Oct 24, 2012, 03:02 PM
Im going to leave this alone I can tell pvillehunter your just trying to get something started im not here for that I was only trying to help someone so u and that other guy took it upon yourselves to attack what I said, its obvious your reading comprehension isn't very high just yet. I will leave you with this find out all u can on what fracking is and then read up on what the laws or lack there of the BLM operates under. Hopefully you will see what I meant in my very first post trying to help instead of tearing down what someone said.
Oct 24, 2012 03:02 PM
Oct 24, 2012, 04:34 PM
Bman...thank you for your concern, but I think you need to reread the thread. As I have nothing to do with BLM except my paperwork for the claim. My claim is in a National Forest...and the laws are differant between bought lands and aquired lands that USFS manages. Also USFS did not take my claim...they tresspassed and took my equipment off my private property. Please learn the laws between bought and aquired lands.
Originally Posted by bman3725
"the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) branch of our government has rights to all minerals and or metals on any land public or private.This law has been in action for many years now."
That comment is not true at all.
Oct 24, 2012, 04:39 PM
This is the most important thread on this and any forum in recent years and there is a library of pertinent facts,figures,laws and procedures to doing it right so.......PLEASE TAKE ANY/ALL disagreements offline or pm,whatever as the censors can and will delete ifn' anything comes down nasty like....again PLEASE..let it be and as always thanx mucho Mark,much appreciated-John
Oct 24, 2012, 08:54 PM
the comment is most very true and i quote:
"Stock Raising Homestead Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916. This law allowed a settler to claim 640 acres of nonirrigable land that had been designated by the Secretary of the Interior as "stock raising" land. At a time when mineral exploration was beginning to escalate, the federal government opted to maintain the mineral rights to the land claimed under that 1916 law. This was originally for lands in the Western US, and being from California you are still in the original area the law was made. The rest of this PDF file is here below.
Again for all concerned i was not fussing or arguing i was only trying to help and i was attacked by 2 individuals for whatever reasons i do not know why. My words were changed and my message was misconstrued i was only trying to point out the laws the BLM operates under which also run the USFS, which has been a problem here locally in my state, also there are laws in place if the said public land is misused or destroyed or defiled in any way other than what is in the contracts the USFS can step in and stop the mining and take equipment to make sure it does.
I am sorry if i have offended anyone here just trying to help out. If you had equipment stolen by employees of the USFS this is another case entirely, if you were given any warnings then they can and will take what they need to stop any unwarranted actions.
oh by the way this act i posted is about a certain state....but investigate further, within the next few years it was ratified to cover everywhere American owned.
Last edited by bman3725; Oct 24, 2012 at 08:57 PM.
Oct 24, 2012, 09:30 PM
Bman, if you want to discuss the dangers of "fracking" please chose another forum or start your own thread. This thread is about the illegal taking of a
miners property by the USFS. There are dozens of informed readers who will crush you if you persist with "a little knowedge can be a dangerous thing".
Please acknowledge that you are like the guy who innocently came to the office party late and are jokingly putting the boss down, when everybody else knows the boss has been killed
in an auto accident.
Last edited by Fullpan; Oct 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM.
Oct 24, 2012, 09:44 PM
bman...this thread has nothing to do with claimed lands for cattle,sheep,goats,camels,or whatever stock you want to raise or homesteading patented lands.
We are talking about Federal locatable minerals(gold,silver,copper,gypsum,and bentonite)Mining Claims. Totally different.
Please learn the difference. americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org :: Index
Oct 24, 2012, 11:52 PM
ok i give up....... I KNOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CATTLE......man i give up totally this argument is yours and yours alone, i have tried to help and obviously reading comprehension is an issue here. Maybe its me maybe its you..... AGAIN no matter what you and the USFS have agreed upon on a public land claim the BLM/ USFS still own the minerals there in end of story. Now if they came in and just up and stole your equipment get a lawyer settle it in court, right now u have me confused. I just don't see the USFS stealing equipment for no reason, i do see them confiscating it if you have been warned for various reasons on the claim. I guess im not getting the whole story. Like i have stated earlier we have been fighting a fight similar to yours (i think i dont know) and have been in court with the BLM and the USFS and had it all spelled out right in from of us. I again will say i meant no ill will only tried to help and i guess my help wasn't wanted i guess you just wanted to hear a bunch of people rally up to your madness. Sorry if i offended you i apologize and all that I will never comment o ANYTHING of yours again.
