Clay Diggins

Hey Matt, The BLM mining claim online mapping is months out of date. There are mining claims closed months ago still being displayed as Active claims on the MLRS maps. Not a reliable source. You will need to process the raw HQ MLRS data to determine recent closures. The MLRS data is made available by the BLM National Operations Center twice a month as a full MLRS database dump. You will need to register to access the data but it's free. The mining claims raw data download is about 35 Gb twice a month. Double that to 70 Gb (140 Gb per month) if you want the case recordation files too. That's as current as you will ever get on mining claims and federal land status in the United States. Land Matters has the most current claims mapping available anywhere. They also display thousands of current active mining claims that are unavailable anywhere else - including the MLRS, BLM, paid, free and State maps. Land Matters Claims Advantage Members receive twice monthly closed claims reports and maps - information unavailable elsewhere. You could do that as well with the raw data twice a month. Those are the facts. I wish you well in your efforts. I like the idea. If you want assistance with your project or you have questions I would be glad to help. Barry

Selenite is most commonly associated with large hydrothermal events. Selenite is an indicator of a sulfide deposit but not all sulfide deposits have gold or silver content. I've never seen Selenite associated with detectable gold. It could happen I guess, I haven't seen everything, but I'm thinking sulfide deposits that only show signs of light elements like bound calcium and sulfur are probably fully oxidized and leached and aren't going to have any detectable gold. There might be good gold values below all that light hydrothermal fluff but with the chemistry there it's unlikely to be free milling gold. Selenite is clear. The clarity is what gives Selenite it's name. The different colors and banding are due to impurities. Selenite is called all sorts of names. When I was a kid it was most commonly called "TV stone" because of it's fiber optic quality along the axis. Selenite is just another name for Gypsum. Alabaster is also Gypsum so is satin spar - all Gypsum just different names for the same mineral because it looks different.

It's Selenite. Hydrous calcium sulfate. The crystal of gypsum. The stuff that drywall and plaster of Paris are made of. It's not an uncommon mineral but very nice crystal groups do have some value.

I'm with you all the way on this one. If the BLM just completed the job they have been given by Congress we would all be better informed. The MLRS system was put in place to do exactly what you describe. In theory it should update the BLM online MLRS files and maps when the information is input at the State BLM offices. The first part is working - sort of. When a new claim enters the system or an existing claim is closed the public Serial Register Page is updated automatically. That system would work great if the information was input into the system. In many instances very little information is ever entered into the MLRS. New claims aren't checked for land status. Claims go years without a payment or filing yet are not closed. California has completed less than 40% of all the currently active claims filing paperwork. Also there is no control on invalid inputs into the MLRS like there was with the LR2000. Employees regularly mess up claim numbers (Idaho in particular is a mess), and land descriptions (I'm looking at Wyoming and Oregon) leading to the claims never appearing on a search or a map. All of that is easy to prevent with basic database and forms control. The second part, claims and land status mapping, isn't working well at all. Even if their maps did work the system they are using is very inaccurate and misleading. When claims and land status continue to go years without an update the map doesn't mean much for anyone actually interested in the current land status. So heck yeah lets see them do their job. That would be a nice convenience for prospectors. The claim boundaries are recorded and kept at the County Recorder's office. That is the place by law where mining claim locations are recorded and made a public record for all to view. The BLM doesn't have any mandate to produce accurate or current claims mapping. The BLM files are not public records nor can they be certified or attested to. There are "mining claims" in the BLM case files that have never been recorded or staked. Obviously the entity to request online claims maps from would be the County Recorder. Some County Recorders have big budgets and could pull it off but they never will. If residents of the County pushed it might happen but why would they? Most mining claims are owned by people from outside the County. That makes it a non starter on the County level. Luckily the County Recorder isn't beset with the same problems as the BLM. The County Recorder claims records are up to date and available for viewing by the public for free. Many (most) County Recorders in the mining states have free online access to their mining claim records. The ones that don't have online access will send you a copy by email on request. You don't have to get out of your chair. Claims research is a basic skill all successful prospectors learn. Prospectors have been doing this basic research of mining claim locations for thousands of years. Whether it was checking in with the local mountain Hefe , checking with the mining district office or stopping by the County Recorder it's been a basic part of prospecting as long as folks have been digging up rocks. Rule #1 - make sure you aren't digging someone else's rocks. GPS is a time protocol, I think you might mean lat/lon decimal degrees? That's really just your personal preference. In any case mining claims are located by aliquot part (placer) or metes and bounds (lode). That's the law and has been since 1872. Neither the public survey nor metes and bounds descriptions uses lat/lon nautical notation. All land descriptions in the United States have always been by public survey or metes and bounds. You could try to get Congress to change the mining laws to recognize nautical notation but I suspect you would garner more enemies than votes going down that path. Some of the oldsters here might remember pre 1976 when most Forest Service local offices would have their districts topo maps on the entrance lobby wall with the claims penciled in by the ranger. Times have changed.

