Clay Diggins

Land Matters Claims Advantage Members have been receiving their twice monthly Closed Claims Reports for about a month now. These reports can be very helpful for someone doing claims research and might be used for several things. Maybe even finding recently opened land for prospecting or mining claims? In addition to the twice monthly update reports Claims Advantage Members are emailed a series of Special Reports as they are created. There have been two Special Reports since the Land Matters Membership program was started last month. These reports are about 15 pages long and have State by State interactive tables to help claims researchers. I can't share the reports themselves but with each report Land Matters includes heat maps to give a visual aid in identifying the most active areas. Special Report #1 presented Placer Mining Claims that were closed within the last three years AND were more than 30 years old when they were closed. This was an interesting report because claims that are more than 30 years old are usually considered valuable and worth keeping. Not your average exploratory claim that lasts for a year or two. Useful information for the clever prospector. Here's the heat map from Special Report #1. The map shows the areas with the most closed Placer claims as a deep red and then fewer claims density are shaded down from lighter red to pale yellow. The smaller black lines are county borders to give you a little better idea where the activity is taking place. Although this map is nowhere near as detailed as the full report it does give a good view of where the claims changed and even potentially tracks areas of higher mineralization and claims interest. The report itself shows for each claim 14 data fields and a direct link to the BLM records for the claim. The Special Report #2 is similar to the first but deals with 30 year lode claims. Neither of these Special Reports or the twice monthly Closed Claims Reports could be created from LR2000 information. We are working on Special Report #3 now and I'm really excited about what that's going to reveal. The things Land Matters can do with our huge databases is truly amazing. I'll have more info on that report when we get closer to releasing it. Barry

I can't find any IBLA or Federal court cases that use the term "small miner" in any way but the definition used by Congress. In fact the term "small miner" is almost always followed by the word "waiver" in those IBLA decisions. If you could find even one that refers to "small Miner" in a different context I'd be very surprised. The issue of bonding and surface disturbance for notice work is not as universally enforced as your experience indicates. Since 1991 the BLM wants considerable bonding on every Notice of Intent even though those notices are by definition not a significant surface disturbance. The 5 acre rule was thrown out of agency regulations years ago so relying on that "standard" is no more reliable than it ever was. There is no non site specific definition of "significant surface disturbance" even though some agency handouts would indicate otherwise. Certainly there is no exemption or even a class of "small miner" to be found within the surface regulations. When Federal agencies make regulations for inclusion in the CFR they publish their reasoning and justification in the Federal Register. The Federal Register is the only official publication for agency regulations and definitions. The CFR is an agency guide - not the official register of action. Codes are by definition not the actual law or regulation, they are the readers digest version for common consumption. As such they can be very confusing if you don't have the basis provided by the official publication in the Federal Register. As you discovered looking in the 3800 regs will leave you with no explanation of meaning or intent. The BLM has extensively explained their use of the term "small miner" in the Federal Register Volume 59, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 11, 1994). You will see that the BLM not only sets out to define the term "small miner" in that document they explain the use of the term in total 28 times. ALL of those definitions are limited to the "small miner" defined by Congress. The BLM has consistently stated that there can be no other definition for the term "small miner" but the one defined by Congress. In 1998 they even went so far as to insist that applying the term "small entity" to miner's rights to challenge regulations exempted the BLM from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Administrative Procedures Act because Congress had already determined the meaning of "small miner". The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia determined that Congress was only defining the term of "small miner" and the use of the words "small entity" itself did not exempt the BLM from regulatory restrictions. That case was Northwest Mining Association v. Bruce Babbit. I could go on with more "proof" that the term "small miner" is only used to describe those claimants with 10 or fewer claims that have applied their waiver to those claims. This subject is very familiar to me and you aren't the first person who has stated that they believe otherwise. This term is very commonly misunderstood among miners. My point in pursuing the definition of this term isn't to prove you wrong Dick. I'm very concerned about the issue of miners misunderstanding the words used within our profession. It's fine for miners to use loose local mining terms when speaking to one another about the act of mining. But we live in a regulated environment where words and terms are very important when dealing with outsiders. The problem arises when terms such as "small miner" are misunderstood to have regulatory and legal meanings beyond their actual meaning. Assuming small miners are anything but those claimants with 10 or fewer claims that have applied their waiver to those claims can lead to wasted time and misunderstood legal losses. Blaming crooked judges and a bankrupt justice system for miners multiple failures to assert their rights in court is often more attributable to a misunderstanding of the process and the "rights" involved than an unresponsive justice system. The recent multiple attempts to enforce takings claims in relation to unperfected mining claims is a good example of wasted effort due to a lack of understanding of the meaning of words and terms. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is futile and wasteful of limited resources. In my opinion it's time for miners to begin enjoying their considerable rights. I believe the first step is to gain a good understanding of what exactly those rights are - and are not. Understanding that "small miners" have no different mining rights than any other class of claimant is just one step in that process. It's time for miners to give up trying to apply the artificial, and legally unsupportable, concept of "small miners" as anything but what the actual legal and regulatory definition describes.

