Clay Diggins

Mining claims are not public land Lunk. The minerals are segregated from the public, they belong to the claim owner. It's true that if a meteorite falls on private property it belongs to the property owner. The public lands of the United States do not belong to the government they belong to the public. When a mining claim is located the minerals are granted to the locator. All members of the public that are citizens and have reached the age of majority can make a mining claim on lands open to location. You can not locate a mining claim for meteorites but you can locate a mining claim for meteorite minerals. On public lands where the minerals are still open to the public recreational and commercial collecting laws are in effect. As I recall those are based on a certain number of pounds per year. Commercial collection requires permits and taxes the same as any other lease or sale of public land materials.

I don't know how that rumor got started Dave. There is no such exemption and never has been. All valuable minerals on a mining claim belong to the claimant. Meteorite minerals are valuable. Heck they are usually sold by the gram which puts them right up there with the most valuable minerals found. Mining claims have been located, mined and granted patents for the meteorite minerals discovered on the claim. If you get right down to it all the minerals on every claim were put there my meteorites.

According to the Master Title Plat those sections are part of the same land action. Without looking each section up I'd have to say the odds are high they both have the same private subsurface status as Section 19. The Case Number for those odd sections is Nv 050293. With a little research you could know for sure. The Master Title Plat will give you the status of each Section in that Township.

According to the Serial Register page Section 19 is split estate. The surface is BLM managed and the minerals are privately owned. This doesn't make a lot of sense considering the ownership history there but it is how the government has the split estate classified. To prospect or mine Section 19 you would need the written permission of the private mineral owner. You will need to visit the Humboldt County Assessor to find out who the current owner is. One individual and one company have mined that area in the past. The last approved mining there was closed out in 1998. There may be a private mineral lease there now but there is no way to know until someone begins the mine permit process. The one thing that is clear is that there can be no prospecting (including metal detecting) or mining on Section 19 without the mineral owners written permission.

It wasn't personal Mitchel. You know I'm always looking for a good opportunity to educate and you just happened to be the one to bring the right materials for me to work with. From our conversations and meetings I know you are always concerned with the status of the land you prospect. Thanks for letting me play a little on your dime. Barry

Thanks for the kudos and your continuing support Dawg. I should point out that Land Matters is a group effort based on volunteers and donations from the public. I myself am a volunteer. Land Matters has a board of directors (I'm not an officer) as well as a nearly full time director. There are no paid employees and no advertising. I couldn't do what Land Matters does without the help of the many volunteers and donors. Many of those volunteers and donors post on this forum. Land Matters couldn't exist without those individuals support. This isn't really all about me, I'm just the loudest voice among many. My personal thanks go out to the many donors, supporters and volunteers that make Land Matters possible. Barry

