Clay Diggins

You do make a good point that many people don't diligently pursue their discovery. That, in some circumstances, can be a detriment to prospectors but it's not illegal nor does it invalidate their claim. Your points about discovery are well taken but very difficult and expensive to prove. Your quotes in red don't present a requirement for a valid claim, as you seem to believe, nor does it indicate a claim may be invalid if the discovery process is slow. It does restate the obvious that without intent, process and purpose a mining claim may still be challenged by adverse claimants. That's not news to any miner I've known. So if I get the gist of your argument ... The existing claim isn't valid because you don't see any evidence of valuable minerals. And/Or You don't think the claimant is doing enough work to prove their discovery. Do you see the disconnect here? If the claim isn't valid, in your opinion, because there are no valuable minerals then why the heck do you care if the minerals are claimed? If it does have valuable minerals then you will have to trespass to make your own discovery. First of all understand the case you are pointing to is a dispute between two claimants. The only question answered was who had the better right to the minerals on that particular location. The court did not invalidate a claim but did decide who had the better right to adversely claimed locations. Only one claimant can prevail when the same minerals are claimed by two people. These are civil matters between private parties and as the court stated in the decision the judgement only applies to those two claims. There is no precedence set. Each civil claim is decided on the unique facts and law involved directly in the dispute. No state court can create, define or alter federal law regarding mineral claims. This judgement only applies state location law. It has no application in another State or if the facts in a new case aren't identical (unlikely). From the case you cited: It is well settled, also, that the right to make a location, cannot be based upon a trespass. A "good" lawyer to challenge an existing claim doesn't exist. Part of the reason for that is stated in the case you cited: It is fundamental law in New Mexico that in a suit to quiet title the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of the title of his adversary. In other words the right to work a claim is based on having a superior title to the minerals. You can't base a claim to title on the weakness of another miner's location. You have to have established mineral title through your own actions alone. The first of those actions being a valuable mineral discovery followed by publicly marking and recording your claim to the minerals. Of course since you read the case you know that the individual that lost their claims didn't even record or maintain the claim as required by law. They admitted they had never done any discovery work. They had a weak title from the beginning. Easy to challenge the adverse location but it still required a major outlay on discovery, location, exploration, lawyers, courts and more than three years of disputes. I'm not sure anything but a major deposit would be worth the effort unless the senior claimants, as in this case, hadn't bothered to complete their location record. From the case: The location notices were never recorded and there was no evidence to establish what, if anything, was done in connection with these locations. Evidently the appellants do not base their claims on these locations, but rather on possessory rights under the doctrine of pedis possessio. Also keep in mind the law requires you access the claim you believe to be invalid peacefully and openly. Working someone's claim because you believe it to be invalid without making an adverse claim is the opposite of peacefully and openly. The lack of public notice or the opportunity for the senior claimant to respond puts your actions in a different class. In fact if you actually discover and remove minerals based on nothing but your personal appraisal or opinion about the validity of the claim you may well be committing mineral theft. If you believe you have a superior claim to the minerals you will need a court judgement to enforce your belief in the real world. If you read this case critically I think you will see that it's a good argument against challenging even poor locations. The time involved in pursuing an adverse claim could easily take up all your free prospecting time ... and money.