That's a political matter between you and your representatives Dick. Congress defined the term "Small Miner" in 1993 to refer to claim owners who meet the Small Miner Waiver requirements. Small Miner is now a defined legal term. To change the meaning of that term would require an Act of Congress to repeal the current definition. BLM has no discretion to change the meaning or use of that phrase. There is no other place in mining law or regulation for use of the term "small miner". The words have already been clarified. There is no such class as "small miner" when area of disturbance is the subject. Only the actual surface disturbance itself is considered. All miners are subject to the same laws and regulations. It doesn't matter what the ownership structure or size of mining is. There is no small and large, we are all miners under the same laws and regulations. The confusion comes from insisting that small miners have special privileges or rights when it comes to the act of mining. They do not. A large corporation or a single individual define their mining activities in the same way and scope. A large corporation often conducts minimal surface disturbance work and individual miners often conduct Plan level mining operations. I understand why this could be a difficult subject for miners. The term "small miner" has been used in many different ways by miners and their support organizations. I would argue that it's time to deal with the reality of the legal language used in mining and conform to the facts rather than insisting legislators, administrators and the public learn the looser terms used by miners as a whole. Without the proper use of already defined terms we can't know exactly what we are discussing much less communicate our ideas to others. Perhaps I would prefer the term "just a few claims guys" instead of "small miner" - that doesn't help communication it hinders understanding. Insisting that the already defined term "small miner" apply to other subjects is akin to insisting all the visitors to my part of the county call "apples" by the name "oranges" while in the area. That's not a long term workable solution. We need workable solutions and that's going to require communication and understanding of the facts in place. It is a fact that the term "small miner" is already well defined for more than 22 years.

almost hunch down a little when you go through the line and you might squeeze by

Since I put up the chart of Small Miner claims acreage on the Small Miners thread I thought it was only right that I put up the total of all claims acreage here. To put things in perspective: Nevada is about 40 million acres in size (39,804,120 acres). The total of mining claims there represents about 10% of that area. California is about 60 million acres (58,930,560 acres). The total of mining claims there represents about 1.25% of that area.

I don't determine who the Small Miners are. The miners themselves make that decision. Small miners make a declaration to the BLM of their status and claims held under the Small Miners Waiver each year. When a miner has declared that they hold 10 or fewer claims those claims are no longer subject to the annual claim Maintenance Fee payment. This is a chart of the acreage of all the claims not subject to the annual Maintenance Fee payment due to the claim owners declaring themselves "Small Miners". "Small Miner" is not an indication of the size of operation being conducted. When it comes to mining under the Mining Acts all miners are subject to the same laws. The only difference between a "Small Miner" and all other miners is the exemption from annual maintenance fees within the BLMs fee structure. Those miners who own 10 or fewer claims have the legal right to not pay annual maintenance fees and instead perform the annual labor described in the Mining Acts. A Small Miner can own up to 200 placer acres or up to 206.6 lode acres. In aggregate the claims owned by a small miner can not exceed 10 claims regardless of the acreage or claim type. Small miner status is not automatic just because a miner owns 10 or fewer claims. A free declaration must be made and filed, by the claim owner, at the State BLM Office(s) each year before September 1 for the Small Miners Waiver to be invoked. There are additional annual labor, recording and filing requirements to maintain the Small Miner exemption. Many claim owners who are eligible to declare "Small Miner" status choose not to take the exemption. Those claim owners must make their annual Maintenance Fee payments by September 1 each year no matter how many claims they own. Small Miner is an indication of a claim owner's status but that status only applies in relation to claims. There are no benefits to being a small miner except the exemption from annual claim Maintenance Fee payments. A Small Miner is not allowed to take the claim fee exemption if they are associated with other miners who exceed the 10 claim limit. Example: When a 160 acre placer claim is owned by 8 people who own no more than 10 claims per person and declare themselves as Small Miners the claim is exempt from the Maintenance Fee payment. This 160 acre claim could be a large producing mine but the owners would still be Small Miners under the BLM fee structure. That claim's acreage would be included on this chart. When a 160 acre placer claim is owned by 8 people and one of those people owns more than 10 claims the claim IS subject to the Maintenance Fee payment no matter what the size of the mining operation is. That claim's acreage would not be included on this chart. As you can see this is really all about claim fees - not the amount or type of mining being done.

