Clay

Members
  • Content count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Clay last won the day on January 28 2015

Clay had the most liked content!

About Clay

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Try Qgis. It can handle any mapping project and it's free. Google Earth is very inaccurate and doesn't use equal area projections. There is no effective way to draw an accurate rectangle much less determine compass direction and distances (metes and bounds) which you will need to make a proper lode claim. Google Earth is great for looking over an area before you go there but it's not adequate for describing land areas. Qgis is not specifically for claims maps but it does the job great. It's the core program used in all high level mapping today. Did I mention it's free? Barry
  2. You are correct that the material in a mine dump is properly located as a placer deposit. There are no circumstances where a placer claim can be made coincident to a senior valid lode claim. There are very limited circumstances where the opposite is sometimes possible. You might want to review Cole v Ralph for a more holistic and authoritative view than I can give you on the issues surrounding mining claim rights against subsequent locators. The Supreme Court did a pretty good job of covering the possibilities in that very important mining case.
  3. For clarity that would be: The SW 1/4 NW 1/4 of the SW quarter Section and the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 of the SW quarter Section of Section XX Township XX Range XX Meridian and Baseline XX County of XX State XX. That's presuming the areas you show are regular aliquots and not Lots. That LLD description is even more condensed in Patent descriptions but I wouldn't count on your average BLM desk employee deciphering that method. You can find the BLM's take on this in the Land Matters Land Status Library by searching for Legal Land Description. There is a three part video course as well as a PDF of the course material available for download there. Hope that helps
  4. Thanks for bringing fact based information to this subject diggingbar. The BLM circular is clearly in error but that doesn't really matter. The BLM and the Forest Service are not your lawyer and can't legally be held liable for disseminating false or misleading information in their handouts or conversations. You can rely on one source of information however. The Federal Register contains the explanations of the intent behind the CFR regulations. In 2008 the Forest Service published Clarification for the Appropriate Use of a Criminal or a Civil Citation To Enforce Mineral Regulations in the Federal Register. This was classed as a final rule. From the explanation of that rule: Clearly on Forest Service lands occupancy (including camping) related to "prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing" that does not create a significant surface disturbance is not subject to a NOI, POO or the 14 day camping rule. No permit or plan required. These are what the regulations mean. Every Forest Service employee is bound by this explanation no matter what circulars are offered or silly statements by their boss. The Federal Register is your reliable go to source when learning the meaning of federal regulations. It demonstrates irrefutable agency intent in any court of law. A simple exploration of the law behind the regulations will show you why no federal government agency can prevent or regulate your reasonably incidental mining activities, including dredge size or length of stay as long as you do not create a "significant surface disturbance". I'll wait for the obvious next question about what is a "significant surface disturbance" for another time in another thread.
  5. That would be a lot easier (and cheaper) than the iodine/platinum foil test. Can anyone point to some more information on how that works?
  6. This is about mining claim surface rights on a pre 1955 mining claim. Not sure why so many folks want to get all militant? The BLM has been heavy handed there for quite a while but threatening violence won't make the BLM do their jobs better and it won't get the injunction that is needed by the miners. It's a simple matter for the courts to sort out. Properly handled in court it's likely the miners will be victorious in a short time. I guess for some folks firearms are less scary than courts?
  7. Garmin
  8. I didn't know GPR could distinguish precious metals from other mineralization. It's been my understanding that GPR records the distance to boundary layers - not degrees of mineralization or types of mineralization. Has the ability of GPR advanced far beyond my previous study? Could you educate us on GPR mineral discrimination ability?
  9. There are no State or Federal restrictions on dredging in Arizona. There are some rather severe natural restrictions to deal with.
  10. I think several different types of trespass are being confused here. Throwing theft into the mix doesn't help clear the muddied waters. I think discussing and understanding the nature of the different types of trespass might be helpful. Federal mineral trespass is committed against the property of the United States. Federal mineral trespass can be prosecuted civilly or criminally - agency choice. Those trespasses are prosecuted in the federal courts by the managing agency - usually the BLM or Forest Service. Federal mineral trespass will involve Federal Marshalls or Agency Law Enforcement. Claim trespass is committed against the claim. Those trespasses are pursued civilly in the first court of record in the state by the claim owner. That is usually at the local county level. Claim trespass is usually about overclaims or disputed boundaries. Only the claim owner or registered agent can bring this type of civil suit. There is no