chickenminer

Hmmm, I can understand asking for folks to back up their opinion, but to request NO opinion on a public forum ? Leaves me out If you want to read mining people's complaints against government agency actions, backed by their 'statement of reasoning', I'd suggest you read past IBLA decisions. That'll keep you busy for awhile!

The courtroom fighting begins... http://www.adn.com/article/20160113/can-drones-just-hover-over-your-home

As a federal claim owner that has been under "withdrawn" status since PLO 5250 in the 70's. Be very weary of our beloved Federal government and it's managing agencies during public meetings when they tell you "oh, don't worry. You have valid prior existing rights". Boys, let me tell you every single day of your life after the passage of any action putting you under "withdrawn" status will be spent fighting tooth and nail for those " valid existing rights" !!

Excellent information Steve ! Shame on me, I always thought changing an original file would strip the EXIF data. I just learned an important lesson! THANKS

Jimmy Hoffa !

Nice ! Gold looks like it has traveled a bit.

Now that's funny !!!

Drones are going to be a very useful tool to the miner/prospector. Here in Alaska satellite imagery resolution of most areas is extremely poor. With the regulating agencies now calling for aerial photos of our operations for permitting purposes it becomes an even more valuable tool. That's why I bought a DJI Phantom 3 Pro. Unfortunately there are some inherent limits to the drones now (like battery life) and I can see increased rules coming for sure. Let's hope the idiots don't ruin it for us all. It's a tool, like any other tool it can be abused.

Ah yes ... how could I leave out the donkey alarm clock !!

Bob... I know the feeling! -40 here the other night and the old bones just don't tolerate it like they use to ! In 2012 my wife and I spent two weeks rockhounding in Northern AZ . First time I had been out of Alaska in 50 years ! What a hoot it was and I loved that part of AZ. Talk about bizarre scenery ! The old Route 66 in the Oatman area was way cool, but I feel in love with Canyon de Chelly !! Route 66 ...... Oatman area Robin and I painted desert Petrified wood along a road cut Canyon de Chelly panorama.... absolutely stunning area A Tarantula Hawk killing a tarantula ... worse part of AZ.... spiders !!!

Sweet ! Who cares what the final weight was of your "klinkers". Sounds like you found it interesting, enjoyable and had fun .... what else matters. Have fun with your next adventure !

Congrats Paul ! Hey now you have a new tool to show off to those prospective females !

jasong, Indeed, stop and think. When I look back and remember what got us to be a great Nation, I am much more fearful of what I see coming. To even insinuate that mining and mining law hasn't changed is ridiculous. Prior to 1980 my case file with BLM consisted of a list of my federal mining claims, as required by FLPMA, and the land status. I recently had BLM make a copy of my current case file. It is 1200 pages !! Patenting brought a degree of stability to a miner in an enterprise full of unstable elements. It brought a stability in land status, a stability in the the regulatory process. For those of us that mining is our livelihood, that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, that stability is substantial. Yes indeed, stop and think. Be careful what you wish for.

jasong ... Patenting really has nothing to do with your argument here. When I staked my claims and fulfilled all requirements to perfect those claims, I became the exclusive owner of those mineral rights. No one can prospect on my claim w/o my permission. So that future generation is already out of luck, claims don't need to be patented to have exclusive rights or property rights. You seem to have an abhorrence for mining claim owners in general and exclusive rights in particular. It's apparent there are plenty of lawmakers out there that are trying to make your wish come true. Until that happens the law is the law. While I certainly do not agree with your position, I enjoy your posts !

As I said I have not seen the actual letter yet but yes, that is what I am thinking. With no prior noncompliance history and no other notification before this letter. We are just questioning at this time if BLM followed proper procedure. There was no mention in the letter of an appeal process.

" There is no requirement to patent a mining claim just as there is no requirement to mine an unpatented mining claim " Barry, I just became aware of a miner here in our District that received a " Determination of Abandonment and Plan Revocation" letter from the BLM on their claim. Claim is in the Wild & Scenic corridor w/prior existing rights. Owner has always filed all paperwork, paid fees and has a valid Plan of Operation. BLM's determination is based on the fact the claim owner has not actually mined in 10 yrs. Owner is in poor health and has been trying to sell the claim. I have not seen the original letter yet. The battle never ends !

