Many Mining Claim Closures

[Clay Diggins]

For the last two years the BLM has CLOSED many thousands of mining claims on one day. These claims are the "Abandoned and Forfeited" mining claims that didn't file their annual requirement.

Last year the BLM closed 28,340 claims on November 17th.
The previous year the BLM closed 20,704 claims on November 17th.
At present there are 29,069 mining claims in the BLM database that are marked as not having paid their annual fees.

Land Matters Claims Advantage members have been receiving updates and maps on these claims scheduled for closure for the last month. If the past MLRS system is followed this year there will be more than 20,000 claims closed tomorrow. Those closed claims will be removed from the Land Matters Mining Claim Maps next week with our new claims update. Land Matters Claims Advantage Members will get a map of those closed claims for their use.

A smart prospector might find these closed claims maps useful. A forward looking prospector might see it's a great way to support the only FREE non profit mining claims mapping and educational charity organization.

[Coffeeguyzz]

Mr. Diggins,

Thanks for the info.

Does the My Land Matters site contain the precise locations of the claims?

If not, does one need to go to the county recorder and/or a local BLM office?

I have been prospecting in the California/Oregon border region - where virtually all of the promising creeks are claimed - and hope to detect 'up the hills' a ways, off site from claimed land, but - hopefully - finding nuggets as they are working their way downhill.

Thanks again for the forfeited claims info.

[Clay Diggins]

You are welcome Coffeeguyzz.

Land Matters, nor any other source, provides the actual location on the ground of any mining claim. Other countries do that as a matter of public interest but in the United States you will need to get copies of the original location notices from the County to determine the intended location of the claim.

The BLM is an unreliable source for location notices. Although they have copies of the paperwork submitted to their case files there is no guarantee those copies represent mining claims as located on the ground.

For example - one of the largest and most popular of the claims managed by a large national club in California has never been recorded in the County but the BLM paperwork is up to date. Both California and Federal law governing mining claims are clear that if there is no timely (90 day) public record of the location made at the County Recorder the claim is void from day one. You would never know that if you were relying on the BLM case files for that claim. A similar situation occurs frequently with mining claim amendments.

The County Recorder is the only source of mining claim records, the BLM only has case files and they can not certify that those case filings match the required public record. The County Recorder can, and will, legally certify all their records.

Mining claims on public lands have been a right since 1866 but the BLM has only been involved with mining claims since 1976. When push comes to shove on mining claim ownership the BLM is required by the very first 1865 federal mining law to bow out. Their case files are not proof of ownership or location. A careful researcher will always rely on the public record.

[Coffeeguyzz]

Mr. Diggins,

I thank you for the detailed explanation.

I have been spending quite a bit of time driving/hiking up and down bocoop mountainsides eyeballing the numerous claim signs which are virtually all along the creek beds.

My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that the 20 square acres can run outwards from the creeks 500 feet each side.

If so, this might leave a lot of potentially prospective ground going up the hillsides.

As a prospector could easily (and legally, I presume) park upon and hike across a claim and work on unclaimed ground, the possibilities of both friction and misunderstandings loom large.

I will attempt to precisely identify specific claim boundaries that are of particular interest.

Again, appreciate the information.

 

[GhostMiner]

9 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. Diggins,

I thank you for the detailed explanation.

I have been spending quite a bit of time driving/hiking up and down bocoop mountainsides eyeballing the numerous claim signs which are virtually all along the creek beds.

My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that the 20 square acres can run outwards from the creeks 500 feet each side.

If so, this might leave a lot of potentially prospective ground going up the hillsides.

As a prospector could easily (and legally, I presume) park upon and hike across a claim and work on unclaimed ground, the possibilities of both friction and misunderstandings loom large.

I will attempt to precisely identify specific claim boundaries that are of particular interest.

Again, appreciate the information.

 

Many creeks have been worked and reworked. You may want to explore remote areas away from them that have not seen as many prospectors. Try to get as much history on the areas you are interested in. Look for signs of past exploration as well. Some of the best areas on my companies claims are thousands of feet away from our creeks. Best of luck to you.

[chrisski]

11 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that the 20 square acres can run outwards from the creeks 500 feet each side.

20 acres is typically recorded as 1320’ or 660’

The creek could be on the east side of a 20 acre claim.  That leaves barely any feet to the east and most to the west.  Same if it was on the middle.

Im also betting that many of the markers on your area are still valid.  With claims opening and closing so much, at one time it was a valid claim, but five years later, may not be.  People are under no real obligation to remove these markers.

[Coffeeguyzz]

GhostMiner,

'Look for signs of past exploration'.

Exactly.

What I've been discovering is seemingly virgin forest ground is actually nearly entire mountainsides of tailing piles covered in thick undergrowth and  leaves.

I've talked to guys who have repeatedly worked some creeks over the years with good recovery and asked them about metal detecting uphill. They both seemed skeptical. (My interpretation was that they preferred the more familiar, reliable small scale dredging rather than continuing with the minimal, fruitless detecting that they both had attempted).

I will (continue to) follow your suggestion regarding research, especially promising areas where access/camping should pose no problems.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Coffeeguyzz]

chrisski,

Yeah, those BLM claim signs are common, along with a fair number that state the ground is available.

Outside of markings on trees, I have not seen any physical boundary markers, but they are likely present.

I've been using the My Land Matters Gis maps to determine how many active claims exist in an area and their approximate locations. If these active claims match all the posted BLM signs (as I believe they do), then large amounts of 'uphill' ground might prospective for a diligent detectorist/mountain goat as there are frequently signs of pocket mine work from the old timers.

I will be heading to the County Recorder office(s) and try to nail down the precise boundaries of several creek claims so I can (hopefully) legally work some interesting ground.

Thanks for the info.

 

[GeoBill]

The purge has started. Showing up on the MLRS website this morning. Time to search if that favorite claim you've been following has been closed. Get out those white 4x4s!

[GhostMiner]

2 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

GhostMiner,

'Look for signs of past exploration'.

Exactly.

What I've been discovering is seemingly virgin forest ground is actually nearly entire mountainsides of tailing piles covered in thick undergrowth and  leaves.

I've talked to guys who have repeatedly worked some creeks over the years with good recovery and asked them about metal detecting uphill. They both seemed skeptical. (My interpretation was that they preferred the more familiar, reliable small scale dredging rather than continuing with the minimal, fruitless detecting that they both had attempted).

I will (continue to) follow your suggestion regarding research, especially promising areas where access/camping should pose no problems.

Thank you for your input.

 

You're welcome. Yes, we had luck finding gold on the old hydraulic areas 300 ft above the creeks in height and 2000 ft in actual distance. We found areas that just were never worked and completely virgin. We don't metal detect but use excavators & trommels to mine. Perhaps metal detecting wouldn't produce enough results to make it worth while, not sure. I've found the gold values in our area to be all over the place. Sometimes many yards to the ounce or ounces to a yard. Many faultlines and displaced bedrock. The old timers from 1936 that my journal was based on had a big strike of over 1000 ounces in a single location. A part of raised bedrock about 25 ft by 30 ft on the west side of a partially hydraulicked faultline. The old timers from the 1800's had not gotten deep enough with their monitors due to water issues and left a nice treasure chest for the 1936 crew. This area was far from the creeks in a remote area higher up on the mountain. And the guy who found the gold in 1936 was murdered when he showed it while in poor company according to the government report I have.