Black Hills National Forest Mineral Withdrawal

[winners58]

proposed closures in the black hills in South Dakota & Montana
in South Dakota this represents about half of the areas that are still open to small scale mining.
this is from an an administrative forest plan, there's no legislation pending.

>Courthouse News Service
>National Forest protection plan picks away at amateur miners
>Proposal would ban new gold mining claims at 11 sites in the Black Hills National Forest

FS Project page's

on the project page
they say to send comments to this Chelsea Monks she's the one pushing for this, doesn't sound right
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=45590


Comments must be received on or before December 23,2015.
• Comments can be mailed to:
• Black Hills National Forest Supervisor’s Office at
1019 N 5th St. Custer, SD 57730
• BLM Montana State Director, 5001 Southgate Drive,
Billings, MT 59101
• [email protected]

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...n-of-public-meetings-south-dakota-and-wyoming

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[russau]

Thanks for keeping the ole eye peeled! Someone needs to keep a eye out on what our own gubermint is doing to us!

 

[Hoser John]

 

[goldenIrishman]

Sounds to me like anyone that wants a claim in those areas had better get off the stick and get them NOW! Those that have claims had best be keeping their fees up to date or loose their claims.

 

[Maitland]

Our local clubs have been fighting this hard! They want to close off over 17,000 acres, many areas of which are known historically for producing gold, including the Tinton area which over the past 140 years has become well-known for its larger and courser gold specimens. There are a few areas in this proposed mineral withdrawal that have never been known to host any minerals worth extracting, but in my opinion these areas were included in this proposal to make it appear that they weren't specifically doing this to pick on the miners (which they are). One of the guys in our local club who has gone to many of the meetings hosted by the Forest Circus in regard to this mineral withdrawal, said that he was told by an FS employee that "prospecting leads to mining" and they want to protect the natural resources of the Black Hills. This whole thing is very frustrating, first of all the Black Hills aren't known for having the kind of gold like you see in California, Alaska, or Australia. While a majority of our lode gold remains unmined, most of the good placer deposits were hit hard a long time ago and most of what is left is the finer type stuff. There are still many nuggets waiting to be found in the Black Hills in my opinion, but hopefully you've got some wisdom and good luck on your side to find them. Secondly, despite the fact that our placer deposits aren't anywhere near as good as they were 140+ years ago, some of the few decent areas still left that might hold a promise yet for a hard-working prospector are some of the areas mentioned in this proposal. I have also been informed that these same exact areas that they're trying to close off to prospectors are areas that some local mountain bike groups want to build and maintain trails on, and the Forest Circus is behind them in support! I better stop typing before I get too wound-up... I of course really hope this mineral withdrawal doesn't pass, but sadly, I don't see any reason why it won't... corrupt bureaucrats will do what corrupt bureaucrats want to do, even if it robs others of their liberties. This is another reason why we need to get these "federal" lands returned back to the states. If the Forest Circus actually had an important, constitutional role to do and worthwhile duties to perform on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States, then they wouldn't be sitting in their comfy chairs brainstorming ways to shut the land off to those same taxpayers who own those (supposedly) "public" lands. They can unconstitutionally try shutting down as much of this land as they want to, but I'm going still going to go swish a pan around in the water where I will so please, and good luck to them on finding me in those 17k plus acres - it's my land!
T
Here is a map of the affected areas:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155....com/11558/www/nepa/100089_FSPLT3_2579750.pdf

Here is an article by a local newspaper on the issue: http://bit.ly/1QGpyNn

As mentioned in the first post, the deadline for comments on this issue is tomorrow: December 23! If you have some time, please comment against this measure! The e-mail address for comments is: [email protected]

 

[KevinInColorado]

"This is another reason why we need to get these "federal" lands returned back to the states."
...this is crazy talk:
1. These lands were never the property of the states, they are owned by all of us.
2. State lands are not claimable.
3. In most states, you need written permission from a specific state agency to even prospect with a pan on state owned land. That permission is usually very difficult to get and intended for likely commercial enterprises.
4. Most states see state land as a source of revenue and seek to lease the land to major corporations who fence it off completely. Zero access for the rest of us.