Cats are good eating but why so much money?

Yeah the smaller lens can be hard to get used to. My Fuji has a 32mm lens but good glass gets real expensive fast as you go up in size. I don't take the Fuji into the field. I'm happy with my Zeiss because the exceptional image quality makes up for the smaller FOV. Most people use their loupes incorrectly. This leads to eye strain and frustrating searching for the "spot' you have an interest in. First rule of close lens work - keep your eyes open, peering with one eye closed doesn't improve the image but it does cause eye strain. Second - you don't need to put your eye next to the lens. Back your head up to allow light in. With a little practice you can stand at a normal posture with the loupe 1 - 2 foot away from your face. The lens image will be just as clear, better lit and easier to find the "spot".

You will want a triplet achromatic glass loupe mounted in solid metal. The achromatic lens design eliminates color banding. Aplanatic is good too - no curved edges. I have used an older version of the Zeiss loupe for nearly 50 years. It's rugged and you will see things you never imagined could be seen with a simple loupe. Here's one on Amazon. The usual going price for a Zeiss is about $120 but one at the link is less than $90. https://www.amazon.com/Optics-Aplanatic-Achromatic-Pocket-Magnifier/dp/B001EIMXLQ I have a Fuji manufactured loupe that is even better than the Zeiss but those are unavailable to the public. Look around and you can find some pretty good glass for less. Look for 10x triplet, coated glass, astigmatic and a milled metal lens mount. Avoid the loupes with a small long screw holding on a thin metal folding cover or loupes with plastic lens mounts. In my experience those are low quality and don't fare well in the field.

I think where you are getting confused is the difference between laws and regulations. Congress passes laws and executive agencies create regulations to implement those laws. The executive agencies can not change, reject or modify laws passed by Congress. Here is the part of the Wilderness Act passed by Congress that specifically allows prospecting in National Forest wilderness areas. It's clear and simple one sentence - part (d) (3) of the Wilderness Act: (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. You can download and read the whole Wilderness Act HERE You are also confusing government departments/agencies. The Department Of Interior controls the BLM. The Agriculture Department controls the Forest Service. The Agriculture Department rescinded their regulation (not law) that stated it's OK to prospect in Wilderness areas because it was just a duplicate of another regulation saying the same thing - just like the BLM did earlier this year. It's part of the ongoing executive branch clean up of null, void and duplicate federal agency regulations that has been going on all year. So yeah - barring another Congressional Act stating otherwise you are free to prospect in Forest Wilderness Areas. This does not apply to the eastern states Purchase Units commonly called forests. Those forests have no public land or public minerals. The vast majority of the minerals in the eastern "forests" are privately owned.

Incorrect. The BLM manages the entire federal mineral estate even when the surface manager is not the BLM. If a surface management agency wants to withdraw minerals they have to petition the BLM to withdraw the area - the BLM has the final decision in all cases. Not all withdrawal requests are approved. Several were turned down this year alone. Others were canceled. Also the Wilderness Act specifically allows prospecting in any wilderness. Laws are uniform throughout the United States. The prospecting exception in the Wilderness areas is specific to mineral investigation. There is no implication anywhere in law that hobby activities of any type are part of that exception. There is no prospecting right in most national parks (two exceptions). The Forest Service is the surface manager for the Superstition Wilderness.

You got it wrong Bob. It's the autumnal equinox and the nuggets are the size of taters. Other than that you post is entirely factual.

You can metal detect in the Superstition Wilderness or any other Wilderness as long as you are prospecting for minerals. No permits or permission is required since the Wilderness laws specifically allow prospecting. There are no mining claims in the Superstition wilderness. You can not detect for, recover or even disturb man made objects in a Wilderness. The areas to the north, east and south of the Superstition wilderness do have mining claims. For the most part these are few and scattered and should be easy to avoid. Look over the area in the Land Matters Arizona claims map and it should be pretty easy to plan a route that will avoid mining claims. If you are detecting for gold nuggets I would suggest you choose another location than the Superstition mountains. The area has been studied intensely for more than a century by mining companies and the federal and state governments. There is no evidence of detectable gold anywhere in the Superstition mountains. The area to the south is one of the most productive mining complexes in the world and there are some gold mines to the north and east but the geology of the Superstitions themselves doesn't lend itself to detectable gold.

