Tuolumne county mining district meeting in January Sonora Ca

[Tuolumne]

Anyone get on of these in the mail today?

Anyone know this guy?

Your thoughts tnet?

Any Sunday would have been better for me

I thought you couldn't have vote at first meeting?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[MadMarshall]

I'm confused? So you guys are just some good hearted people going around and setting up halfass meetings and helping claimholders set up their district? Because? Truth is I don't care about intent. It's the actions and the results. So answer me this.. anyone! Are these mining districts that Robert and Kevin restarted real !?! Legitimate.... This new tuolomne county mining district they are getting ready to restaff? Will it be legitimate?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

Clay Diggins - There is a moratorium on new districts called out in a section of California law - That is why it is important to locate original bylaws. Not sure about other states. (The Great Southwest is Arizona or New Mexico?)

More nonsense. There is no such moratorium.
The California law states just the opposite of your assumption - there is no "moratorium on new districts".

2015 California Code
Public Resources Code - PRC
DIVISION 3.5 - MINES AND MINING
CHAPTER 1 - Manner of Locating Mining Claims, Tunnel Rights, and Millsites
Section 3923.

3923. This chapter does not in any manner affect or abolish any mining district or the rules and regulations thereof within the state.

California couldn't possibly abolish mining districts because the right to form a mining district is a FEDERAL right - not a subject of any state's laws. Here is the current FEDERAL law governing the forming of mining districts:

The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced.

Of course the lawmakers in California know they can't control mining districts and they recognize the FEDERAL nature of mining districts and they even make that clear in their state laws:

2015 California Code
Public Resources Code - PRC
DIVISION 3.5 - MINES AND MINING
CHAPTER 1 - Manner of Locating Mining Claims, Tunnel Rights, and Millsites
Section 3924.

3924. Whenever any mining district in this state, organized or created under the laws of the United States, is dissolved, the officers or custodians of the records of the mining district shall deposit with the county recorder of the county, in which the district is located, all records of location notices or other documents affecting titles to mining claims in the mining district, shown by the records of the district.

Maybe in the future you could look into the actual laws before making such broad statements? You might instill a little more confidence in the people you would like to educate. You know - those forum members that can't understand "the subtleties of Mining Districts" without attending your meeting presentation in person.

I don't doubt your motives but your actual knowledge of the subject is more myth than fact.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

this map. way more important http://www.westernmininghistory.com/article_images/caligold/calimap-grid-750.jpg

Sorry Goldwasher but that map is at the root of much of the misunderstanding about mining district history in California. That map is part of a 1969 California State report on where gold has been mined in California.

GOLD DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA BULLETIN 193
By William B. Clark
Geologist, California Division of Mines & Geology,
Sacramento, California, 1969

The title clearly states it's a map of Gold Districts - not Mining Districts. It in no way was intended to show actual mining districts themselves.
Here's the opening statement in the book:

This bulletin is an overall guide to the gold deposits in California.

Although many of the gold discovery areas are named the same as a mining district many are not associated with a mining district. Apples and Oranges.

Heavy Pans

 

[Jeff95531]

So glad you are on our side Barry.

BTW, is it me or are these kinds of "controversial" issues showing up at this particular time of year seem just a little bit deja vue

 

[jog]

I don't believe there is any law that says you can't just start a mining district? So what's with all the historical bylaws, just get together and research how to start a new one and do it without having to be forced to pay a group of people who say they are helping you. Helping you by relieving you of your money.

 

[winners58]

I mentioned the county board as one way to make a county record, but even the county commissioners comments and resolutions
fall on deaf ears, something has to change. we have one county commissioner that is also a mine owner they attend the land use and
RAC meetings he said there has always been a seat for miners but most of the time it goes un-filled so if you want change get involved...

what does a mining district do within the district, each district is different but some of what can be done;
miners meetings, get to know other claim owners
road & parks; maintenance/litter, can be done with a MOU
mine patrol; welfare checks; know who's in the district
public outreach; good publicity, teach, educate
protection of historic or archeological sites
help miners with PoO's and other paper work
start a reclamation bond pool $
for isolated areas put up a 2-way radio relay
legal research, support efforts to protect miners rights...

