Bad news California
- Thread starter Clay Diggins
- Start date
The CA Supreme Court misses the mark.
they didn't go deep enough, Why? Mineral disposal, The heart of the mater is why the mining laws exist, for the federal government,
mineral disposal includes locatable, leasable and saleable, each is a contract, the intent is mineral extraction to bring them to the domestic marketplace.
why invest time and money to develop a mine only to have the state of California come along say you can only use hands & pans.
US Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;
and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Maybe the Federal Government is in breach of contract, if I find a valuable mineral deposit on the public domain. I file for a mining claim
A mining claim is a parcel of land for which the claimant has asserted a right of possession
and the right to develop and extract a discovered, valuable, mineral deposit.
they didn't go deep enough, Why? Mineral disposal, The heart of the mater is why the mining laws exist, for the federal government,
mineral disposal includes locatable, leasable and saleable, each is a contract, the intent is mineral extraction to bring them to the domestic marketplace.
why invest time and money to develop a mine only to have the state of California come along say you can only use hands & pans.
US Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;
and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Maybe the Federal Government is in breach of contract, if I find a valuable mineral deposit on the public domain. I file for a mining claim
A mining claim is a parcel of land for which the claimant has asserted a right of possession
and the right to develop and extract a discovered, valuable, mineral deposit.
Last edited:
T
Tuolumne
Guest
Mineral Deposit.....great point, people have the fever and cant see the real gold on their claim....I keep telling my neighbors I cant get much from the gold without a dredge right now but if I mine slate or even gravel I could make profit and start a business.
Last edited:
getmesomegold
Greenie
- Jul 11, 2015
- 19
- 11
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
There actually is a bit of good news in all of this, in the decision mention was made of the power of mining districts.
There is a movement to hold elections and restaff these districts and contrary to what's been said out there, these districts can and will make a difference and give the governance of mining, back to the miners, if you read the decision I believe you'll find the wording on or about page 10 and all but admitting this decision should have been a decision for the mining districts if someone would have been at the helm.....
Just having the mining districts staffed would have allowed us to be at the front of the decision line instead of at the public hearings where the decision was already made and they just had to go through the dog and pony show for the public!
So we may have lost a battle, but, it's time to change the strategy [emoji844]
Look in the ICMJ to get dates of Mining District Meetings in your area and come out and learn how you can take back and control your mines again!
There is a movement to hold elections and restaff these districts and contrary to what's been said out there, these districts can and will make a difference and give the governance of mining, back to the miners, if you read the decision I believe you'll find the wording on or about page 10 and all but admitting this decision should have been a decision for the mining districts if someone would have been at the helm.....
Just having the mining districts staffed would have allowed us to be at the front of the decision line instead of at the public hearings where the decision was already made and they just had to go through the dog and pony show for the public!
So we may have lost a battle, but, it's time to change the strategy [emoji844]
Look in the ICMJ to get dates of Mining District Meetings in your area and come out and learn how you can take back and control your mines again!
russau
Gold Member
Well for me ,it is easy to just say, "screw it" !" I just wont go to California and dredge"! BUT in reality as these laws in California get "modified" to suit the wacoenviromentalists /damcrats ,the other states and wacos see how easy it is to get what "they" want and its spreading to other states and NOT just the 11 western states! Where do we stand and draw the line as to how far do we allow this to go? For the most part, going to court to defend our "rights" isn't working very well and has cost a fortune! So , where do we go from here? It appears to me that the courts on the west side of our Country are biased towards the wacoenviromentalists and the damocrats and unless things change ,and change quickly, itll get worser before itll get better for us!
kcm
Gold Member
True, Russ....very true. However, keep in mind that we have something that the miners in California didn't have - warning. When things started going bad, they kept their West Coast, cheery attitudes and just assumed it wasn't gonna get any worse. By the time they figured out just how bad it was getting, it was too late. They came into the fight a little too late. Will it be that way elsewhere? ...Is it even "possible" to make such overwhelming and overbearing bans and restrictions in other states now? Yes, but ONLY if people aren't willing to band together and fight.