This is disturbing to me Mitchel. I made that map and all it shows is who the land manager is and which sections have claims. The simple fact that the BLM is the land manager does not mean the land is open to prospecting or claim. I took the next step for you. I downloaded the Master Title Plat (MTP) for that Township with a click on the Land Status map. The MTP clearly shows that most of the the odd numbered Sections have restricted minerals - as in not yours. So no you can't just look at a simple map and say to yourself "hmmm no claims and it's BLM managed so I'm good to go". The reason this is disturbing to me is myself and others have spent a lot of personal time and money providing free tools and tutorials so the average prospector/researcher can know how to do their legally required Due Diligence before they put boots on the ground. The tools and information are now freely available. Abdicating your personal responsibility to know the land status before you prospect because I provided a map of claimed areas was not the intent of my work. Please don't use Land Matters as an excuse for criminal behavior. Ignorance is never a defense against a prosecution for mineral trespass or mineral theft. The talk here has been of "Claim Jumping". Claim Jumping is the act of trying to steal a mining claim with paperwork and lawyers. Taking minerals from a claim you don't have permission to prospect is highgrading - not Claim Jumping. Higrading in all cases involves the theft of minerals owned by someone else. Apples and Oranges. I get correspondence from a lot of claim owners complaining of higraders. This is not new to mining. Several studies of commercial placer mines have shown that higrading is the biggest threat to a profitable operation. Anyone that has worked for the larger mining companies know they spend a lot of time, money and hours ensuring their minerals are not stolen. Higrading is on every mining companies radar. I often hear excuses like "If the claim isn't marked it's OK to prospect" and the even more common "It's the claim owners responsibility to maintain signs". Neither is true, a few States require corners be checked on an annual basis but in point of fact most states have no legal requirement that claims must maintain markers. In several states corner markers are not required at all for some claims and monuments only have to be present at the time of location. Although as a practical matter the claim owner should do everything possible to put others on notice of the claim it is not the legal responsibility of the claim owner to use signs or markers to keep prospectors off their claim. Prospectors, unlike the general public, have a positive legal duty to know the mineral status of the land before entering to prospect. The claim owner put other prospectors on legal notice when they recorded their "Notice of Mining Claim Location" into the public record. That public record suffices as proper notice under the law even if there are no stakes at the mining claim location. The public record is open for inspection to all people. Potential prospectors need to examine the public record before entering the land to prospect. Land Matters provides links to all the County Recorders right on the Mining Claim maps to assist you in accomplishing that requirement. Where Land Matters could do better is in providing the subsurface mineral status of the lands. As you've seen above not all BLM managed land is open to prospecting or location. It's not just a matter of mineral withdrawals but more subtle issues like those odd numbered sections in parts of Rye Patch that were reconvened and were never open to location. There was no withdrawal there because there were no mineral rights to withdraw. Often those minerals have already been sold or leased. If you are found extracting minerals from these restricted lands the BLM will bring charges of criminal mineral theft. It happens quite often and is frequently prosecuted for something as simple as taking a pickup load of gravel or sand. Then there is the big mass of "dark matter" that is the subsurface estate still owned by the United States. There are nearly 7 million acres of mineral lands, often available for prospecting and location, underneath private lands in the west. Mining companies know this and have legally mined private lands for years. It requires a huge amount of research to determine just where these hidden mineral lands are found. The BLM is tasked with maintaining the records of this huge subsurface estate but between the BLM and mining companies the attitude seems to be "out of sight - out of mind". With very few exceptions these records are available but virtually unobtainable by the average researcher. Land Matters has plans to map these subsurface mineral rights but it's a huge project with little public interest beyond the landsmen and oil and gas industries. We need to see some real public interest before we will commit the resources needed to complete such a big project. Now to the tough part. Most of these complaints I receive of higraders are about metal detecting. Rarely do I hear of processing equipment being used. At least 9 out of 10 reports of higrading I receive are about metal detectorists taking the best and biggest gold. Several of you on this forum have been named by claim owners. I'm not the enforcement guy and I will not be calling you out in public but I do know. For small miners trying to protect their owned minerals from higrading the pointy finger is mostly about metal detectorists. I do know that few of you set out with the intent to detect someone's minerals. In most cases these violations are due to ignorance, intentional or otherwise. Assuming that signs are required or that unclaimed BLM managed land must be available for prospecting are just two examples. I have heard from many prospectors that the big mining companies (or someone who appears to be working for a mining company) allow prospectors to work their claims. I've never found a prospector who had a name, phone number or signed release but this seems to be one of those things "everyone knows". I can tell you that no mining company that has public shares could ever legally allow you to prospect their claims without a work contract. The simple fact that you haven't been caught or run off does not amount to permission. Please learn to do your own due diligence. Please respect mineral owners rights, those minerals are their private property under the law. With a little luck and hard work you could own a good deposit yourself. Barry

The Land Matters Mining Claims Maps have been updated to October 15 ...finally! The BLM Secure Transfer Server was finally repaired late last night. We got the download after midnight. You now have access to the most up to date mining claims maps available. Thanks go to Kathy Ferguson for her assistance at the BLM Denver Applications Support Section, National Operations Center. There are good BLM employees and Kathy has always been responsive and helpful There are about 1,000 acres of claims being opened up in Northern Washington State around where the Kinross gold mine is operating. This is a big deal in a small mining State. Washington State prospectors are going to have fun exploring those new areas. California is still working on mining claim case files from two mining years ago. As usual Utah State BLM is doing their job very professionally and are progressing with their updates in a timely manner. Two different worlds in those two BLM offices alone. Thanks go out to Utah BLM for taking mining case files currency seriously.