I don't think your suggestions are bad Knomad. I'm not sure how you got that idea? I addressed all your suggestions and we discovered the only thing about Land Matters maps that you don't like is the mapping engine pan appearance. We can't change that and bring users advanced mapping. Maybe in the future there will be advancements in web mapping that will allow what you would like to see. Land Matters isn't in competition with anyone. Land Matters is an educational nonprofit charity. Our mission is to inform and educate. If others wish to inform and educate whether for free or for fee it's all good. We wish them well. As I said we have offered to help them with this problem. This thread isn't about promoting Land Matters it's about the bad outdated claim information being provided by every claims system (including the BLM) except Land Matters. Again we have to address the subject of this thread. I don't like calling out individual providers but The Diggins hasn't updated their claims information since January 11, 2021 - almost 5 years. You may like their mapping system but their data is ancient and misleading. The Diggins does use a google type map interface but they are limited to 4 map layers. As I previously stated - you can't have both complex mapping with many working layers and use the google maps system. I had hoped we could discuss the implications of a broken federal claims mapping system in this thread. Do you have any thoughts you would like to share about this bad claims information being distributed by the BLM?

Thanks for the feedback Knomad it really is appreciated. User feedback is priceless. Land Matters maps zoom in with either a zoom box (fastest), your mouse scroll wheel, or double clicking you can also use the + sign in the toolbar if you want. 4 different ways to zoom. Zooming out works with your mouse scroll wheel etc. as well. Land Matters maps will pan by right clicking your mouse and moving the cursor as well as selecting the pan tool. If you just want to recenter the map you are working on you can just right click on the map area you would like to be the new center of the map and the map will recenter automatically.. All these methods but the zoombox work without selecting a tool on the right. They are native functions built into every map. The maps have always worked this way. Land Matters maps will never refresh as you pan because each map view is created from scratch on our server as opposed to being stored tiled images assembled in your browser. With Land Matters you click some boxes or move the map and it results in an order being placed with our server on what the map you want has on it, our mapping engine on our server is built especially for the purpose of making you the map you want very quickly and sending the finished map back to your browser with no effort on your end. With google type maps you are handed the parts of the map you want with instructions for your web browser to assemble the parts into a map. Two very different mapping methods. We initially tried the google type tiled images method but it severely limited our ability to display complex maps with many layers. Instead we created our own map engine that is faster and much more capable of responding to user changes on the fly when adding many layers and user styles. It's a trade off and can seem awkward if you are expecting the standard google map experience but the mapping engine method really opens the possibilities for complex mapping and styling. Other than your perceptive comments on map refresh on panning the Land Matters maps already have all the zoom/pan functions you expected in a modern map. When I designed the control interface I tried to allow for at least two and preferably three methods of doing any map action. What that means is there are a lot more map functions than are at first apparent and you have several options to fit the way you prefer to work. If you read the HELP page linked on each map with a button you will find pages of descriptions of the map functions complete with graphics. I agree absolutely. In my business I use probably 12 different topo sets for just the reason you state. I miss that ability when I use the Land Matters maps. There is a problem inherent in using multiple streaming map services for presenting online mapping. As pointed out in my original post these government supplied map layers are prone to disappear, slow down at random times or partially fail and hang the map. That's not such a big deal when you are mapping on your own system but when 30 or 40 people are using the same streaming map layer at the same time and it fails it puts extreme loads on our servers. The user naturally gets frustrated and clicks the map a few more times (times 30 or 40 frustrated users) hoping to get the missing layer and suddenly my servers are being asked by 300 user requests to load a map that's somewhere in LaLa land while another 200 users are calling for entirely different maps that may be partially failing too if it's a busy day. The more of these maps we add the more likely the selection will fail and frustrate the user and bog down the server. It's a vicious cycle. The real internet isn't magic it requires constant maintenance. The set of base maps we have right now are relatively stable but that will change eventually and I will once again spend 4 hours stress testing several replacement maps to see if they will work. Most won't. That might all be OK if Land Matters had the resources to monitor these maps and swap them out for a different map when they begin failing or disappear. Being limited on resources we are often restricted to updating, monitoring and maintaining our existing maps or working on new user requested maps. It's just a matter of resource allocation. There are more reliable or better quality commercial versions of some of these map layers Land Matters could add. The problem with moving to a paid map subscription is that Land Matters has become very popular. Land Matters serves as many as 180,000 maps a day every day. millions every month. Commercial map services charge by use. This stuff gets expensive real fast. Land Matters is an all volunteer charity that just about pays the server, data, bandwidth and email bill most months. Land Matters concentrates on providing quality accurate up to date land information rather than fundraising. Several have said that is a strategic mistake and a business blunder. Maybe they are right? I'm no expert. Land Matters is still going after 11 years serving up the most current land status mapping available for free. That was the goal. Something the BLM has failed to accomplish after billions of dollars and several modern upgrades through the years. Have you tried using the BLM MLRS map interface for research? Please use what ever map you prefer and always feel free to suggest changes and improvements for Land Matters maps. We can't make it better if we don't know what users want. It seems we already have most of the features you requested but obviously we need to do a better job of making sure users know their options. Thanks for the input. For right now we are all going to have to use Land Matters mining claim maps if we want the most current claims information. That's just one map layer and just one map interface. You might find some of these new maps better for your method of working. I think it's really cool some of the features they have especially the file and drawing interaction.