Oct 25, 2012, 12:54 AM
"I just don't see the USFS stealing equipment for no reason, i do see them confiscating it if you have been warned for various reasons on the claim."
From the first post...
California miner needs help after USFS employee steals his property from claim without any notice. Please spread the word.
"I KNOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CATTLE"
Then why post this link? "To Stock Raising Homestead Act"
"AGAIN no matter what you and the USFS have agreed upon on a public land claim"
Once you file a mining claim in a national forest it turns from public land back to Public Domain...private property.
"the BLM/ USFS still own the minerals there in end of story"
NO they do not. They dont even own the land...the people do...they just manage the land.
"Maybe its me maybe its you..... "
Learn the LAW!!!
Oct 25, 2012, 05:07 AM
SOMEONE GET A ROPE!!
Oct 25, 2012, 09:45 PM
I normally only lurk from the sidelines here, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to intervene and comment on some of the things Bman has brought up.
With much respect to Hefty (who I happen to know and who's situation I know all too well, because I was one of the people who worked with him on it), while it's true that his situation really has NOTHING to do with the 1916 Stock Raising Act, we should not be so quick to discount and ignore the act that Bman has brought up. The 1916 Act, no different from the Homestead Act, the Desert Reclamation Act, or the Mining Acts, is yet another grant from Congress. With that in mind, while it doesn't apply to this situation, miners should know something about these other acts and their respective case laws, as they shed much light on our own rights and the Public Lands system, in general. (Terrible, the amount of stuff we need to read and study just to try to enjoy our rights. Seems I spend more time studying than mining).
BMan, let me just say that a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing. While there is nothing inaccurate in the link you posted on the 1916 Stock Raising Act, you are interpreting the document out of context. In a nutshell, the 1916 Act set aside certain lands in the public domain to entry for the purpose of establishing homesteads. As the lands in question were non-irrigable, it was felt by Congress that they would best be utilized for raising livestock opposed to for raising crops. Prior to this, Congress also put laws into place to conduct surveys on as much of the Public Lands as possible. The purpose of the surveys was not only to accurately map and sub-divide these lands (utilizing the Public Land Survey System), but also to segregate lands by their characteristics in an effort to establish the best uses for the land. This 1916 Act grew out of such surveys, in that USGS had surveyed the land and felt that its best use was to raise livestock upon it. This decision was made in large part because of the fact that water could not be easily delivered upon said land to grow crops. Some of the land in question was known to contain metallic and other minerals, but up to that time, even though the land had been open to entry under the 1872 Mining Act, the miners were not much interested in developing those minerals due to the lack of water.
Under the 1916 Act, any citizen of the United States (or one who had declared their intention to become one), could enter upon these particular surveyed "stock lands" and segregate 640 acres of it for himself for the purpose of raising livestock. Once said settler had also proven that he was a bonafide stockman by complying with the terms of the 1916 Act, he could obtain a patent to the land. A patent is the highest form of title in the land and differs greatly from say, the warranty deed that you might have on your home, in that a patent is a PARAMOUNT TITLE. A warranty deed, by contrast, is only a Color of Title and only serves as a record that indicates that that the current person in possession MAY have rights as an asignee of a real title. (Or maybe they in fact, don't!)