A little different story when we look at small miner claim acreage. Small miners claims have a very different profile than the total of all claims does. I'll do an acreage profile on all claims next and see just what the difference is apples to apples. Curiously most of the California gold mining production historically was from lode mines on the Motherlode between Georgetown and just south of Mariposa. Now for small miners placers seem to be the going thing. Only Colorado, Montana and Washington have more small miner lode acres than placer acres. I hope this chart is better titled.

In Arizona we haven't had as much problem with the 90 county relocators as we do with the pro paper claims salesmen. The MO here is that a claim is made and then sold to easterners or eager recent arrivals with no indication that the claim is anything but the same as a purchase of property. When September rolls around and the new owner doesn't file with the BLM the ground is reclaimed and sent back out for sale. A common variant on this theme is to make several claims of similar name in the same spot then sell them all to different people. They will still be arguing with one another when September rolls around - rinse and repeat x4. There is one family in New Mexico that sells claims that haven't been made yet. Once the victim buys the claim AND pays "the document fees" a claim is filed with the BLM somewhere nearby and no location record is made with the county. Similar result as above but with no capital outlay. Then there are the much bigger scams. What happened with the Peter Pocklington Liberty Belle scam in Quartzsite is pretty common in the southwest. The problem with these bogus mining claims security scams is the perpetrators have to maintain the claims even after the scam is exposed because they would be destroying the only assets the regulators have to seize. If they don't maintain the claims they are open to fraud convictions as well as security violations. Essentially the claimed ground is locked up for years just to save some tricksters azz. Reviewing thousands of claims in a year has become disturbing because of the number of overclaims we see. In my view it's a much bigger problem for small miners than claim sellers. Popular areas are often claimed 3 to 5 claims deep while good ground lies open just a few feet away. This is mostly due to incompetence on the part of locators but in places like Rich Hill there are groups that purposely overclaim and submit NOIs to get the BLMs assistance in driving out senior locators. Miner against miner is way more common than most here understand or admit. Lots of dirty tricks going on out there both with small and large miners. One of the local miner battles is about to go public in a big way and no miners will come out ahead in that situation. Miners are often painted as uncaring crooks because we can't seem to police our own even though with have the legal tools and methods to do so. A few bad apples do spoil the barrel when it comes to public perception. I'd guess that about 90% of mining claims are blue sky and speculation. That's not really so bad when you consider that the nature of making your living hunting rare minerals that can't be easily seen or sniffed out is by definition a risk. By it's very nature mining is a gamble in the best of circumstances. Spreading your bet in that situation is a valid strategy. With unsure market conditions and rising costs it's anyone's guess whether a three or ten year long gamble will pay off at the end even when the deposit is well located and defined. The small miner actually has an edge in mining but a much more personal risk profile. It takes a certain type of individual to succeed at this very knowledge intensive profession. Combine the huge range of skills needed to succeed with the drive to take the personal, physical and financial risk involved and include a big dash of dreamer and treasure hunter and you have a very rare individual indeed. Take out just one or two of those qualities and you have your typical locator. Given enough time and enough drive and intelligence some of those typical locators could become the rare successful miner. Successful miners are what enable us to have cell phones and electricity and even this forum. We need more successful miners if we want to continue to live the rich lives we now enjoy. I'm thinking we have to allow a lot of wannabe miners to succeed or fail so we can have a few really good ones. It's always been that way and I suspect these same conversations went on 100 and 1,000 years ago. I think where we can most help this process to succeed is to: 1. Learn to effectively police ourselves. Outsiders have a lousy track record in policing miners, ultimately it's up to us to clean up our collective act. Self regulation is possible but only if we can turn our attention inward rather than concentrating on the bad guys - whoever they may be at the moment. Hating the miner in the place you would like to be is a "grass is greener" thing. Picking the most extreme opposition to what you are doing and concentrating on "beating" that fringe group is never successful in the end. In my opinion we need to stop looking at our differences and begin cooperating. It's really past time to build on our strengths and leave the anti mining crowd to their grass skirts and wood tools - they will come around or perish. 