There is no right for the States to determine the mineral title on public mineral lands. You won't find such a law. States can not close valid claims nor can they determine whether the mineral claim is supported by an actual discovery. Those are exclusively federal functions. On the other hand the first court of record where your claim is situated is the only entity that can determine which locator has the better right to possession of the minerals when they are in dispute among them. That "first court of record" is usually the county superior court but the court name varies from state to state. You can find that provision in the very first federal mining law in 1865. Adverse claimants can not bring suit in federal courts to determine the better right to the minerals. 1865 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. So for the locators defense against adverse claimants the State, County or Mining District court is the final arbiter if the adverse claimants can not come to a settlement. There is no federal remedy available. Should the United States choose to challenge a claimants rights to the minerals there is a long detailed process that involves notice and opportunity in the administrative tribunals with the right to appeal the administrative decision in the federal courts should the claimant feel the administrative decision be wrong. There is federal law governing the basic requirements to establish a mineral claim. Among those requirements are the necessity to clearly mark the boundaries on the ground, describe the claim's legal land description by prescribed methods (metes and bounds or public land survey depending on the claim type), limitations on the size and shape of the claim, and the requirement to make a public record of your location within 90 days. How that public record is made and maintained is up to the States, Counties and Mining Districts. Failure to maintain your public record can lead to a State, County or Mining District court to declare your claim to be abandoned Prima Facie. Prima Facie means "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted". Essentially unless you prove otherwise other locators have a legal right to assume you have abandoned your claim if you not have maintained possession by keeping your State required record up to date. It's pretty easy to clear up that cloud on your mineral title by making a public record of your intent to maintain the claim. Notice that part of the 1865 law I underlined? The part about the Law of Possession. That's probably the most misunderstood aspect of mining claims today. The locator of a mineral deposit has the exclusive right to his discovered minerals against subsequent locators as long as he maintains possession. Possession is maintained by properly locating, keeping a public record, occupying and since 1980 making an annual informational filing with the BLM. Some States have additional requirements like maintaining monuments or paying taxes. Follow all those laws and you can maintain possession against adverse locators. To maintain possession from the federal point of view you need to meet the federal location and annual notice requirements as well as perfecting your discovery. Until you have perfected your discovery you have no legal right to the minerals adverse to federal action. In other words if you don't have proof of a valuable mineral deposit the feds can withdraw the minerals and close your claim without compensation. If you have perfected your claim the feds can still close the claim but they will have to pay you for the value of the minerals minus costs. Mining claims are the last claim of right to United States property that can be initiated and maintained by a citizen. There is no federal or state agency that can help you with location, maintenance, possession, recording or perfecting your mineral claim. The whole shebang depends entirely on the acts of the claimant. Miners aren't surveyors or lawyers so the courts and the laws are very lenient when it comes to the claim locating and recording process. Challenging another man's mineral claim on the basis of their paperwork is the act of Claim Jumping. Courts have no patience with claim jumpers so trying to rely on another claimant's technical errors to challenge their claim can go very badly for those foolish enough to try this end run around another's mineral rights. It is often suggested that should a claimant not provide signage or physical notice of their mining claim then the minerals are fair game. There is no basis in any law for this theory. The public record, available in each county, is legal notice to all prospectors of the locators rights to the mineral claim. A few States have a once a year requirement to maintain claim monuments. No State requires that claims be signed or monumented at any time following the original required monument date. It is always and everywhere the legal duty of prospectors to determine land and mineral ownership before putting boots on the ground. If you ignore that requirement you will have no defense against charges of mineral trespass or mineral theft.

And here is the industry perspective on the proposed Rise Gold reopening of the California Idaho-Maryland Mine Mitchel. https://iknnews.com/rise-gold-rise-v-ben-mossman-up-to-his-tricks-again/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-high-court-upholds-new-trial-for-two-managers-after-spill-at-mine-1.5784666 Strange how none of this is being mentioned in the mainstream news articles. 😵 The real gold mines that are being opened in California don't end up in the media. They don't produce fluff pieces about how environmentally friendly they are. They aren't looking for investors and they know publicity is not their friend in California. One of these large new California gold mine projects finished permitting in under two years. Sounds like a different story?