Paul, You must be ' swinging your coil ' in the wrong spots

Barry, I was not disagreeing with you on the "small miner" definition. Yes, the only place I see this used is in conjunction with the maintenance fee waiver. I also very well understand BLM trying to interpret law THEIR way. My point was that BLM has treated small operations differently, ie ... Notice vs Plan of Operation. Those of us that have been around a while and are fighting for our rights still manage to hang on to pre-2001 regulations and those differences. You said " In my opinion it's time for miners to begin enjoying their considerable rights". Amen to that ! I say it's way past time .

Barry, Well it could be said this "small miner" term only applies to number of claims under the maintenance fee. Has this term been used in any IBLA cases or other court cases to define in any other than that use? We have a precedence for under 5 acres disturbance as being a different class of "miner". Feds not requiring bonding ( unless on withdrawn lands), same with the State of Alaska. Notice level (under 5 acres) as opposed to Plan of Operation. Corp of Engineers also separates those of us under 5 acres with a General Permit. So I have to take exception to your statement that " there is no such class as "small miner" when area of disturbance is the subject". There may be no legal description saying "small miner", but it is certainly inferred. BLM may have used the term "small miner" in reference to claim owners holding 10 Federal claims or less, but I find no definition of "small miner" in the Group 3700 or 3800 regs.

I think using this term "small miner" is very misleading and confusing! It should be "small claim owner" ! "There are no benefits to being a small miner except the exemption from annual claim Maintenance Fee payments." Again, this needs to be clarified in so far as a "small miner" maintenance fee waiver only. Otherwise there are some significant benefits to being a "small miner" when defined as area of disturbance.

-20 a few days ago and now 8" of snow. That should make you feel better !

Never meant to ruffle feathers. If I offended anyone that was not my purpose. Without historical significance, intent is lost. Indeed, we are our own worst enemy. No worries Steve, I'm done. Good luck prospecting everyone!

Wow... "Foolishness" .... really! I have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in my mining claims and equipment. It is my life and my livelihood ! I know my rights and will continue to fight to hang on to those precious rights I have under the Mining Law. Yes, since 1955 we have had a" Multiple Use" policy on public lands. Let me remind you that my right to stake a claim and have exclusive right to work that claim is back by LAW! There is no hikers law, no river rafters law and no berry pickers law. Just how far up do you think Mining would be on that "Multiple Use" ladder if we did not have a LAW granting us the right to do so ? It would be the bottom rung my friend !! Let's not forget our government, in all its wisdom, has taken away the opportunity for us to patent Federal mining claims. Therefore we have no choice but to mine on "public land".

Great thread beardog ! My wife and I spent 3 weeks hiking/rockhounding around AZ a couple years ago. This was the first time I had been out of Alaska in 50 years. It was incredible! The hiking and exposed surface were so unreal that I kept thinking "is this heaven" ? It really was, as you say, an Alice in Wonderland experience. Love that area !

Well, As a 40+ year professional placer miner I have a few things to add to this discussion. Land status in Western states and mining districts can be very complex ! As a Federal claim holder I am fully aware of my 'rights'. In 1955 the Surface Resources Act was passed. This act introduced the concept of "multiple use" and stripped away valuable surface rights on Federal mining claims staked after '55. Pre- 1955 claims still retain those rights, including the right to deny access (with exceptions). Also, there is a very good reason why folks will hold on to a large number of claims. I don't particularly like paying $6,000 a year in Maintenance Fees or State claim rental but as a professional miner I know the value in doing so for the long run. It's the cost of business for future production. You don't just go out and stake a new "rich" claim when you worked out the old one. Not ever claim holder is a recreational metal detectorist. I don't enjoy reading statements like the quote above. Miners are getting hammered enough by Government agencies and "green" thinking for-a-cause people. We certainly do not need fellow miners further eroding the few 'rights' we are managing to keep a grasp on.