2. Encourage all our fellow miners to educate themselves and share the knowledge they have accumulated in their varied experiences. There are great educational opportunities and incredible resources available to miners today. You are participating in one of those resources right now. There are many others. Lets not waste this opportunity to come together and share our knowledge. Let's not make this golden age of information freedom into the next television. We can shape this to our advantage rather than just becoming consumers looking for the best feel good buzz. Let's stretch our patience and tolerance enough to include the miner sitting next to us and really listen to what they have to share. There are some very knowledgeable people right here on this forum and I know some of them are reluctant to share just because of the independent miners tendency to discount ideas and knowledge that that don't jibe with what they "know". This is probably the best forum on the internet for miners to share and be civil so this might be our best chance to make that a habit and extend it to other forums and groups. Take real advantage of what Steve is offering here. We can't lose and we might even win with a new mining culture based on knowledge and cooperation. In my business I tend to see both sides of the small versus big miner battle. Just putting aside the fact that both types of miners are playing by the same set of rules you really need to look at the needs of exploration groups and larger mining groups in relation to your own small miner chances of success. The simple fact is most small miners will never strike it big. Whether it be from a lack of skill or luck success is a long shot for the individual. If you look past all that land that's "locked up" from your prospecting and see that success is sometimes just a matter of finding a deposit worth claiming and leasing to one of those juniors or majors you so despise you just might see a brighter future. Are you good at identifying mineralization and defining deposits? Maybe you are destined to be one of those people claiming large blocks of mineralization and proving the value to someone actually capable of mining a lower grade large deposit. Instead of cursing all those 2 gram deposits maybe you could actually make your living collecting lease checks instead of trying to live off 10 grams a day. You would then be free to look for the next deposit worth claiming and leasing. Heck you might even realize that perlite or potash mineralization you've been ignoring could pay your rent without even lifting a shovel. The fact is small and large miner is relative to your experience. You will find you are one of the "big boys" just at the point you have something the big boys want. While you are dreaming of a better backhoe you might just be missing the point. Making enemies in your mind of people and companies you don't understand could be the one thing holding you back from being that full time successful miner.

Hi Mike, good to see you here. Thanks for sharing the link. Spencer I'm not sure what your question is? You needed to submit your form 3830 Waiver declaration before September 1st to be able to take advantage of the small miners exception. If you were late there is no grace period, your claim automatically becomes void. Dates are really important. As Steve pointed out the deadline for filing a copy of your recorded labor affidavit and $10 per claim fee is December 30th (NOT the 31st). Missing that deadline will also automatically void your claim. There are a few mistakes you can make and be allowed a limited time do over but the free waiver declaration is not one of them. September 1st is a set date that doesn't change. All claim owners must meet that date or lose their claims - small miners or maintenance fee payers. If it's a good claim you may still have an opportunity to reclaim it. New fees and new deadlines still apply just like your original location.

I made this chart to provide a basis for discussion of some other comparative charts I'll be posting soon. Just to be clear this chart does not include Alaska or the few claims that have not been posted to the LR2000 yet. Data is from November 15, 2015. This chart was a little awkward to make because of the elephant in the room. See if you can spot it. First one to spot it gets a free eBay claim (doc fees and shipping not included). Hint: It's blue.