Like some other Acts of Congress that conveyed paramount title to the land, often the patent holder obtained only those rights/interests which were conveyed in the Act itself. In the case of the 1916 Act, the patent conveyed only the surface estate which was necessary for his raising of stock. Any right or interest that was not explicitly conveyed in the Act was Reserved to the United States, which could include a long list of provisions, including the varying categories of minerals, water, timber, building stone and the right of way for ditches and sometimes public highways. However, these reservations do not neccessarily imply "ownership" by the United States, because in the case of metallic and other valuable minerals, Congress has already established grants which allow for Citizens of the United States to lay claim to and to develop them. Therefore, even though the land is patented, any Citizen of the United States has the right to lay claim to and obtain a title to the minerals in question for the simple fact that the minerals are held in a TRUST. In the case of minerals, the Department of Interior through the BLM, acts as the trustee to handle the disposal of said minerals under the terms of the trust which is outlined in the three major mining acts. The ONLY stipulation here is that the miner may not trespass upon the property of another in his pursuit of said minerals and he may not appropriate anything that is not considered essential to the development of said mineral deposit. In simpler terms, a miner who desires to exploit a mineral deposit upon the patented property of another person, must have the permission of the patent holder to enter the land and like any other miner, he follows the same basic process as for any other mineral appropriation in that he posts and records a notice. To avoid conflicts, BLM also requires that the miner also supply evidence of the land owner's compliance with his entry. The land owner too, can also appropriate the minerals beneath his land utilizing the same process.
That said, it is important to mention that the 1866, 1870 and 1872 Acts only conveys ONE category of minerals, which are those which are considered to be "valuable mineral deposits". Typically, we are speaking about metallic and other rare minerals, such as gold, silver, copper, nickel, zinc, platinum, iron and others. A definitive list of minerals open to entry under the 1872 Act has never been compiled, but it's generally acknowledged that there are about 30 odd varieties of locatable minerals which are routinely appropriated (on the list, gem stones of many types are counted as "one mineral"). Coal, oil, phosphates, aggregate, sand and other mineral materials, including petrified wood, are not appropriated under the 1872 Act and fall into a completely different category with their own body of laws, which is why your issue of "fracking" has nothing to do with Hefty's situation AT ALL.
As for the idea that BLM/USFS own the minerals on Hefty's property, this idea runs completely contrary to the reality. The truth of the matter is, despite their routine meddling, USFS actually have ZERO authority over locatable minerals. While BLM "inherited" the right to dispose of locatable minerals from the now defunct General Land Office, BLM themselves do not OWN any locatable minerals for the simple fact that they can't. They are just a trustee, no more, no less, and their ONLY real authority is to see that said minerals are disposed of in accordance to the 1872 Act. For that matter, up until recent memory, neither BLM, nor the USFS, actually owned ANYTHING for the simple fact that they were government agencies. Later on, both agencies became corporations (we don't know when, but it's not disputable that they incorporated). After incorporation, both agencies began to utilize their budgets for the purpose of acquiring property, which they purchased from private sources. This process accelerated in particular after the passage of the 1968 Wild and Scenic Act and became routine after the passage of the FLPMA in 1976. Of the two agencies, USFS ran the most amok, buying huge tracts of land in the Eastern States and even went as far as expanding their so-called "National Forest System" (which was actually restricted from any further expansion in 1910) to the four corners of the globe. That's right, USFS owns property and has facilities well outside the United States. They are little more than yet another global corporation, mostly all at the expense of the very clueless American taxpayer.
Of course, this is very much contrary to law, as the amount of property that the United States government can actually own is limited to its capital, forts, military roads, etc. The National Forest System, as it exists today, is basically unconstitutional, but again, the fact that USFS incorporated, explains not only how they've pulled this off, but it also explains the ideology behind their attack on Hefty, because USFS employees really are under the impression that USFS owns the land. On the East Coast, it appears to be true that USFS does own the land in question (since these lands were not part of the Original Public Domain, but were in fact acquired later), but it doesn't work in the Western States since the Public Domain was set aside in a trust for disposal.
This could go on and on.
To learn more, I'd suggest reading Donaldson's work "The Public Domain", which was published by the Department of Interior in 1881 and discusses the status of all this land, where it came from, why it is to be disposed of and how it was to be disposed.