I know a lot of you are waiting for the new updated Land Matters Mining Claims Maps. That update should have been available on Monday but the BLM is having some technical difficulties with its Secure Transfer Server and we have been unable to update the active mining claims information on our maps. Our contact at the BLM says the problem has been identified and should be corrected tonight. We should be able to access the data in the morning. I know this is a critical map update for a lot of our users. I'll post here as soon as the maps are updated.

Here's the map I made Mitchel. It originally had the withdrawn area (6 States) but the BLM took down the data stream when it got some attention on the Hill a few months ago. The claims that were affected are still on that map - Land Matters created that claims map by hand. There were 6,997 ACTIVE Mining Claims in the withdrawal area. Nevada was the most affected with 5,872 Mining Claims. I contacted the BLM when they proposed the withdrawal asking for the data files to create the map. More than two years later and I still haven't had a response. That's why we had to rely on their data stream to display the withdrawn area. We try to host all our map data on the Land Matters servers but the government isn't always good at sharing the things they are required by law to share. Go figure. Click on the Link at the top of the map to see the report Land Matters made on the effect on mining claims from the withdrawal.

The 10 million acre Sagebrush chicken withdrawal is no more! The withdrawal has been withdrawn. BLM cancels 10 million acre Sagebrush Focal Area Withdrawal Proposal Read that and then go beeping. 10 million acres is gonna take you a few weekends to detect so get started early.

Google Chrome is planning to roll out these changes the 17th of next month Steve. I imagine if there is going to be a problem you won't see it until the latter part of October. Since Chrome auto updates it probably won't take long for the changeover. Then again it seems most posters are using Firefox? On my servers about 40% the users are browsing with Google Chrome. Maybe prospectors are smarter than researchers?

The problem is limited to the Google Chrome browser. Any other browser will not have the problem. The bonus of choosing another browser is you won't be giving Google all your browsing history. The drawback? You tell me. I use several browsers on several different operating systems and I only keep Chrome browser around for testing purposes. Chrome is the most invasive browser ever made. Your opinion may vary. Steve you don't have to pay for a Certificate. Lets Encrypt is a free self regenerating Certificate program. No need to pay $30 a year for a Certificate any more. Google Chrome is now going to be replacing content from outside your domain with security warnings. That means all the linked in pictures and documents on these forums will be replaced with warnings. Shades of the recent Photobucket FU. It's time to get a certificate or get rid of Chrome browser. As a site owner I'm left with little choice but if I were just a user I would choose to dump Chrome.

A record of public notice (usually with the County Recorder) as well as an FLPMA filing with the BLM is required for every year you intend to hold a mining claim location. Fees paid do not change that requirement. Here is the text and a link to the Federal laws on mining claims. This applies to all Mining Claims on the public lands. "43 U.S.C. §1744. Recordation of mining claims Claim validity can only be determined by a court of law. Prospectors and subsequent locators have no right to independently determine the validity of a mining claim. Should you feel that a mining claim is invalid you have the right to make an adverse location, file and serve suit on the senior locator within 30 days and prove in a court of law that your adverse junior claim is valid. That's a tough row to hoe because courts are traditionally very lenient with the method and execution of public notice by a claim owner in possession. The process of attempting to prove an adverse claim based on paperwork alone is known as claim jumping. The courts hate claim jumping. An unsuccessful claim jumper may find themselves subject to charges of criminal mineral trespass. After all by publishing your mining claim location you are declaring you have discovered valuable minerals within the location. If your junior location proves to be invalid you have already admitted on the public record evidence of your trespass. Tricky business. So is the claim valid? There is only one way to find out ...