You are welcome Shojo510. It wouldn't be possible without the many contributors that have kept things going these last 11 years. I'm just one volunteer. It is nice to be appreciated Thank you. I'm not sure why the BLM's contractors fail to fulfill the map data contract or why the BLM doesn't pursue a better outcome. I'd just be speculating if I were to try to answer that question. I don't think this could have anything to do with thinning BLM positions because the DOI won't start the ~800 layoffs RIF until next week. We still don't know if any of those layoffs will be in the BLM state offices where the claims are processed. The BLM has been working at very near their historical full force so far this year. The BLM currently (this week) has about 11,000 employees - just a few hundred less than in 2022 so there hasn't been any recent reduction in force. Another consideration - there was at least one lapse in their mapping system last year. This appears to be pattern that was established before even any talk of layoffs. Theoretically the way the MLRS is designed once the agent inputs the claim legal land description into the database the claim will be mapped automatically. I haven't seen that happen yet but that only applies to new claims. There are hundreds of closed claims that should be automatically removed from the map when they are marked closed, that isn't happening either. It should be a self updating map system. I don't know if it's due to a system failure or if it's internal policy but there are no automatic or current map updates. Believe me I understand as do most prospectors I suspect. Claim information has always been a sketchy process. Most countries have very clear mining claim systems that allow everybody to know what is taken and whats available. Here it's all based on miners working mineral ownership things out and making a public record of it all when they do. Which leads to claim maps like this one from Tombstone Arizona: Not something any prospector is going to feel confident interpreting. With the laws, timing and systems in place for mining claims in the US it's virtually impossible to know the exact state of mineral ownership on public land in real time. Lucky for prospectors the legal standard to avoid mineral trespass is "due diligence" meaning you did the best a reasonable person could do to determine the mineral status before you prospected. You don't have to be absolutely sure but you do have to have a reasonable verifiable research result to back you up if proof should be needed. As far as feeling frozen imagine this scenario - which I have already faced twice this year. Huge mining company wants to start a multi billion dollar project but wants assurance that the minerals can be legally mined, the mineral owners are fully identified and the mineral rights are secure. Just to add a little to the frozen aspect realize that each of these mining companies is acutely aware that they lose millions of dollars each year on mining claims that have been located on lands not open to entry. It's the second leading cause of mining claim closures just behind claim closures for non payment/abandonment. After I unpucker I deal with that situation by first educating the client as to the data quality assurances I have from my sources. A brief version: For the Private mineral ownership, including mining claims, I can provide certified title copies that will hold up in any court of law. On the other hand my government sources for public land status will only assure me in bold clear type and the finest government double speak on every "document" that I can not rely on their information. "NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM" And that's where we are all working from with the BLM. It's a real show stopper for a reasonable man. So if you really have to know the status before you move from your frozen position you are going to have to learn to move your research to the next level - public records - the County Recorder and the General Land Office. In the public records you will find all mining claim original location notices (County Recorder) and they will have the original locator map and location description as well. For public land status always check the patents (General Land Office) and warranty deeds (County Recorder) for the location because the government may own the surface but not the minerals or vice versa. You may also find the federal land was purchased by the government - in which case it can't be claimed. There are many things that affect mineral ownership other than active mining claims. Land mineral status research is very similar to genealogy but you aren't tracking humans through history you are tracking mineral ownership. Much like genealogy you have to understand the past to understand the present. All that sounds very complex and some of it is but there are some big hints in all those words. All the best spots aren't necessarily open to mining claims but may be available for prospecting. Places off limits to mining claims like Wilderness areas are open to detecting and other forms of non mechanized prospecting. Learn what TGA split estate minerals are and discover interesting prospecting possibilities that everyone else drives by. Look into areas like the Greaterville 50/50 lands where some of the largest nuggets in Arizona history have been found and are still being found - but no mining claims allowed There is probably almost as much land closed to mining claims but legally prospectable as there is claimable public land. If you would be happy with a nice patch or three to visit and are not interested in opening a mine that might be the best way to get started without freezing over whether some cranky miner already has a claim where you were going to detect.

Dang that a big well formed one. A real collectors piece.