Claim Jumping is the act of challenging another locator's prior mineral rights by overclaiming them and challenging their paperwork in court. Claim jumping is traditionally heavily frowned upon by the courts. Higrading or High Grading is the act of taking minerals from a mineral property without the permission of the owners. Higrading is a problem in virtually all operating mines and it's rampant in small placer operations. Although higrading also applies to uninvited prospectors most convictions are of employees who were caught higrading gold or gemstone operations. Higrading is theft of minerals. Claim jumping doesn't involve theft of minerals but instead is an attempt to invalidate another's right to the minerals. In essence Claim Jumping is the attempted theft of mineral title. Here's the most common legal definition of "Claim Jumping": The location on ground, knowing it to be excess ground, within the staked boundaries of another claim initiated prior thereto, because law governing manner of making location had not been complied with, so that location covers the workings of the prior locators, is what in mining circles is known as “claim jumping.” https://cite.case.law/nev/42/302/ There used to be a lot of problems with unsavory characters trying to steal claims with paperwork schemes. Some people still try it today to intimidate but they aren't going to be successful in court. The courts really shut all that down years ago. I think that and movies are reason the term "Claim jumping" is so misunderstood today.

The article contains several "facts" without substance. I'm not sure the writer has any experience in mining or the history of gold values. It seems more like a fluff piece to promote investment in wannabe miners with no successful history or knowledge of mining. There are several very large mining companies now in the process of permitting large gold mining operations in California. They have no interest in rehabilitating old mine shafts. There are several large, rich, virtually untouched, proven, near surface gold deposits in California. These companies have the will and the resources to mine them. California is probably one of the worst places in this hemisphere to try to permit a mine but the gold is good and the mining industry is flush with cash right now. Several of these mining companies are very much committed to changing how California deals with serious miners. I hope they succeed.

Thanks for restating your opinions Tom. The original poster was asking for ideas about how other countries handled metal detecting laws so he could see if reason might prevail over the current proposed ban on metal detecting. I gave him an overview of how it works in the United States. I hope that helped him in his current situation.

I never wrote that written permission was required Tom. I wrote that it was legal to detect private property with the written permission of the owner. In most states verbal is just fine right up to the point the owner denies giving permission or passes away without informing his heirs. Standing in court with a verbal agreement on one hand and titled land owner denying your right to a find on the other is much like floating on air - the result is always a quick descent to reality. In some states written permission is required if the land owner is not present. In any state explaining to a cop or angry relative how you weren't trespassing because someone told you it's OK could easily leave you floating on air again. Inquire definition = to put a question : seek for information by questioning It may or may not be true that "If there's nothing there that says "No md'ing", then presto : Not prohibited" but that doesn't address the separate questions of digging and recovery - both of which may be prohibited by law or regulation even though the use of a metal detector is permitted. And your point is .... ? Treasure trove is legally defined as money, uncounted gems, or precious metals in the form of coin, plate, or bullion that has been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovering it later. If that trove is over 100 years old you can bet the government will successfully argue it's subject to ARPA. If it's less than 100 years old it's considered abandoned property and automatically belongs to the United States (the property owner). That would be a pretty exhaustive list of laws and regulations Tom here's a few to get you started: 43 CFR § 423.23 43 CFR § 3715.6 Section J 32 CFR 643.37 50 CFR § 27.63 16 U.S.C. 551 There are many more. Each federal land management entity has their own treasure trove regulations and penalties. As I wrote, one will have to inquire about any particular land's status. Assuming you didn't know so you should get a free pass doesn't really fly when it comes to government laws and regulations. On

Interesting how an object from Byzantium gets translated as being Egyptian. Since Byzantium was in the northern and eastern Mediterranean 1,000 years ago and Egypt is in Africa that's kind of like saying stuff found in New York is from Canada. A study of the history of gold granulation techniques might put the date in question as well as the origination. The fact that the faience is still well consolidated after being buried in damp acidic soil is beyond remarkable for it's stated age. Particularly since it has green colored faience glass. If this were found with a hoard, burial or dated dwelling it might have some associated provenance. Since it was found without period context it could have been dropped at any time in the recent past. Add in the fact that the piece is incomplete it sure appears to have been dropped in a much more recent period than the Viking age. The condition and manufacture certainly don't justify speculation about Viking bodyguards and ancient kings. It's a beautiful piece and if it really is from the Romanesque period it is very rare. I hope better research will help pin this find's origin down to something more than speculation.