Let's ask Americans of Japanese descent. I bet they have some thoughts to share on how that might work.

I wasn't stating my opinion Steve I was relying on United States Mining Law and 100's of court opinions. Let's start with the law. You have an issue with another "miner" taking land with what you consider bogus claims. You feel their paperwork is inadequate to support their claim. First realize that our interpretation of what law applies may not be the actual issue to a court or a federal agency. Obviously Congressional Acts trump agency actions and even the Supreme Court. So lets look at the very first Mining Act Congress passed. It's really short, it settled a lot of legal issues and it's still in effect. All agencies and all courts have to use it as a standard in all their actions and decisions. 1865 Mining Act: That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession. That was the first act of making a claim that I mentioned in my previous post. You've probably guessed by now that wasn't coincidental. I could go through the other aspects of perfecting a claim but right here at the first one the Courts sit up and pay attention. Why? Because their power in these disputes was just seriously restricted by an Act of Congress. They have been limited to considering your complaint to the single issue of possession before they can move on to other points you may have to make. Are you prepared to rebut the legal presumption that the senior claimant has possession? It's possible but it requires a plan and the prior knowledge that it's a requirement before proceeding with your complaint. That's why I suggest uninvolved witnesses and pictures in my adverse claim option above. The BLM is acutely aware of this restriction. If you want them to adjudicate whether the claim is valid they have the right to refuse you or allow you to present a challenge through them at your expense - in advance. But you don't have to worry they seldom agree to special miner challenges and when they do the bills have been legendary. They become your paid representative and they have no incentive to "win" but they do have an incentive to drag it out. Using the BLM as an end run around the courts is really a dead end. I could go on ...obviously. But the point is that the courts do not favor invalidating a claim for inadequate paperwork. Challenging claims based on paperwork is considered claim jumping in the law and there is a long string of court decisions against paper arguments. In point of fact an important Supreme Court decision specifically said that missed paperwork, in itself, did not invalidate a claim. I do offer opinions Steve but I try to preface them with something like "In my opinion..." or "I think..". It is the rare case where I state something that I can't back up with law or court decisions. Once that "In my opinion" disclaimer comes out though you can take what I write as just that - an opinion. Now... In my opinion, although those claims are technically valid, I think the scum sucking dogs that make them should be run out of town on a rail. I seem to recall the same phrase was used by a small mining district in Colorado when they decided to deal with claims mongers.

This is where your theory breaks down Steve. Although public recording and FLPMA filings are part of the process of perfecting a claim the actual claim is made on the ground. Possession and discovery come first. Then a monument and stakes to describe the location. At that point (and sometimes before) the claim is a fact of law. The rest is paperwork that has a deadline for completion. The courts have been very consistent in defining claims as being made on the land - not on paper. After the public record and FLPMA time limits pass without action the claim can be considered void by other prospectors. Before that time is up the claim is as valid as the discovery.

The only time an Notice is required by the BLM is when an existing POO has not completed their reclamation and wish to conduct new operations on the unreclaimed lands. That a far cry from requiring an NOI (Notice of Intent) in all circumstances that are not casual use. Here is the only regulation making an Notice mandatory, look closely and you will see that the regulation refers to "notice of your operations" - not a notice of intent: § 3809.21 You must submit a complete notice of your operations 15 calendar days before you commence exploration causing surface disturbance of 5 acres or less of public lands on which reclamation has not been completed. Here is the definition of reclamation: 43 CFR Subpart 3809 § 3809.5 Reclamation means taking measures required by this subpart following disturbance of public lands caused by operations to meet applicable performance standards and achieve conditions required by BLM at the conclusion of operations. I'm not suggesting that NOIs don't have a valid purpose or should never be submitted. I am saying that there is no law or regulation that would permit the BLM to insist that the miner submit an NOI. NOIs are self initiated by miners who are unclear whether their use will constitute undue or unnecessary surface disturbance that requires a plan of operation. It's a consulting action on the part of the miner - not a requirement that can be enforced by the BLM.