The Public Domain: Its History, with Statistics ... - Thomas Donaldson - Google Books
As for the idea that Hefty doesn't have property and that it is somehow the property of USFS or worse, "the public", let's look at the case law:
“The court quoted the following from Clipper Min. Co. v. Eli Min. & Land Co., 194 U.S. 220 [24 S.Ct. 632, 48 L.Ed. 944]: " 'In St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. v. Montana Min. Co., 171 U.S. 650, 655 [43 L.Ed. 320, 322, 19 S.Ct. Rep. 61, 63], the present Chief Justice declared that "where there is a valid location of a mining claim, the area becomes segregated from the public domain, and the property of the locator." Nor is this "exclusive right of possession and enjoyment" limited to the surface, nor even to the single vein whose discovery antedates and is the basis of the location. It extends (so reads the section) to "all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically." In other words, the entire body of ground together with all veins and lodes whose apexes are within that body of ground becomes subject to an exclusive right of possession and enjoyment by the locator. And this exclusive right of possession and enjoyment continues during the entire life of the location, or, in the words of Chief Justice Waite, just quoted, while there is "a valid and subsisting location of mineral lands, made and kept up in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States." There is no provision for, no suggestion of, a prior termination thereof.' " - Montgomery v. Gerlinger, 146 Cal. App. 2D 650, (1956)
“A valid discovery removes the land from unappropriated public domain and the claim holder has exclusive possession” - Mining Claim Procedures for Nevada Prospectors & Miners (5th edition), Nevada Bureau of Mines
“The effect of valid location is to segregate the territory inclosed within the boundaries of the claim from the public domain, and in so far as everybody is concerned, the locator is entitled to exclusive possession”. - Johnson's Guide to Government Land (1905)
“(The) entry, so long as it remained undisturbed of record, had the effect to segregate the lands from the public domain and make them not subject to entry... It will be observed that the Supreme Court uses the word “entry” without distinguishing between a homestead entry at the land office and the initiation of a homestead right by settlement, but holds that lands are segregated by a homestead entry, from the public domain, and no valid entry can thereafter be made upon the land until it is restored to public domain by the cancellation of the entry that segregated it.”.- Holt v Classen, et al (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 19 OKL 131)
“This prima facie valid entry removed the land, temporarily at least, out of the public domain, and beyond the reach of other homestead entries.” - Hodges v Colcord, US 192, 24 Sup. Ct. 433
“In Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210, this court decided, in accordance with the decision in Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. 441, that 'lands originally public cease to be public after they have been entered at the land-office, and a certificate of entry has been obtained;' and the court further held that this applies as well to homestead and pre-emption as to cash entries. In either case, the entry being made, and the certificate being executed and delivered, the particular land entered thereby becomes segregated from the mass of public lands, and takes the character of private property. … In the light of these decisions, the almost uniform practice of the department has been to regard land, upon which an entry of record valid upon its face has been made, as appropriated and withdrawn from subsequent homestead entry, pre-emption settlement, sale, or grant until the original entry be canceled or declared forfeited; in which case the land reverts to the government as a part of the public domain, and becomes again subject to entry under the land laws. ” - Hastings & D.R. Co. v. Whitney, et al, (1889) 132 US 357
“When an entry thereof is made under those laws (whether pre-emption, homestead, or other), the particular land entered thus becomes segregated from the mass of public lands and takes the character of private property.” - Graham v Hastings & Dakota RY Co., (Decisions of the General Land Office/Department of Interior, Feb 12, 1883)
You can also see what happens to appropriated land that is abandoned before patent is issued.
“An abandoned claim becomes part of the public domain, subject to sale and disposition by the government.” - Migeon v. Montana Central Railroad Co. 77 Fed. 249
“Title absolutely ceases when abandonment is complete, and the property reverts to the public domain.” - Johnson's Guide to Government Land (1905)
"When a claim is abandoned it becomes, as it does, part of the public domain.” - Mining Rights on the Public Domain by Robert Stewart Morrison (1908)
That said, much as Hefty said, it is important that you learn THE LAW. Hopefully, you will never need to use it, but in this day and age, I predict different.