It's legal to detect on any private property with written permission from the owner of the property in the United States. The arrangement for division of finds is a private matter between the landowner and the detectorist. There are no public or government ownership rights of discoveries on private land in the U.S. as is common in Europe and elsewhere. It is never legal to detect on private land without the permission of the owner. The privately owned lands encompass about 2/3 of the lower 48 states. These private lands are also the most likely to still hold undiscovered valuable items. There are few places where it's legal to detect on municipal or State owned lands if you want to dig what you detect. Some public parks allow detecting as do some school grounds. You will need to inquire about each situation. The federal public lands are, for the most part, open to detecting. Notable exceptions are National Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Seashores, Wildlife refuges and historical sites. Even with our limited history objects of historical significance older than 100 years can not be searched for or kept on any of those federal public lands. Found coins are an exception as long as they are not part of a trove. Treasure hunting is illegal on federal public lands without a special use permit issued by the managing agency. Those are never easy to obtain. That's a general overview as there always seems to be an exception when you are discussing the rights of others.

Land Matters is not up to date on it's mining claim mapping. There have been no updates since April 1, 2021. Those maps are being updated now and will be brought up to date a little later this month. The Diggings is not up to date. There have been no updates since January 22, 2021. Mine Cache is not up to date. They state their last update was July 2020. The MLRS is not accurate currently. Many mining claims have been closed inadvertently(?) this year and the BLM has a ways to go before those errors are corrected. Be very cautious with BLM claims information now. Check the serial register page for each recently closed claim (since January of this year) many of them will be changed back to ACTIVE status in the next few months. None of these mapping systems show the claim's actual boundaries. Most claimants are only required to locate their claims to the nearest 1/4 section with the BLM. Follow afreakofnature's advice to ALWAYS check the claim locations and claim amendments at the County Recorder. Also it's imperative that you discover the land ownership/management and any closures or restrictions before you put boots on the ground. Just because someone located a claim somewhere does not mean the land is open to location. When I am researching an area my first step is always to check the land status first. There is no sense in pulling location documents if the area can't be prospected or claimed. Good luck on your adventure!

Looks like a membership drive. Gotta be a member to get the secret instructions. I've followed PLP since they were founded and contributed for many years. They have several dedicated members who I'm sure have recreational miners interest at heart. I've just got to ask though - does anyone know of a single court case they have won? I support Mountain States Legal Foundation now. They have pursued and won several major mining cases for small miners.

The biscuit tin model ...nice! Does the rotor spin when it detects gold or diamonds? In the US we use a spam can. No biscuits here only cookies. 😢 Sadly with the smaller and smellier tin we use in the US our detecting is very limited to only 44 meters in depth.

The public can travel over, camp on, hunt and recreate on most mining claims where they are not obstructing, or in danger from, mining activities. There is an exception to the public access rule where the mining claim was located prior to 1955 and has retained their right to the surface as well as the minerals. A pre 1955 mining claim owner can exclude the public, occupy, fence their claim, and use the surface resources (timber, stone, water etc.) for their mining purposes without a permit.

I don't provide staking services but if you are staking outside of California P.M. me and I can provide you with contacts at reliable staking services. Inside California I haven't had good experiences with any of the staking services. There are a lot of knowledgeable and experienced people on this forum perhaps another member here knows of a reliable staking service willing to work in California?

You are welcome. I'm glad it helped your understanding GotAU. The possessory interest value is established when you locate a mining claim. The act of claiming the minerals is based solely on your claim of a "discovery of valuable minerals" on lands open to location. Without a discovery of valuable minerals no mining claim is valid or possible under the law. The claimant is the one asserting their right to the mineral possession is valuable - not the taxing authority.