This shouldn't be a "Cali" thing or something limited to a specific area or region. There's few enough miners out there that we all need to band together. So, why does it "have" to be only Cali or West Coast miners that are in this fight? Let ALL the states see miners from all over banding together. The only chance they would have then would be to try pushing that BS legislation through multiple states courts at the same time, overwhelming the miners. (ADDED: Question is, how do we get NON-miners interested enough to fight with us??)
I know that's sorta what some groups have tried to do already, but mostly by taking donations for court expenses. ...What about folks who wanna travel to Cali and prospect?
I agree that olden-days hydraulic mining was both bad and wrong, yet as was mentioned before, there's not even an actual "law" against that. How can this be?!?!? What kind of insane legal system could make beneficial dredging illegal, while NOT making hydraulic mining illegal? ...And to what extent would they consider "hydraulic mining"? A certain GPM? A certain PSI? A certain nozzle size? Anyone could take a gas-powered pressure washer out and really blast into the ground using very little water. Then again, hard, dry ground requires different approaches than softer rain-soaked ground. ...Just trying to make a point here.
It seems painfully obvious that the courts in Cali are biased. And unfortunately, the only way to remedy that is at the voting booth. We "ALL" need to keep that in mind!!
Sorry if the post is all over the place. Just woke up, plus am a bit distracted at the moment trying to plan my day. UGH!
This shouldn't be a "Cali" thing or something limited to a specific area or region. There's few enough miners out there that we all need to band together. So, why does it "have" to be only Cali or West Coast miners that are in this fight? Let ALL the states see miners from all over banding together. The only chance they would have then would be to try pushing that BS legislation through multiple states courts at the same time, overwhelming the miners. (ADDED: Question is, how do we get NON-miners interested enough to fight with us??)
I know that's sorta what some groups have tried to do already, but mostly by taking donations for court expenses. ...What about folks who wanna travel to Cali and prospect?
I agree that olden-days hydraulic mining was both bad and wrong, yet as was mentioned before, there's not even an actual "law" against that. How can this be?!?!? What kind of insane legal system could make beneficial dredging illegal, while NOT making hydraulic mining illegal? ...And to what extent would they consider "hydraulic mining"? A certain GPM? A certain PSI? A certain nozzle size? Anyone could take a gas-powered pressure washer out and really blast into the ground using very little water. Then again, hard, dry ground requires different approaches than softer rain-soaked ground. ...Just trying to make a point here.
It seems painfully obvious that the courts in Cali are biased. And unfortunately, the only way to remedy that is at the voting booth. We "ALL" need to keep that in mind!!
Sorry if the post is all over the place. Just woke up, plus am a bit distracted at the moment trying to plan my day. UGH!
jere64ca
Full Member
- Jul 16, 2016
- 131
- 189
- Detector(s) used
- GB Pro
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Hydraulic mining was not banned because the courts realized that mineral estate grantees have a right to mine their claims. They did however regulate and hold them responsible for the damage they caused to downstream properties, which was pretty devastating. You can hydraulic today if you stay within the requirements, if you create a "significant surface disturbance" you will have to do a POO which will entail some form of tailing ponds/containment and reclamation when you are done.
kcm
Gold Member
Thanks for the info Jere. Had sorta wondered a long time about that, but never had a reason to get off my but and look it up. 
Goldwasher
Gold Member
- May 26, 2009
- 6,077
- 13,225
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- SDC2300, Gold Bug 2 Burlap, fish oil, .35 gallons of water per minute.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
there was a alot of fighting for a long time and no "cheery" attitude.
Dredgers have just been on their own essentially. 3000 out of a state populated by 38000000 makes you a super minority. So not the best way to look at it. Maybe in a state Like Oregon with 4 something million or Idaho at 1.6 million it will work out differently.