Thanks for that bit of wisdom Dave. You are of course right. Overclaiming someone in hopes that their claim will drop is claim jumping plain and simple. Overclaims don't become valid just because there is no longer a senior claimant. We've found several ways to deal with claims mongers. The first and most effective way is to educate potential claims buyers to the inherent problems and pitfalls involved in buying a claim. With a little education about the process and exactly what you are getting when someone quitclaims their claim interest most buyers wise up to the crooks pretty quick. Once the money dries up claims mongers move on to more productive scams. Most of these claims mongers are looking for an easy mark and are lazy about keeping their "claims". You can take advantage of that. Often these 90 day recordings are not exactly sequential. Days often exist between mining locations expiring for lack of a FLPMA filing with the BLM. Watch for those gaps to come up and have a plan to discover and record a location notice before the claims monger gets the new recording into the county. One usually successful tactic is to overclaim and sue the senior claimant, within 30 days of location, to challenge the validity of their claim. If you time your action right the claims monger is forced into paying the BLM fees and responding to a suit in short order. Make sure you do discovery work and have uninterested witnesses to all your staking and discovery work. Pictures and witnesses trump unprepared claims mongers in court. In most cases the claims monger never shows up for the hearing. They are looking for easy money, not exposure of their methods on the record. Hint: You can get these suits shortlisted for a hearing in most state courts because they involve property rights. You usually have to note that status on your complaint. Requirements vary by state. Probably the most effective method to shut down bad claiming practices is for miners to form a small local mining district. Make a rule that all claims in the district have to prove their discovery work to the district before the claim can be valid. Mining districts can't change State or Federal laws but they can add more regulation than exists at the State or Federal level. I'm a big supporter of the concept that miners should settle miner disputes among themselves and claims mongers are near the top of my miners vs miners list. Hint: "Best practice" mining for a small district can be established within the bylaws and regulations of the mining district. The surface management agency can't produce an expert on best practice mining within your district but you may be able to. You can control the nature and quality of mining within your district if you keep it small and relevant to the deposit type and terrain. Smart self regulation works.

The beginning of the Federal mining year is September 1st of each year. That's the date all mining claims owners need to have either paid a maintenance fee or filed a small miners waiver. If they don't meet the deadline or submit all the proper fees and forms their claims will be marked CLOSED in the BLM case files. Even though the final date is September 1st the BLM takes a lot of time updating their records. Generally most claimants that didn't file anything will be closed by January but the Small Miners claims are often not updated until the following year beginning in January. This is the time of year to watch for good mining lands to open up to claim. The closures dribble in in chunks throughout these months. Each BLM State Office sets their own priorities and deadlines internally so some States get their claims updated quickly - others take forever. This year Utah completed updating virtually all of their claims files in September yet California traditionally runs nearly a year behind. At Land Matters we track the progress on these claims updates. The most recent closures are reported to Claims Advantage members twice monthly. Those members get an interactive list of of the recently closed claims listed by state. It's not possible to get this list from the LR2000 because all closed claims actions are backdated to their effective date, usually September 1st. Here is a look at how many claims have not yet been updated to 2016 in the BLM databases and have not been closed. These claims are the ones that might still be closed by the BLM but have yet to be determined. Many of these claims are Small Miners status that won't be settled out until January or February of next year, many are in adjudication and many are claims the BLM State office just hasn't gotten around to updating. This chart is from November 1st. There hasn't been a lot of change in those numbers with the exception of Idaho. As Claims Advantage members know Idaho has since CLOSED 1,474 claims, opening up another 29,000 acres of land to claiming.

This is a common misunderstanding jasong. NOIs are self initiated by the miner. There is no provision in law or regulation for the BLM to require an NOI of a miner. POOs can be required after a determination and notice to the miner. Whole different deal on a plan than a notice. Now if we could only get the BLM to read their own regulations and stop spreading BS. The BLM is the only federal subsurface manager so they handle all mineral leases and mining claims no matter which surface management agency is involved. The BLM is also the surface management agency for lands entrusted to their care. The BLM and all Interior Department surface management regulations are found in 43 CFR. The Forest Service is strictly a surface management agency. They do not handle mineral leases or mining claims. The Forest Service and all Agriculture Department surface management regulations are found in 36 CFR. You might find 36 CFR 228.41 (c - e) enlightening. If you read through those CFRs you will find that the regulations pertaining to surface disturbance by mining are very different. The BLM and the Forest Service have entirely different approaches to regulating surface disturbance. As an example only the BLM feels a Notice requires a bond. Considering the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior have different duties and different regulations and there is no MOU or agreement between them as to shared surface management duties I'm puzzled how you got the impression the BLM, could or would, handle a cross agency NOI?