Last edited by 1866; Oct 26, 2012 at 06:31 AM.
Oct 26, 2012, 12:52 PM
And so it goes....we thought finding gold was difficult - oh yeah.
Oct 26, 2012, 09:48 PM
Thank you 1866...for setting things right with myself and others here.
And Fullpan...finding gold is alot easier.
Oct 27, 2012, 10:33 AM
Oct 27, 2012, 10:36 AM
Learning always has been and will continue to be an interesting adventure and all of this has been very interesting and enlightening..........63bkpkr
Out searching w/GMT & friend under my arm
Nov 04, 2012, 09:17 AM
This is a very interesting link...last updated 2001. WO Law Enforcement Web Site
This is under Forest Rules...
Forest Rules These regulations have been made by the Secretary of Agriculture to assure the enjoyment of recreation in the National Forests. They are common sense rules meant to control actions that cause damage to natural resources and facilities, as well as actions that cause unreasonable disturbances for National Forest visitors.
The Secretary of Agriculture's regulations (36 CFR 261) provide in part for regulating the occupancy and use of developed recreation sites. A violation of these regulations is subject to a penalty of not more than $5,000 or 6 months imprisonment, or both.
The following definitions, which appear in 36 CFR 261.2, apply to all regulations quoted in this publication.
means a fire, not within any building, mobile home, or living accommodation mounted on a motor vehicle, which is used for cooking, personal warmth, lighting, ceremonial, or esthetic purposes. "Fire" includes campfire.
means the temporary use of National Forest System lands for the purpose of overnight occupancy without a permanently fixed structure.
means the personal property used in or suitable for camping, and includes any vehicle used for transportation and all equipment in possession of a person camping. Food and beverages are not considered camping equipment.
means to injure, mutilate, deface, destroy, cut, chop, girdle, dig, excavate, kill, or in anyway harm or disturb.
"Developed recreation site" means an area which has been improved or developed for recreation.
"Forest development road"
means a road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving a part of the National Forest System and which has been included in the Forest Development Road System Plan.
"Forest development trail"
means a trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving a part of the National Forest System and which has been included in the Forest Development Trail System Plan.
means an employee of the Forest Service.
means natural person, corporation, company, partnership, trust, firm, or association of persons. "Permission"
means oral authorization by a Forest Officer.
means authorization in writing by a Forest Officer.
means the law of any State in whose exterior boundaries an act or omission occurs regardless of whether State law is otherwise applicable.
means a campfire built inside an enclosed stove or grill, a portable brazier, or a pressurized liquid or gas stove, including a space-heating device.
And under their SCOPE...
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY
CHAPTER II--FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PART 261--PROHIBITIONS--Table of Contents
Subpart A--General Prohibitions
(a) The prohibitions in this part apply, except as otherwise
) An act or omission occurs in the National Forest System or on a
Forest development road or trail.
(2) An act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers property of
the United States administered by the Forest Service.
(3) An act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers a person
using, or engaged in the protection, improvement or administration of
the National Forest System or a Forest development road or trail.