Good points Jim. Steve, Bismuth Telluride is an entirely different beast. It's the favored semiconductor for high energy applications. Unlike the element tellurium it's an excellent electrical conductor. It's probably the best thermoelectric conductor available so it's used extensively in high energy high/low heat environments. When doped with tin it's conducting properties are excellent and I imagine gold could have a similar "doping" effect. The sample picture you linked to appears to be a gold nugget with some included tellurides rather than a true mineral composed of gold/bismuth/tellurium. The mineral that contains all those elements is the sulfide Buckhornite which is black in appearance. It is known to be associated with free native gold in the Buckhorn mine near Boulder Colorado so there is a possibility of a highly conductive detectable conglomerate occurring. It appears you have an example of that. Perhaps that's what your sample nugget is. It would be interesting to see a picture of the included bismuth/tellurium crystals. I imagine those are rather rare nuggets.

Tellurium has about half the electrical conductivity of gold. Silver is the most conductive metal with gold having about 75% the conductivity of silver. Not sure how that translates to detecting ore.

If you haven't done your annual BLM FLPMA filing yet your time has run out. Yesterday was the last chance. The BLM shows September 1 as the final date but that is a trap for people who rely on the BLM information rather than following the law. The BLM has a special treat for those who follow their instructions. Just ask Art Anderson (PDF). In Art Anderson, 181 IBLA 270, GFS(MIN) 14(2011), the IBLA found that a placer mining claim was forfeited when the claimant attempted to file a small miner waiver certification on September 1, rather than on or before August 31. On September 1, 2010, plaintiff tried to file a small miner waiver certification with BLM for the 2011 assessment year. BLM rejected the waiver certification because it lacked the signature of one of the claim owners. Id. at 272-73. Plaintiff appealed and on appeal, the IBLA stated that had plaintiff submitted a timely certificate, BLM’s rejection of the waiver certificate would have been in error. BLM should have accepted the certificate, notified the claimant of the defect, and given the claimant 60 days’ notice to cure. Id. at 273. However, the IBLA determined that plaintiff did not timely submit the certificate. Prior to 2007, the assessment year began at 12:00 p.m. on September 1 of each year. In 2007, Congress amended the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 to make the annual assessment year commence at 12:01 a.m. of each year. . Id. at 274. Claimants are required to submit a claim maintenance fee or waiver certificate before the commencement of the assess- ment year. Id.; 30 U.S.C. § 28f(b). BLM has not yet amended its regulations to reflect the change in the 2007 legislation and 43 C.F.R. § 3834.11 (a)(2) still provides that the annual maintenance fee is due on or before September 1 of each year. Nevertheless, the IBLA held that the statute is self-operative and that failure to timely pay the maintenance fee or submit the waiver certificate causes the claim to forfeit by operation of law. 181 IBLA at 275. BLM still hasn't corrected their regulations, websites or information handouts to reflect the changes to the law in 2007. As Art Anderson found out that doesn't prevent the BLM from closing claims that haven't had an annual required informational filing before September 1.

Congratulations Rios. It looks like your hard work and optimisim is paying off. Thanks for sharing your adventure!

It's a civil matter Steve. As I pointed out before the first Mining Act in 1865 took the government out of the business of adjudicating mining claim disputes. Whoever maintains possession of the claim has the right. If you dispute that possession you can sue and it becomes a civil matter for the first court of record at the local level. The federal courts have no jurisdiction in a civil matter. Courts can't act just because something seems wrong you have to sue another person over an unsettled controversy before a court can be formed to consider the issues. I've heard of these supposed civil claims. I have serious doubts they exist but I guess some people could be that stupid and cheap. Seems to me any mineral deposit worth working would be worth paying the $155 per year fee. Seems like the County Recorders fees over a year would add up to nearly that with gas and time added on... If you know of such a situation (in real life) it's pretty easy to defeat. Just make your own location the day before theirs expires at the County (90 days). Then the original claimant has the choice of paying the BLM their fees within 24 hours or they can suck eggs. If they do run down to the BLM within the 24 hours you are just out the time to stake and if they don't you can go ahead and record and file the new claim as usual. Either way their silly game is over. As always witnesses without a direct interest in the claim and photo documentation are important when staking. If this imaginary situation is in California all you need to do is erect a monument with the location notice to start a placer claim.

