Warning For Mining Claim Owners

[Clay Diggins]

If you own a mining claim in the lower 48 you may need to check the current status of your claim with the BLM.

On November 17th the BLM closed 28,340 mining claims.

On this same day last year they closed more than 20,000 mining claims. Many of the mining claims closed last year were closed in error. Although the BLM has reopened many of those mining claims closed in error last year many claim owners were left in limbo while the BLM tried to sort the mess.

Unfortunately you may find it difficult to check claim status with the BLM. At the same time the BLM closed the 28 thousand plus mining claims they shut down access to the MLRS claims mapping and removed 91% of claim owner names from the search databases and maps. Now it appears they have also shut down the online records entirely. There is no indication if or when any of these public services will be returned.

Land Matters Mining Claim maps have been updated since the claims were closed. The 28,000+ mining claims have been removed from the Land Matters claims maps. If you look on Land Matters and your claim isn't listed there is a very good chance your claim was closed.

The mass mining claim closure took place on November 17th and the Land Matters mining claim data is current as of November 20th. I think at present Land Matters is the only source for this closure information and they have the most current claims information. If you know of other more current claims maps please share them here.

You can also do a search on the Land Matters mining claim maps by the claim owner name and get the info on all your claims in one window. Land Matters did not remove claim owner information like the BLM did so you may have more luck searching Land Matters than searching the BLM (IF BLM returns the search tool functions)

Land Matters also sent out a very large report early this week to their Claims Advantage Members with every closed claim listed with individual maps and links to the BLM records. Now you know why they call it the Claims Advantage.

Land Matters educational charity was founded in 2014 for just these circumstances. After the BLM geocommunicator claims and land status map was taken down without notice or explanation in 2012 we noticed a lot of public information being removed from public access. We decided to do what the government has failed to do and aggregate and present this public information in a place that would be available to all people all the time.

I just looked and the Land Matters servers have been providing this updated mapping for the last 1,650 days without a single glitch. More than 100,000 maps are served some days.

And here is the remarkable thing. All these years and all this work are the result of an all volunteer non profit organization that relies exclusively on individual donations. Land Matters has no grants, has no advertising income, doesn't sell data and doesn't receive federal or state money. It really is a user supported resource. Thanks to all of you. 

 

Of course the Land Matters website is even busier with the BLM land mapping being closed. This has been a boom year for Land Matters user growth but like most small non profits it's been a tough year for donations. If you have found value in Land Matters and would like to see Land Matters continue to bring you public information there is no better time to make a donation. Or you could become a Claims Advantage Member by donating $100 or more and we will send you a copy of the 28,000 closed claims report along with another 23 (twice a month) for the next year.

I don't know yet if any mining claims that were closed shouldn't have been closed. I've heard a few complaints but I haven't had time to check them out. I certainly hope that isn't the situation this year. If I owned a mining claim I would be checking the status.

 

Barry

[GotAU?]

With that many closures one would think it was another administration error like last year… maybe?

[Clay Diggins]

14 minutes ago, GotAU? said:

With that many closures one would think it was another administration error like last year… maybe?

Oh ...probably.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence the error happened on the same date last year. 😅

[jasong]

Thanks for the update. I saw a note in the last MLRS data dump mailer that they said something about deleting names, wasn't sure what they meant by that exactly.

Haven't had time to catch up on all this stuff yet.

I hope the database isn't gone entirely? I'll have to check it all out when I get home. If they are planning on getting rid of the database entirely like you said, then I'm going to fight them on that one.

[Clay Diggins]

I didn't say they were planning on taking away the database jasong. I wrote that the online database access is gone now. It's been gone most of the day. Right now I can occasionally get a response from it but it fails more times than not.

Here is the actual impact of the BLM's redaction of claim owner names.

237,692 owner names removed. 91% of all names including historical records.

 

And here is what a case file serial register page looks like now.

You will find those replacement XXXXs in all the BLM records now - not just mining claims. If there was a claim transfer XXXXs same XXXXs for NOIs and POOs. New owner or drop an owner XXXXs.

[cobill]

Clay, 

I just checked one of my CO. claims and it's been CLOSED. I sent the claim paperwork on 7/26 called BLM in Sept and they said they didn't have the personnel to handle filings. I received my stamped/approved filings dated 5 Nov and my claims were marked Abandoned/Forfeited on 17 Nov.  Will the CO. BLM office fix their late processing and correct this?

Bill

[cobill]

I just called the CO. BLM office and they said it may take another week before the BLM site is updated and corrected. They have received hundreds of calls this week regarding CLOSED claims!

Bill

[Clay Diggins]

10 minutes ago, cobill said:

Clay, 

I just checked one of my CO. claims and it's been CLOSED. I sent the claim paperwork on 7/26 called BLM in Sept and they said they didn't have the personnel to handle filings. I received my stamped/approved filings dated 5 Nov and my claims were marked Abandoned/Forfeited on 17 Nov.  Will the CO. BLM office fix their late processing and correct this?

Bill

I have no idea Bill. The BLM has beconme very uncommunicative after years of a good relationship. We used to work with them closely on several projects including the MLRS. We didn't even receive notice of this data redaction until a week after they had done it.

If I were in your situation I would put my concerns in writing and send them a copy by registered mail. I think at this point it's going to be up to individual claim owners to get the BLM to correct their errors.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Barry

[jasong]

Thanks. Keep us updated if there is any kind of permanent alteration, or ongoing outages. I view the MLRS, or equivalent, as a critical and necessary government service and one of the things I consider my tax dollars well spent on. I also consider it critical for not just small scale miners, but the mining industry in general. I also view the proper management of our mining claims as critical to operation of our government and if the BLM is having a breakdown somewhere resulting in ongoing cancellation of valid mining claims, then IMO it needs to be brought to the attention of the proper people outside of the BLM and I will do just that.

Some states like Wyoming depend on mining for a majority of $ not just their royalties and tax revenue, but also for their labor market and general economy. Thus, it's much easier for a person like myself in a place like Wyoming than it is in almost any other state to get the ear of people that can make a difference in stuff like this, if not get it fixed entirely.

If you are able to get clarfication on what exactly their budget shortage is, or the exact reason for this disfunction please update us again.

[Redz]

It is unfortunate, as deleting the names makes it more difficult to contact claim owners, and more difficult to demonstrate you own the claim to others on your claim. Personally looking at the historical claims is useful.

I wonder how much actual consultation with stakeholders they did? Does this even feature in their decision making?