How Many Small Miners Are There?

[Clay Diggins]

I'm 3' 4". Is that small enough?

 

almost

 

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

[chickenminer]

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.

[Clay Diggins]

I think using this term "small miner" is very misleading and confusing! It should be "small claim owner" !

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".

 

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.

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.

[chickenminer]

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.

[Clay Diggins]

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 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.

 

[chickenminer]

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 .

[vanursepaul]

I am loving this educational thread---pour it on guys and ....gals---

 

BTW,  Do we have any gals on this thread ???? --- lets hear it if you are out there....

 

Is there anyone that read this whole thread out there that didn't learn at least one thing????

 

paul

[goldbrick]

O.k. lets keep this thread on topic and not try to change it into a dating site for horny miners. 

[Clay Diggins]

You may have gotten a good opportunity this week to prospect some of that big mining company land.

 

The BLM recently closed 2,681 lode claims in Nevada. That another 55,075 acres to poke around on!

 

Nevada is a BIG State. I'm wondering how much of it you could cover with a 14 inch coil in a lifetime?

 

Wishing you all nuggets that require wenches winches for the Holidays.

 

Sorry Paul I couldn't resist.   

[vanursepaul]

Goldbrick is just scared I might find that half-blind girl that can't smell too well before he does!!!