enforcement agency. Claim trespass is a private civil matter. Criminal mineral trespass is a crime committed against the claim owners mineral estate. Criminal mineral trespass is a violation of a state criminal statute. Those trespasses are prosecuted in criminal court by the state. That is also usually at the county level. Only the state can bring criminal mineral trespass charges. Usually the sworn complaint of the claim owner as well as substantial evidence is required before the state will bring charges. Usually the county sheriff is the enforcing authority. Generally with matters of trespass only the owner of the property trespassed against has the legal ability to pursue the trespass. Theft in and of itself is not trespass. Seeing someone taking fuel or minerals from another's claim does not allow someone who does not own the claim to make a complaint of trespass. Being a witness to a trespass may help the owner of the claim prosecute his complaint but it does not enable the witness themselves to make a trespass complaint. Theft should be reported as theft. Theft from a claim, car, private land or a house is punishable by law. I hope that helps? Barry
  11. Be careful what you believe Geowizard. Given enough information I could even figure out what you mean by: Do you have some information that would help David given the parameters he has shared? Do you just need the definition of Concentration Ratio" to answer Davids question? Barry
  12. I had a horce name Jiggs once. Speling aint no big deel as long as wee no wot u mean. Now back to our program... I'm going with Chris' answer - more information is needed. Barry
  13. The waters of California are owned by the people. California State has a Public Trust duty with relation to the people's water. California has not appropriated the water but they did take over administration of the allocation of unappropriated waters in the State, in 1914, as part of their public trust obligations. Waters that had already been appropriated or were part of preexisting riparian rights are not a part of the State's allocation of unappropriated water resources unless the owner of the water right opts for the State allocation scheme. Many have opted for that scheme, the United States has not. The United States holds riparian rights, reserves the right to appropriate needed water, as well as having granted locators the right to appropriate water needed for mining on lands held in trust by the United States. All of those water rights are subject to the "beneficial and reasonable use" restriction in the California Constitution. California is not unique in recognizing both the Eastern standard of riparian rights to water as well as the "first in time first in right" prior useful appropriation doctrine. Being as both rights are also tangled up in the State's control over allocation of unappropriated waters your confusion about the nature of water ownership is a common misunderstanding. Water is not owned by individuals but individuals do in many cases have a right to the use of water. Surprisingly the California Water Board has a fair synopsis of water rights in the state. You can read that synopsis HERE.
  14. The mining acts give you a prior appropriative right to the beneficial use of water for mining purposes only. The California excess allocation process (1914) is years subsequent to the mining acts (1866). Miners have, in the past, proven their prior appropriative right to beneficial use in California. You are already using the riparian rights that are also superior to the allocation of unused waters. All that being said you should carefully consider Chris' points about agriculture and the allocation system in California. Should some water authority object you could expect a phalanx of objections, fines and arrests from the various affected parties. You could become infamous. Should you choose to exercise and defend your prior beneficial use right I have no doubt that you would eventually prevail - you have 150 years of precedent on your side. Prevailing in those circumstances could not be considered a "win". As your obvious intent is to mine I can virtually guarantee you that you would be distracted from that goal for a very long time. I've studied water use in the west for many years. You might call it a part time hobby. My interest began when I was a stakeholder in the Merced irrigation district many many years ago. Water is power in the west. It's the unseen base to virtually all the power struggles between the states and the various use interests. The Central Arizona Project canal is the largest federal government project ever undertaken - it's still incomplete after 47 years. The 7 states settlement of the Colorado river water use was the longest, and costliest series of legal actions in U.S. history. Arizona and California declared war over water. The Colorado river was diverted to inland California for two years and much of the land law in Northern Mexico has evolved from the many attempts to turn that critical waterway to the exclusive use of California. Your 250 gallons may be puny by any standards but those of your 3/4 ton trailer. In the overall scheme of things it might well be the straw that broke the camel's back. If you have the interest, fortitude, skill and funds to enforce your prior beneficial right to that water I, for one, would support you. Please be aware of the implications of your actions before proceeding. There is a poorly hidden monster out there and it's particularly cranky now that the excess allocations can't be filled.
  15. The contours you are describing are surface contours overlaid on the graphic representation of the data. The contours, gulches, sections and trails were not produced by the survey but were added later to give a point of reference to the viewer. Barry