The simplest answer to the principle behind mining claim taxes in California is that your possessory interest in the minerals on your mining claim is private real property. Private real property in California is taxable. Not surprisingly California is relying on the same court decisions Jim is pointing out. Once you have perfected your claim on the minerals on public lands open to location your claim on the minerals become private property as long as you maintain your possession of the claim. Where all this gets interesting is the simple fact that in 1976 the federal government adopted a policy of no longer granting public lands to the citizens. This was the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). No longer could a person establish themselves, according to law, on a claimed portion of the public lands and earn the right to purchase the land. Patents for land were no longer a possibility for ordinary U.S. citizens with one exception - mining claims. Once these claims and patents on public land were abolished the states were no longer gaining new (taxable) private property as citizens were granted patents. Virtually all the private property in the western states was at one time public land until it was claimed and patented. Without the ability to expand their property tax base the states were faced with the burden of providing services to the federal lands but were prohibited by law to tax those lands. The federal lands which were once the prime source of growth and wealth became a net burden on the states. The FLPMA that changed this policy from the people being able to claim federal lands to no new conversions of public lands to private ownership would never have passed Congress if the state and local governments weren't compensated for their ongoing loss of revenue. So at the same time in 1976 when the FLPMA was passed Congress also passed the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act pays money to the counties every year since 1976 for every acre of federal lands located within the county. Every year. Billions of dollars given to the counties in place of taxes they would have collected if the lands had been claimed and converted to private (taxable) property. Some of the smaller more rural counties with large tracts of public lands could not survive without these annual federal payments. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 is the reason most states abolished the taxing of mining claims. Their counties were already receiving federal payments every year as a replacement for taxes. California stopped taxing too - for a while. Now they don't just tax your possessory interest in the minerals but also tax the transfer of a possessory interest in a mining claim. This is on top of the income taxes on the minerals you mine and sell from your possessory interest.

The extremely detailed 1961 Deb Chandra Special Report 67 is also a great resource for the American River tertiary gravels. http://www.mylandmatters.org/Library/Item=172 In 2012 we managed to borrow one of the three remaining copies of the very large hand colored tertiary gravels map in the original 1890 Colfax Folio from the Federal Repository. We did digitize that map as well as the Lindgren, Clark, Olaf Jenkins and Deb Chandra reports to create the interactive geology mapping on the North and Middle Fork FootPrints.

On Land Matters I create the claims mapping with a proprietary system I've built into my spatial database. Even though that sounds "automatic" it still takes about 12 hours to process the 30 plus Gigabytes of claim data provided by the BLM twice a month. For individual claims mapping in my business jasong pretty much outlined the system. It's very involved work with huge amounts of research required to compensate for the often poorly located claims. Here's an example from my claims mapping this week. I'm researching a group of claims from the 1900 period in a well developed mining district. This group of claims has no metes and bounds description and the tie to a known permanent monument refers to "the white bridge on the paved road". This mining district is now composed of large mine pits that have completely obliterated any past roads or bridges from that period. The only other location reference is to another group of claims that were never recorded at the County and were abandoned in 1914. I have now managed to map the claims after researching the highway department records (no results), mining district records (missing), old maps (no results) and a long conversation with a regional historical society member (success!).

That's pretty much the same system I use in Nevada jasong. The only difference being my clients want all the claims mapped no matter what the age. The availability of information varies a lot by state and county. In Arizona location notices and amendments are available online for free. Every County Recorder is required to record mining claim records by TRS as well as Grantor/Grantee, date and type of document. That's true of the entire state except Maricopa County who have refused to record their documents to the standards defined by the legislature despite many requests over many years. In California it appears the only recording standard is send more money and hope they eventually respond in some way. Different counties there have different fees and policies. Little tiny Mono County is responsive and will often email you the requested docs for free if you are polite, patient and respectful. Another county (to remain unnamed) wants thousands of dollars before they will respond. The largest county has refused to search their records for the last year cuz covid. In California you pays yer money and take your chances. Idaho is a mixed bag but I've found the recorders there to be helpful and responsive. Not all counties have online access but even some of the smallest counties do have online free downloads of records. Obviously I deal with Recorder's in all the western mining states as well as beyond, It would take more time than I have to outline my experiences with all of them but the one thing that becomes obvious rather quickly is that there is no standard method of acquiring public records, mining or otherwise. You've just got to learn the local systems and jump through whatever hoops are presented.

