also quickly edited one part you quoted me on above right after I posted, since upon consideration I wanted to be as accurate as possible and I know that both of us support both large and small scale mining in different ways and my observation could be misconstrued in terms of absolutes. But I wasn't putting words in your mouth anymore than you've done to me here in a few different instances. So I'm good with stopping this whole particular line of discussion here before it gets personal. I respect your body of mining law knowledge and work with mylandmatters, I just happen to disagree with some of your opinions and interpretations, as you do mine, and there is nothing wrong with that. 

Anyways back to the original topic - I agree awareness of these shady claim sellers is good. I'm all for increasing it. But the problem is awareness only goes so far as people read or listen, and my observation is that most of these people getting taken in by these claim sales are not people that read forums. They usually aren't even people that read ICMJ or the GPAA mag. I've met more than I can even remember myself in the field. How do you reach them then?

Raising awareness is good, but it is ineffective if it doesn't reach the people it's intended to reach. The BLM could send out notices or require them to be distributed with any new claims sales (like the lead based paint disclosures required for houses), Discovery channel could post on their gold shows, that might reach more of the intended audience. But then you end up with the same sort of boilerplate warnings and notices that everyone ignores on their pizza boxes, coffee cups, and shampoo bottles eventually and we're back to square 1.

Sometimes you can't knock a brick wall down by banging your head against it for 50 years. Often real change involves a change of ideas and methods. The question. as always, is just how much it really means to people, and just how much they are willing to sacrifice (and potentially lose) to try to change things.

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...