But, I wouldn't count on it. You have to understand that legislators want to get paid and they have to make up battles so there is something to do. It is hardly ever "the people" pushing for these things. And when "The people" are creating a law its taxpayer money that does it..making the otherside "the Badguy" in almost any case. Any thing "environmental" is win win for legislature...so well............
kcm
Gold Member
Well, I gotta admit I'm not much of one for "politics", namely when it comes to special interest groups and ....arg!, can't think of the name of those folks that are, for example, in Washington, but are not politicians. Instead, they get hired to push a certain agenda. Geez, my last remaining working brain cell has sure been sloughing off a lot lately!! 
gamiller
Hero Member
- May 20, 2013
- 602
- 473
- Detector(s) used
-
Tesoro sand shark,
fisher cz-21
Whites beach hunter300
minelab equinox 800
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
By your avatar I think You have first hand knowledge of this.
jere64ca
Full Member
- Jul 16, 2016
- 131
- 189
- Detector(s) used
- GB Pro
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
09/06/2016 Rehearing petition filed Defendant and Appellant: Brandon Lance Rinehart
Attorney: James L. Buchal
California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information
Attorney: James L. Buchal
California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information
Now they have postponed making a decision for rehearing till Nov. 20th isn't that real close to the 90 days to appeal to the US supreme court.
09/06/2016 Time extended to consider modification or rehearing The time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case
is hereby extended to and including November 20, 2016, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first.
09/06/2016 Time extended to consider modification or rehearing The time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case
is hereby extended to and including November 20, 2016, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first.
Last edited:
specksandflecks
Full Member
"We do not disagree that Congress adopted a real property regime in the
Mining Law of 1872 with the larger purpose in mind of encouraging ongoing
mineral exploration across the
West. Where we part company is with the
conclusion that such general, overarching goals would be frustrated by state and
local determinations that the use of particular methods, in particular areas of the
country, would disserve other compelling interests."
-YES- that's why congress made the law, so other compelling interests would disserve mining interests and therefore encourage mineral exploration.
"Congress could have made
express that it viewed mining as the highest and best use of federal land wherever
minerals were found, or could have delegated to federal agencies exclusive
authority to issue permits and make accommodations between mining and
other purposes. It did neither, instead committing miners to continued compliance with
state and local laws (30 U.S.C. §26) and endorsing limits on destructive mining
techniques imposed under such laws (Act of Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, 27 Stat. 507
(1893)).
These actions cannot be reconciled with the view that Congress intended
preemption of such state and local determinations."
-Also apparently unable to be reconciled is the difference between a 6" monitor washing down a hillside and a 6" dredge cleaning heavy metals from the drainage at high efficiency levels while having no negative net and possibly even being beneficial to fish.
For someone who doesn't disagree that congressional intent was to promote mineral development they seem to be having a tough time understanding the spirit of congressional intent to encourage economic development within reasonable and responsible limits of environmental impact ,consolidating a viable economic activity with the minimal impact, best practices as dredging would be.
Ignorant as I might be, gonna call it BS. I was naively optimistic before. I guess the key to not being disappointed this time is to adjust my expectations accordingly.
Mining Law of 1872 with the larger purpose in mind of encouraging ongoing
mineral exploration across the
West. Where we part company is with the
conclusion that such general, overarching goals would be frustrated by state and
local determinations that the use of particular methods, in particular areas of the
country, would disserve other compelling interests."
-YES- that's why congress made the law, so other compelling interests would disserve mining interests and therefore encourage mineral exploration.
"Congress could have made
express that it viewed mining as the highest and best use of federal land wherever
minerals were found, or could have delegated to federal agencies exclusive
authority to issue permits and make accommodations between mining and
other purposes. It did neither, instead committing miners to continued compliance with
state and local laws (30 U.S.C. §26) and endorsing limits on destructive mining
techniques imposed under such laws (Act of Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, 27 Stat. 507
(1893)).