That's a good tip Jim. County Assessors can, and often will, help you locate property information. It works well in the dozen or so counties that do tax mining claims. Most states and counties do not tax mining claims. The BLM Serial Register page for each mining claim also has the names and addresses of the owners of each mining claim. Using the Land Matters mining claims maps you are provided a link to each claim's Serial Register Page at the BLM. You can get the contact information for any claim right from your own computer. If you have a mobile internet connection you can look up claims and claim owners while in the field.

There have not been thousands of new claims located in Montana in the last few months. In the entire 2020 mining year there were 1,625 claims located in Montana. In the month of January there were 2 claims located in Montana. As of March 1 the Montana BLM had a backlog of 115 mining claims waiting for adjudication. That's directly from the BLM's own records and includes mining claims in the State of South Dakota which is administered by the Montana state office of the BLM. Compare that with Nevada where there were 15,641 mining claims located in the 2020 mining year and 3,841 mining claims located in January of this year alone. Claims are not located by longitude and latitude. Legally there are only two methods of locating mining claims, by aliquot part and by metes and bounds. Mining claim location notices received at the BLM are regularly rejected for not locating by one of the two legal methods or by locating by the wrong method for the type of claim or location. The BLM does not have a data page with coordinates. What the BLM is attempting to do in the future is to display new claims by the coordinates input into their new online mapping system. There is no plan to map all the 400,000 plus existing mining claims.

That's not the function of the County Recorder. The County Recorder just records documents and provides them to the public when requested, they can not and will not do your research or mapping for you. They are forbidden by law from giving you a legal opinion or advice. Defining the location or validity of a mining claim, or real estate for that matter, would be giving legal advice. Your question seems to assume that mining claims are a defined grid of mineral rights assigned to individual claimants. The truth is far from that ideal with many overlapping and poorly defined claims stacked and scattered around potentially mineralized areas. There are no shortcuts to due diligence regarding mining claims. You can either do the research yourself or hire a professional. Even if you hire a professional you will need to understand the basics of claim location and description. At Land Matters we have provided you the tools and information to learn the skills you will need as well as providing all the public information available.

Kentucky Camp is an interesting recreation of a bygone time. I really like the Greaterville area. Good gold and a great climate. It was really quiet and peaceful living there.

All the FootPrints were in the process of having the claims updated in the summer of 2019. Sadly my partner passed away in the middle of the process and I've had to put those updates on hold. I still plan to update the FootPrints claims layers and some other features on some of the FootPrint maps but I've been swamped with work from mining companies for the last year. In my opinion the custom geology mapping on the Greaterville FootPrint alone makes it worth the price for anyone that works that area. The 50/50 boundaries are a bonus. The 50/50 area has produced some of the biggest detected nuggets in Arizona history. I've detected and water processed material there. There is a lot of gold in the 50/50 area. I was the caretaker for Kentucky Camp and there has never been a limit on prospecting in any reasonable form although working inside the Kentucky Camp fence line is strongly discouraged.

No it won't show the "actual" boundary because all it shows is land status. I don't recall how many different patents were reconveyed in the exchange but each one is individually shown as reconveyed with split mineral estate. You will have to determine the boundary from that information. I mapped those boundaries back in 2012 as part of the Greaterville FootPrint but there is no public version available beyond the current MTP. Also the MTP is not a geographic map but shows land status in relationship to the Public Land Survey System. There are no common or reference map features on the MTP except Sections and government lots. The land status notation is unique to the MTP and only has a passing resemblance to English language.