New Mining Claim Patent Issued

[Clay Diggins]

Your 700 million acres of locatable federally managed public lands is very close to the actual figure jasong. We are working on presenting those lands in map form in the upcoming months at Land Matters. It will be a first. You can speculate why that would be while we create that rather obviously needed map.

 

I don't have a calculation for actual mineral deposit discoveries possible because by their very nature those are still unknown. As a general round figure I can accept 1% of locateable public land as a working hypothesis.
 
Where you are mistaken is that the right is "granted to ALL people". The American Grants are by their very nature earned not given.
 
It is well established in law and history that the right to a mineral grant is earned by the discovery and perfection of a valuable mineral deposit. There is no such thing as a collective right to to a grant or even a claim on public lands. The vast majority of the public will never discover a valuable mineral deposit nor will they earn any form of patent grant.
 
All of the American Patent Grants were earned grants. Some actual action by claimants with well defined parameters have been required to earn every patent ever granted in the United States.
 
Most of those patents were earned with much less effort and risk than any mineral patent grant. Those other patent grants were also less expensive per acre to purchase once the grant requirements were completed and the grant was earned. You and everyone in the west live on those granted, formerly public, lands.
 
This recent concept that all Americans should share equally in the results of the labors of the few was never supported in the many forms of patent grants offered in the past. To try to apply such a standard today would result in severe inequality and hypocrisy, as you have already clearly demonstrated in your math.

[jasong]

 

 

Where you are mistaken is that the right is "granted to ALL people". The American Grants are by their very nature earned not given.

 

 

I think you may have misread my comment Barry.

 

Let me clarify: I am saying "rights" in general must be universal and apply to all people. Thus, "mining rights" cannot exist from purely a numbers or logical standpoint because there are more people than there are resources, so that means only a minority of people could enjoy those "rights" if such a thing existed. Note that I am not saying we have any innate "right to mine", in fact I've been clear on just the opposite for my 12-odd years of posting to online gold forums.

 

Ironically, I was writing that partly in response to yours and others usage of the phrase "mining rights" in the previous threads, such as where you said something to the effect a few days ago of "go out and enjoy our significant mining rights". 

[Clay Diggins]

You are right jasong. I misunderstood.

 

I was confused because you applied the concept of a right to pursue a discovery to actual possession of land.

 

Of course the right to try to do something does not automatically translate to a right to succeed. There is no right to enjoy the fruits of success without out actually accomplishing the task at hand.

 

Thanks for clarifying that.

[jasong]

Sometimes my typing fingers and my thoughts don't work together so well and what I say doesn't quite come through as I intended it after I read it a second time.

[beardog]

In my understanding, a patent gives the holder of that patent much more freedom to develop that land. For instance, the right to put up buildings, build bridges, cut timber and many other rights needed in the development of the property. 

 

The first step to getting a patent is to first locate a deposit and file claim to it. Then, for further development, a patent must be applied for. Is that correct?

 

If so, what is "fair" and what is not "fair"?

 

If I should make a new discovery on unclaimed land don't I deserve the right to further develop that land? Anyone with the determination, anyone, no matter the percentages, should be able to realize their rewards for their hard work.

 

Sure, there are X amount of acres of BLM land out there and there are X amount of people, but, there are only X amount of people who have the where with all to accomplish the goal of actually finding a deposit.

 

I feel this whole thing is more about Gov'ment control, and, yes, greed. The greed however is not on the part of the people who do the hard work, but rather, the greed is from those who did non of the hard work. These greedy people have their fingers deep into the machinations of Corporations and Gov'ment. No stone will be turned before guarantee of their profit.

 

25 years to get a patent - that's how long it took for the greedy ones to get their hands on a cut of the profit. (back room deals, campaign money, lobbying Congress, tweeking the law)

 

It's a jungle out there!

[delnorter]

From Clay Diggins:

"Mike, I'd like to hear more about that Mineral Survey you worked on. Mineral Surveys are still possible despite the moratorium and the BLM still processes that portion of the paperwork. Unfortunately certified Mineral Surveyors are getting older. The last Mineral Surveyor Examination graduates were passed in 1986 so even the "new" ones are getting near retirement."

 

A long time ago Barry, the early 1980's I believe. I was pretty new to surveying at that time and knew nothing of mining/prospecting. I was a line running, brush cutting chainman when this took place. We actually still used the old 300' metal measuring chains. I worked for Richard B. Davis, LS 3340. A great guy who is still actively surveying both on the ground and aerially. 

 

As I recall, at the time, we were not doing the actual mineral survey. There had been adequate previous surveying in the area, both original and subsequent resurveys. What was lacking at the time, were monuments and or enough evidence of them left, right in the center of the claims for whomever was verifying such in the field. This lack of monuments and such was due to forest fires, land slides, high creek water, bears and all that happens in nature.

 

It was a missing section corner (or two) which was pivotal in providing the on the ground monumentation needed.  

 

The claim owner, at the time, was a husband and wife named Dell and Dorothy Germain and is located in T16N, R1E, S1 & 12, and T16N, R2E, S6. I looked up the location on your "Land Matters" site to refresh my memory. After looking at the your site maps, I remember it was the corner common to S1 and S12 along the east boundary of T16N, R1E which was the most difficult to recover and significant to the needs of our client. We ended up finding the stump remains of one of the bearing trees, I believe with scribing still legible. It, along with retracing to controlling corners and "calls" to the creek in a number of directions, enabled us to "reset" this corner in it's original location with confidence.

 

In this case, as I recall, we just filed a "Record of Survey" map, with the County of Del Norte. A new government plat was not required of us.

 

As a side note: I think this property is for sale if anyone has a few million dollars.

 

I've a lot of stories about surveying the west and retracing the footsteps of the old time surveyors. Always keep in mind, if there was mining activity in an area at the time, the old original surveys were likely performed and evidence of those old corners should still be able to be recovered. It's pretty cool to be the first one to find an "original corner".

 

Mike

[LipCa]

Not that it relates to this post, but I have found many original 1882 corners on the Salmon river area in Siskiyou county... Yet, the BLM cancelled the original survey as "fraudulent".

Mike, you may have worked on a survey for a patent in Greenhorn creek near Yreka. It was issued well after the moratorium.

[chickenminer]

  " 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 !

[Clay Diggins]

It sounds like they are declaring the Plan abandoned and revoked. That's a big difference from closing a claim.

 

From what you write here maybe he didn't complete his work and reclamation timely within the terms of the Plan of Operation? That would cause a POO to be revoked. 43 CFR 3809.602

 

If he agreed to do the work then he may lose his bond and have his plan revoked but his claim can't be closed for not mining it.

[chickenminer]

  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.