I'm working on that one Root. Since the placer fees went up the State BLM offices get to keep that money locally. It's really changed the way they deal with placer claimants now that their picnic fund is affected. It's looking like about a 55 million a year bonus program this year. That's a whole lot of picnics.

I find it ironic that most claim owners view the small miners waiver as an exemption from paying the maintenance fee. In 1992 when the feds started charging an $100 annual fee for mining claims the fees were sold to miners by Congress as an exemption to ("in lieu of") performing the mandatory annual labor that had been required for the previous 121 years. Large mining companies loved the mandatory fee and had lobbied to drop the labor requirement. Small miners were blindsided and insisted on a labor alternative (The average wage in 1993 was half of what it is now). As a result the mandatory $100 fee was abandoned the following year and the small miners waiver was introduced along with the mandatory maintenance fee for claimants with more than 10 claims. A compromise that lasted nearly 20 years. To me it's obvious that: The maintenance fee favors larger mining companies. The labor requirement favors small miners. The maintenance fee overall encourages reduced claim development and more corporate "banking" of mining claims. The labor option encourages er... requires claim development. Just some personal historical observations. Which is better is a matter of perspective.

And yet those association claims with 8 small miners are under represented. I think my post title was a poor choice. Obviously I meant How Many Small Miners Claims are There? Although you could be 8 small miners ...Hey you never know on an internet forum.

We do have that information jasong. Land Matters make a "snapshot" of the entire BLM database structure twice a month. That's a lot more information than is available through the LR2000. Those snapshots allow us to do time basis comparisons that can't be done off the static database. Those snapshots add up to about 1.5 Gb each. I could dig out the action codes for notices or plans but that won't give you an accurate count. A good portion of surface plans are handled by other surface managers like the Forest Service. Each of those surface management agencies have their own regulations, procedures, and keep their own NOI and POO records. The BLM database does not show those other agencies notices or plans. They only track BLM land management actions. I'm working on presenting that data soon. It is revealing. There are a lot more lode claims than placer claims in the western states. I'm not surprised there are so many lode small miners but I'm thinking the percentage of small miner lode claims compared to all lodes will come in pretty low compared to the small miner placer claims percentage.