For Small Miners the Federal filing deadline was set by Congress as December 30. If you paid the maintenance fee timely your annual federal filing requirement has been satisfied but you still need to make your annual public record. Each State has the right to set shorter periods in which to record. In Arizona for example the State deadline for making your public record is December 30 just like the Federal requirement. California I believe is October 31. I'm pretty sure Montana is September 30. I may be wrong about any one of those dates so please look up your state's requirements. With so many different date requirements for public notice it would be misleading to announce any particular recording deadline in the flow chart. The BLM filing deadline is clearly indicated but recording deadlines are not indicated for this reason. That's why the flowchart and guidelines are general as to the State requirements and specifically only address filing not recording. This warning is also included on the flow chart. In the end it's up to each claimant to do their own due diligence regarding filing and recording requirements. The flow chart and general guidelines are designed to help claimants to understand the process of staying current on their federal filing requirements. There are several circumstances that are not even mentioned in these aids like how to file if you don't have physical access to your claim, you are on active duty overseas, you have a first half patent certificate or your claim case status is under review for wilderness/National Park etc.

When you encounter a "paper claim" you have the option of making a valid location over it and suing the paper filer in civil court to remove the cloud on your title. You are not guaranteed success because there is a long history of the courts allowing miners a large leeway in the legal process. Essentially it comes down to the senior claimant's intent when you are the junior claimant attempting to remove their title claim. Intent is a very hard thing to prove if the paper filer actually shows up in court. The BLM overstepped their bounds if they told you the claim was void due to a lack of a public record. The Federal government is specifically excluded from making determinations about the validity of the public record or acting, or even commenting, about the strength of one location over another. That's because the very first Mining Act that enabled mining of the public lands did so by declaring that the fact that the land was owned by the U.S. had no part in determining the validity of any claim. The entire mining claims system rests on the foundation of this one simple 1865 law. Here is the entire text of that first mining law: All BLM employees in the minerals and records divisions are instructed in this. (BLM Manual 3833.74) The fact that some weren't paying attention that day or decided Congress didn't mean them is just one more indication of the lax administration of some BLM offices. There is a catch 22 to the process of overfiling and suing. The courts hate claim jumping. Trying to use the courts to eject a senior claimant with paperwork is claim jumping. If you don't prove your case the question arises of your self admitted trespass on a known claim. You certified you made a valuable mineral discovery when you made your location. To make that discovery you had to prospect the senior claim. If you lose the overclaim you are on record admitting to mineral trespass. There can be court sanctions and/or a countersuit awaiting you should you fail in proving the senior claimants lack of intent. That's bad juju and can be very expensive. Think carefully before you attempt an overclaim.

