Gulch Claim

[WesD]

I was researching online about filing a gulch claim, and found  this post, which I copied below. Can someone tell me if the part about 2 locators fitting in a 60 acre square is correct, or do they mean 80 acres? 

"Second only to acreage the gulch claim is a real problem. Sure, it's legal to file a gulch, but BLM discourages it and for good reason. If your claim is in an area which has been surveyed you are supposed to file in accordance with the Public Land Survey System. You can file a gulch if your minerals are in a very narrow area, such as a river. Although we've seen a lot of gulch filings we haven't seen many which are valid. While people know they can file a gulch claim by using metes and bounds such as "Beginning at the confluence of Slug Gulch an Starvation Creek and extending up Starvation Creek to the North with 50 yards on each side of the center line..." The gulch claim must still be constrained to 20 acres for one locator, 40 for two and so on. However, most people don't realize the gulch claim must fit into a 40 acre square with one locator, a 60 acre square for two locators and so on. Most people run their gulch claims across multiple 40 acre squares trying to take up as much creek as they can. It is not a valid claim. You should consult the BLM manual prior to filing a gulch claim. It's a risky type of claim but if you insist on doing it do it right and read up on it."

[goldbrick]

Thanks for the info. I did not know that.

[vanursepaul]

So would a lode claim following the vein be included in that scenario Wes???

Or are you referring strictly to placer?

Sounds like a way to once again get mo money!!

[WesD]

Paul Its a way of filing a placer claim in a steep canyon. But Im still unclear on the details about size and  how to describe the claim. For example in the section below, can 2 guys claim the gulch highlighted in red, or would you need 3 signers.

 

[jasong]

You'd need 7 claimants according to this quote you posted above wouldn't you?

Quote

The gulch claim must still be constrained to 20 acres for one locator, 40 for two and so on. However, most people don't realize the gulch claim must fit into a 40 acre square with one locator, a 60 acre square for two locators and so on. Most people run their gulch claims across multiple 40 acre squares trying to take up as much creek as they can. It is not a valid claim.

The highlighted section of gulch in your diagram only fits into a 160 acre square.

Or are they using the term square loosely and they actually mean rectangle? If then a rectangle can then be redefined in any way you choose including a 2 mile long skinny one taking up and entire river stretch, so I think it must mean square literally. But I really have no idea because I've never heard of a gulch claim until reading this.

I see what you are asking though. 60 acres doesn't correspond to any PLSS surveyed segments of a section (40, 80, 160, etc). But if this rule is real, then I assume you could just calculate the size of a square bounding 60 acres of area yourself.

Do you know where this gulch claim rule is codified? All I've ever read is that you can't use metes and bounds for a placer claim if it's been surveyed and you are able to describe the location by aliquot parts.

[klunker]

43 CFR 3832. 12(C)(3)

[Steve Herschbach]

BLM now charges fees etc. based on every 20 acres you have so there is less benefit to trying to stake claims over 20 acres. In cases like this I always stuck with 1320' x 660' claims at 20 acres each. One signer, no worries.

If you are ever subjected to a validity exam each ten acres of any claim must be shown to be independently valid, so technically you should look at claims as 10 acre blocks with each block being of mineral character.

[WesD]

Ya guys this Gulch claiming is a bit of a mystery. Probably smart to stick to the 1320 x 660 acre blocks to be safe.

One more question:

If a section is only surveyed for the 4 corners, and no quarter sections or quarter quarters are surveyed, can you still describe a claim by aliquot parts by dividing up the section on paper into quarters?

[jasong]

2 hours ago, WesD said:

One more question:

If a section is only surveyed for the 4 corners, and no quarter sections or quarter quarters are surveyed, can you still describe a claim by aliquot parts by dividing up the section on paper into quarters?

Yep, its pretty common for survey stakes to only be at 4 corners, or maybe 1/2 sections. Just be aware that not all sections are equal, some 1/4 1/4 sections I've seen have over 50 acres, some have around 30. Due to skewed or irregular section surveys.

I've claimed down to 5 acre parts (1/2 1/4 1/4 1/4 sections), just have to calculate their location yourself. You can do a fair approximation of this gulch claim by aliquot parts if you can make the parts small enough. The BLM told me nothing smaller than 5 acres though when I talked to an adjudicator about using 2.5 acre parts, not sure if it's actual code or not though or just something they prefer to make it easier for them to figure out where the claim actually is.

So for instance, if your gulch ran perfectly N/S then you could claim half a mile of it with only one claimaint by stacking four 5 acre E or W 1/2's up on top of each other along the gulch course. I kinda hate when I find claims like that but it is perfectly legal and allowed. There was one in Colorado that claimed literally the entire gold bearing portion of a river (miles) with just one claim and 8 claimants doing this.

One other thing that many do not know when claiming long pieces like gulches in aliquot parts, is that when doing this the BLM requires all the parts to be touching each other and contiguous, ie not caddy corner. They showed me the rule that talks about this but I can't remember where now so you'd have to look it up or ask them. Last year in Colorado I saw them make the claimaint file an amended location certificate though on a 10+ year old claim for this exact reason (and drop like 20% of the claim) so apparantly with enough time they do notice it. The CO headquarters is also the BLM national HQ though so I tend to think they are a bit more aggresive and by the book there.

This can sometimes make it very difficult to comply with the mineral character on every 10 acres, in reference to what Steve mentioned. Especially in canyons with lots of barren bedrock lacking terrace deposits. I'm not sure how aggresive they are in enforcing that though.

[vanursepaul]

Wes i had a long letter typed and lost connection grrrr..

Basically i said i think i would just claim both 40's--- you would end up with 4 20 acre claims which you could do by yourself.

Remember the rule for small miners exemption (if they still allow us to do that ---grrrr)

It would be easier to stake and easier for the BLM to understand and you should have no problems that way...you wouldnt have to always wonder if they were going to declare it null sometime in the future--- I would want it to be as clean of a claim as possible paper wise... Any little discrepancy would give them an excuse to nullify it.

Of course that would only happen it you were finding some really good gold there---hahahaha

Good luck with it,

and what did you say the SW corner co-ords were again????