(4) An act or omission occurs within the designated boundaries of a
component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
(b) Nothing in this part (PART 261--PROHIBITIONS)shall preclude activities as authorized by
the Wilderness Act of 1964 or the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 as
[42 FR 35958, July 13, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 32136, July 25, 1978;
46 FR 33519, June 30, 1981]
Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
||preclude - keep from happening or arising; make impossible; "My sense of tact forbids an honest answer"; "Your role in the projects precludes your involvement in the competitive project" foreclose, forestall, prevent, forbid
make unnecessary, save - make unnecessary an expenditure or effort; "This will save money"; "I'll save you the trouble"; "This will save you a lot of time"
deflect, fend off, forefend, forfend, head off, avert, stave off, ward off, avoid, debar, obviate - prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening; "Let's avoid a confrontation"; "head off a confrontation"; "avert a strike"
blockade, obstruct, stymie, stymy, embarrass, hinder, block - hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His brother blocked him at every turn"
frustrate, queer, scotch, thwart, foil, baffle, bilk, cross, spoil - hinder or prevent (the efforts, plans, or desires) of; "What ultimately frustrated every challenger was Ruth's amazing September surge"; "foil your opponent"
kibosh, stop, block, halt - stop from happening or developing; "Block his election"; "Halt the process"
||preclude - make impossible, especially beforehand close out, rule out
obviate, rid of, eliminate - do away with
Last edited by Hefty1; Nov 04, 2012 at 10:22 AM.
Nov 04, 2012, 10:01 AM
*************** WHAT YOU DO WITH THE FINDS YOU DIG UP IS YOUR BUSINESS AND NO ONE ELSES, IGNORE ANYONE ON A SOAPBOX TRYING TO PREACH OTHERWISE! **************
If your going to quote a member please do not change any words they said.......... Do not type anything into their quotes......
Originally Posted by jcazgoldchaser
HERE IS THE THING ABOUT RIGHTS, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE VOTED ON, THAT IS WHY THEY CALL THEM RIGHTS!
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams
MY LIBERTY AND FREEDOMS ARE NOT YOURS TO GIVE OR TAKE!.......THEY DIDN'T MAKE US FREE, WE WERE BORN FREE, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT WE WILL REMAIN FREE!
CLICK LINK BELOW TO READ OUR RULES..
Nov 04, 2012, 05:22 PM
Hefty, - I guess your latest post is saying that your claim is not part of a "regulated" recreation site, and that they cannot "preclude" you from mining under
the 1872 law. Have I got that right?
Nov 04, 2012, 08:04 PM
Fullpan...That is correct.
Originally Posted by Fullpan
Do you read it a different way?
Nov 04, 2012, 08:27 PM
No, that's the way I read it, but some of this stuff starts to sound like mumbo - jumbo to me after reading for awhile! I've forgotten just where your
claim is, but at no time did I ever think of it as part of a "recreation area" Are they saying its part of Auburn rec. area?
Nov 05, 2012, 12:44 AM
Fullpan...Mumbo-Jumboled is exactly the way the FS wants you to be. So that they can continue to do what they do without any interferance from "We the People". I know I was totally confused when this first started. None of what they did made any sense. Hell they didnt even have the correct river name on the post that they left on my claim. And that was the very begining of this.
Originally Posted by Fullpan
I am now alot more prepared to handle any problems that might come up. And they know it! I didnt back down and go away like they were hoping I would. I have learned the laws that were imposed to protect the miners, and as I dig around and find these sites like the one about LEOs, their FSMs,their FSHs, and how they tell you what they are suppose to do. I will post them for others to learn. I make copies of them and are put into a folder that will be with me at all times on my claim.
americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org :: Index
And no I am not even close to any "Rec, area"
Last edited by Hefty1; Nov 05, 2012 at 12:47 AM.
By goldentruth in forum Metal Detecting
Last Post: Dec 29, 2011, 09:07 PM
By edye in forum Cache Hunting
Last Post: May 22, 2011, 02:32 PM
By Yellow Hammer in forum Gold Prospecting
Last Post: Oct 13, 2010, 09:58 AM
By pvillehunter in forum California
Last Post: May 27, 2009, 09:35 PM
By jeff of pa in forum Pennsylvania
Last Post: Mar 03, 2008, 08:45 AM
Search tags for this page
actions against usfs for right of access to private property
brandon renehart mining
brandon rinehart dredging
brandon rinehart miner
cheerokee d ass
cherokee d ass
did cherokee d ass have a seesection
how long does the usfs have to approve a plan of operation for gold claims
u s national forest abandoned property
www.cherokee da ass.com
Click on a term to search for related topics.