I was just going by the legal definition of a small miner Steve. Those miners with 10 or fewer claims that annually declare themselves small miners with a BLM waiver declaration. This standard has been in place since 1994 and forms the basis of one part of the charts calculations. This isn't a chart of those who qualify as small miners. It's a chart of claims that were brought under the small miner waiver by their owners. That's why the display is broken down by State, Lode and Placer. Those terms couldn't apply to the small miner themselves. Small miners, like all other federal claimants, keep their public claims records in the state where the claims are located. Small miners themselves aren't broken down into lodes or placers. I don't think I explained the chart basis in the title too well. Can you suggest another title that might explain the chart better? I'd be glad to change the title and repost. I'm sure there are as many other definitions of what a small miner should be as there are readers here. Please do present your opinion and discuss it openly. Land Matters offers information to the public in the hope people will work from a common basis to resolve their differences and make a better future for all land users. We believe that common basis should be the facts Just as each person has their own ideas about what a small miner should be there are common misunderstandings and clashes of opposing views on land use of all types. Often these differences are smaller than either side recognizes. Often the misunderstandings are based on rumor or myth. Reasonable miners aren't opposed to a clean environment any more than reasonable environmentalists are opposed to minerals and metals. There is common ground in every dispute, the trick is to leverage that common ground into a resolution that serves reasonable people. Ignoring the fringe hardcore on any land use issue and granting both sides can agree on the facts being discussed people tend to work things out among themselves. Land Matters tries to help that process along by providing a repository of information to work from. That's the reason Land Matters exists, to present the facts for all to see and to encourage people to shape their future on the land from basic reliable facts. When all the people have the facts the rest is up to them. Land Matters is an educational nonprofit 501c3 - not an advocacy group. We strive to present "just the facts" at Land Matters so as to inform and educate. Opinions are welcome but are part of the results of considering and discussing the facts. Opinions themselves don't become part of the database of knowledge presented on Land Matters but the facts involved in any discussion can be. Setting aside the legal definition of "small miner" I don't think your definition of a small miner would be very representative of actual small miners either if you think about it Steve. Many small miners with a POO never apply for the waiver. You haven't included small miners working under an NOI or not subject to an NOI or POO. Prospecting and Discovery work both are "mining" under the law yet neither normally requires a POO. NOIs represent valid mining operations that don't require active land management coordination. Forest Service NOIs are not recorded as actions in most areas either so getting a handle on all the NOI operations would be a challenge to say the least. Keeping things small and following best practice mining is one of the strengths of small mining in my opinion. Doing so can lead to mining with no POO requirement at all. That is a goal many small miners have told us they aspire to. Perhaps there is good reason to redefine "small miner" in the law to fit your definition Steve. With enough interest Land Matters would be glad to assemble, vet and present the facts relating to any other definition of small miner. This is a bit of a touchy subject with small miners and the words themselves can be a hot button on both sides. The chart is one effort to bring some common ground to the discussion. I'm hoping to present the actual numbers involved so everyone can get a handle on just what we each mean when we discuss just what a small miners place in the scheme of things is. Chris, the waiver basis for the figures are for ACTIVE status mining claims declared under small miner waivers as of November 15, 2015. Many waivers will still be denied for cause (or not). Those claimants under waivers that are denied will have the opportunity to change their status and pay the full claim fee or to challenge the waiver denial. The BLM typically doesn't even begin that process until January so these are current figures based on miner's declarations of status and ACTIVE mining case files. Barry

We've been experimenting with ways to share complex information more easily on Land Matters. Here's my latest efforts at making things clearer with a chart. It's a common question so I thought this might be a good test. There are about 380,000 mining claims in the western mining states. Out of those 380,000 mining claim there are about 19,236 that are declared as owned by small miners not subject to maintenance fees. A little more than 5% of all claims are small miners. Here's a chart that breaks down where those 19,236 small miners are by State and claim type. Let me know if this kind of chart works for you. If it does I'll make more.

I became familiar with a material very similar to this in the 1970's. It was Chloromelanite amphibole black jade from Stoddard Wells, California. Most of the Chloromelanite from that location was dark green to black although there was some very attractive deep green material too. The darkest of the jade often had magnetite inclusions that made it unsuitable for export to the Asian markets. Some folks figured out that the magnetite could be plated with silver(?) fairly easily. I believe this was an amalgam process but I couldn't tell for sure. Others have told me the included mineral was marcasite (white pyrite) which polished well by itself. I doubt that story because the marcasite I've worked with tended to oxidize dark gray a few weeks after being polished. I've seen similar included material from Wyoming but the magnetite appeared to be more well formed crystals than the "blobby" Stoddard Wells included jades. In the mid 70's my mother had occasion to travel extensively in the gem areas of Thailand and what was then known as Burma. She brought back many nice gem specimens and carvings including a small necklace of material virtually identical to what you show here. She didn't feel the material was natural and said she had been warned away by a friend but bought the piece anyway because she liked it. None of this is definitive of your material but the look and source was so reminiscent I thought I would share what little I know.

You can find the full text of WPB L-208 at the Land Matters Mining Library. Just type "War Powers" or "L-208" into the search box and download the PDF. It appears there were two exceptions to the closure order. Here is the one for small miners: "The provisions of this order shall not apply to any lode mine which pro- duced 1200 tons or less of commercial ore in the year 1941, provided the rate of production of such mine, after the issu- ance date of this order, shall not exceed 100 tons per month, nor to any placer mine which treated less than 1000 cubic yards of-material in the year 1941, pro- vided that the rate of treatment of such placer mine, after the issuance date of this order, shall not exceed 100 cubic yards per month."