I'm not sure I understand the question LipCa? I'll make an assumption and hope covering some of the facts will help clarify. The law requires either a "Notice of Intent to Hold" or a an "Affidavit of Assessment Work" be Recorded prior to December 31st of each year for every mining claim you intend to hold It is also required that a copy of that Public Record be filed with the State office of the BLM by the same date. Those dates may vary by State but the Federal date can not be exceeded. You will find that and more at 43 U.S. Code § 1744. Recordation of mining claims. This is in addition to any fee requirements. The BLM does not determine the validity of mining claims based on your public record. They do have the right to declare claims "abandoned" should the filing requirements not be met or "void" if the claim was filed on land not open to location. The Public Record you make as required by law is not something the BLM has the power to adjudicate. Only a court of law can do that. The distinction is not subtle. A Public Record (usually made at the County Recorder's office) has a chain of custody, can be Certified and is accepted as evidence without question by a Court of Law. A BLM filing has no chain of custody, can not be Certified and is only an unauthenticated copy of a transaction. As you can see it is entirely possible to have a valid claim that is considered abandoned by the BLM. It happens a lot each year. The BLM changes the status of a mining claim case file to "CLOSED", the decision is challenged, the claim is found to be administratively current and the BLM changes it's case file status back to "ACTIVE". Nothing changed with the actual public record of the claim, only the BLM case file status was affected. It's also possible to have an "ACTIVE" claims case file status with the BLM where no public record has ever been made or the public record is not complete. We see this quite a bit. There is a well known and frequently visited national club claim in California that has been ACTIVE status at the BLM for many years yet there is no public record of the claim. No location notice, no annuals nothing. It's certainly not the only one it just sticks out in my mind at the moment. Mining claim validity is a matter for a court of law - always. There is no federal administrative process that can adjudicate the actual validity of a mining claim. Administrative process can only determine the status with which a claim is to be treated within the administrative system. This two part system of claim validity and administrative status came about because of the BLM's insistence that they didn't have the resources to look up the Public Record for mining claims before making administrative decisions about the Public Lands. They got the right to be notified annually of the status of mining claims in the 1976 Federal Lands Public Management Act (FLPMA). For the 110 years prior to that they and their predecessor had to look in the public record like everyone else. The annual BLM filings are informational only but the BLM is allowed to treat a mining claim as if it doesn't exist if they don't receive the annual notice. It's strictly an administrative requirement but it can, and does, affect your claim's status if you don't comply. The annual Public Record still has to be made under the law. This is a separate matter from the required BLM filing. This isn't hidden - the law I linked to contains both requirements together in the same section. Lack of a public record can not directly be acted on by the BLM but a mining claim is not valid under the law if the annual recording requirement is not met. This may seem like a point with no purpose until you are sued by an adverse claimant, seek investors, claim a right to compensation in court or apply for a patent. At that point you will come to understand why a Certifiable, complete, current public record must still be maintained. I hope that helps?

Minertarian? I never knew... I'll second the motion to nominate Klunker. Great job!

It's that time again. The August 31 deadline to make your required annual mining claims filings is only a month away. As she does every year Ruby has compiled general guidelines and a graphic flow chart to help claim owners understand their annual obligations. If you are confused about the process or just want a refresher review these could help make the process clearer. These are a free PDF download. Feel free to share, distribute or print these out as long as you retain the attribution. General Guidelines Flow Chart Whatever you do don't be late. You will lose your claim if your filings aren't on time.

We see a lot of these situations. It seems the root cause is the ignorance of both the miner and the surface management agency. Put two entities together that don't know what they are doing and are at cross purposes in their agendas and extreme silliness can result. Not so silly once the miner gets the bill but the view from the outside can be incomprehension at how messed up these situations can become. Overreach by surface management agencies has become extreme in many areas. Sometimes these become as disconnected as a Forest Supervisor attempting to ban all mining in "their" forest (can't be done legally). There seems no limit to the arrogance or ignorance of some of these agency actions. But the agencies are not alone in creating these situations. We've seen miners submit plans of operation for stream sluicing by one man with a shovel and in one case a large prospecting club applying for, and receiving , a single blanket plan of operations on all their wet claims across an entire forest. It takes two to tango no matter how clumsy the dancers. I encourage miners to read and understand the laws and follow them, even to the extent of insisting that the surface management agencies comply as well. The law applies to all, it's not really a situation of "just do what the regulator says". Knowing the laws and your rights and responsibilities is just as important of a mining skill as panning or modifying your recovery equipment for best results. In this case the miner was rightly concerned because of the monetary penalty. We often see miners bullied off their claims when there is no penalty but the effort to say no! If you are a claim owner or operator I encourage you to push back when you know you are in the right. Be polite, respectful, business like and calm. Cooperate but educate at the same time. Avoid the phone and email and insist on a paper trail. Ask for explanations at every stage of your dealings and if you get a firm no ask whether the "decision is final". If you don't know what a "final decision" is you need to get more educated before you engage with a surface management agency. This may sound daunting but keep in mind that the odds of you winning a challenge to a surface management agency on a mining decision are right around 80%. Yep the agencies are really that bad at interpreting their duties in managing the surface effects of mining on the public lands. By knowing your rights and responsibilities and helping these agencies to understand their job in relation to mining you are not only keeping your mining plans right but you are paving the way for every responsible miner that deals with these agencies. Sometimes the enemy are us.