These actions cannot be reconciled with the view that Congress intended
preemption of such state and local determinations."
-Also apparently unable to be reconciled is the difference between a 6" monitor washing down a hillside and a 6" dredge cleaning heavy metals from the drainage at high efficiency levels while having no negative net and possibly even being beneficial to fish.
For someone who doesn't disagree that congressional intent was to promote mineral development they seem to be having a tough time understanding the spirit of congressional intent to encourage economic development within reasonable and responsible limits of environmental impact ,consolidating a viable economic activity with the minimal impact, best practices as dredging would be.
Ignorant as I might be, gonna call it BS. I was naively optimistic before. I guess the key to not being disappointed this time is to adjust my expectations accordingly.
jere64ca
Full Member
- Jul 16, 2016
- 131
- 189
- Detector(s) used
- GB Pro
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I think this kicks the can down the road,,,,, unless I am mistaken we will get another 90 days from November 20th.
- Jan 1, 2013
- 2,653
- 5,418
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Vaquero, Whites MXT, Vsat, GMT, 5900Di Pro, Minelab GPX 5000, GPXtreme, 2200SD, Excalibur 1000!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I respectfully disagree with your statement above because it is far from true. The problem was and still is that the miners all over the states didn't see it as their problem just because it was happening in California. Many of us tried to real in all of the miner's but nothing was happening in the other states yet, so nobody wanted to get involved. As soon as the Karuk's put in to get a permit for a casino, we were on it( Somewhere around 2006). Once they were turned down and were able to bring in Las Vegas money to push, all hell broke loose because they were trying to lay claim to the Siskiyou National Forest and wanted it to become their designated Indian Land. It wasn't just the California Miners that were involved in fighting this because the Karuk's were few and far between and the Yurok Indian's were the real native tribe of the area. The Karuk were a small tribe mostly from Southern Oregon down across the California state line. Then they were led down the wrong path by the Sierra Fund and they sued the miners for killing their fishing area.... This old article gives a lot of insight. Most of the articles from then are gone... But there's plenty of people right here on this forum that remember and were fighting them back in 2004.
tribal corruption everywhere right in Yreka 120811
Then here's another -
Bill to allow online gambling sites in California pits tribe against tribe; Karuk Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria supports bill
and a little history -
Barry R. Clausen -- Environmentalists Control California’s Karuk Tribe
Then here's a timeline, go to the bottom of the page. I think it was actually around 2004 when they first started trying to become recognized -
Press
Then a ton of articles - Information You Need To Know About - NW California Indian Tribes
Last edited:
Karuk Leadership drive off miners
https://youtu.be/lZULGX8nQmU
https://youtu.be/lZULGX8nQmU
Last edited:
kcm
Gold Member
Thanks Reed. 
...Seems like yet another time when I have fallen prey to false rumors and ideals. Have never heard about that part of the story before.
...Seems like yet another time when I have fallen prey to false rumors and ideals. Have never heard about that part of the story before.
- Jan 1, 2013
- 2,653
- 5,418
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Vaquero, Whites MXT, Vsat, GMT, 5900Di Pro, Minelab GPX 5000, GPXtreme, 2200SD, Excalibur 1000!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Thanks winner58
I'd forgotten that part. There's actually more to that story that I have saved on a playlist. The Karuk helped falsify the truth about the salmon to take the lands away from the gold miners... If you guys have 17 minutes, there's 4 movies at the end of this playlist that start right here and will continue on there own, one after the other for the 17 minutes- It's old news now but all an important part of the story...
Last edited:
Top Member Reactions
-
2254 -
1124 -
1025 -
910 -
858 -
773 -
772 -
736 -
609 -
494 -
486 -
483 -
O
439
-
431 -
417 -
412 -
406 -
387 -
381 -
378