I cant support a "for profit" were I have to pay for protection, "taxation without representation" sound familiar?
back in the day each district sent representatives to the American Mining Congress

 

[Goldwasher]

Sorry Goldwasher but that map is at the root of much of the misunderstanding about mining district history in California. That map is part of a 1969 California State report on where gold has been mined in California.

GOLD DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA BULLETIN 193
By William B. Clark
Geologist, California Division of Mines & Geology,
Sacramento, California, 1969

The title clearly states it's a map of Gold Districts - not Mining Districts. It in no way was intended to show actual mining districts themselves.
Here's the opening statement in the book:


Although many of the gold discovery areas are named the same as a mining district many are not associated with a mining district. Apples and Oranges.

Heavy Pans

Great point Barry.
I was mainly trying to show the consolidation. I have never been able to source what I belive is a good Ca. "mining District" map.
It does seem that a good majority of those dots and the areas as listed in the bulletin that it comes with, were the last standing districts. They seem to be in my area.

And by all means if I wish anyone was throwing maps around it was you. I don't want to share the King James Version

That link Winner shared of the Nevada districts is awesome. I'm sure the same sort of mapping for Ca, would be pretty intensive.

I was pretty certain you were allowed to form your own new Dist. That's why its on the agenda for our little drainage.
Four of us have 42 acres under claim now. And our neighboring claim holds twenty still.
We're in a an area of totally surrounded BLM so it has ready boundaries. There are only us five claim owners down there. I'm trying to keep it a simple and small as possible.
Otherwise our locations are in, what was the Coloma District. Though were at the very edge of the boundary of another. Re-staffing an old district sounds like a surefire way to create confusion and a pretend district even if by accident.

I believe with the five of us combined we are about ready to form a board.

 

[MadMarshall]

GW. That's actually pretty awesome that you will be creating your own district. I hope you succeed and am sure you will. I hope you keep us informed on your progress and maybe share the steps you have taken to create your mining district.

 

[Goldwasher]

Goldwasher -

Actually there are several examples of districts within the boundaries of another district. For instance you have Iowa Hill and Wisconsin Hill districts within the boundaries of Placer County's Township #7 District. While another district known as Angels District is not specifically bounded in the bylaws it is historically shown around the town of Angels Camp (Angels creek) which is within the district boundaries of the Murphys District.

I am still researching the whos and whys (which is tedious and time consuming) but my guess is they either wanted more local autonomy or there may have been special claim or other requirements not covered in the larger district bylaws. something like the need to specify smaller claims because of tight canyons or calling out how claims are covered near water ditches.

I agree about not giving money to others - You should support your mining district that will be representing you at the County, State, WB, BLM and USFS meetings. When we demonstrate support of dozens of mining districts at these meetings they will listen. Off the rah rah box now.

Clay Diggins - There is a moratorium on new districts called out in a section of California law - That is why it is important to locate original bylaws. Not sure about other states. (The Great Southwest is Arizona or New Mexico?)

I agree with all of you that claimholders should get together and form their own districts. And I guess we deserve getting kicked around a bit until we prove ourselves.

Explaining the subtleties of Mining Districts on this forum would create more confusion and frustration. It would be better to come to the meeting and listen to the presentation. It is a public meeting so everyone's invited but only Tuolumne Claimholders can vote (if necessary).

Wisconsin Hill is a mine in the Iowa hill district. If the miners at W. hill formed a district it was very short lived.
The Iowa hill district was a pretty large district.
Murphys and Angels were different districts as well. And geographically not able to really share boundaries. As either gold or mining districts?
There is a heck of a lot going on in between Angels and Murphys camp especially back in the 1850's. Seven miles on foot in the mother lode for a 49er presented a lot of prospecting opportunity and numerous districts formed in what we would consider a small area today.
I've never heard of a district without boundaries in its bylaws. But, I guess it may be the case for a few?
I don't know if reading the old district bylaws is all that helpful in forming the small districts we need. It is going to be a source of confusion. To form so we can realistically show districts can reform and claim owners can govern themselves, in respect of what you actually do govern as a mining district.

Because it's the mining law that allows for district's you can replace the state name with any that have public domain and therefore Mining Law.

"In May 1872 Congress passed a general mining law called, "An Act to promote the Development of the mining Resources of the United States." This act declared that mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States are free and open to exploration and purchase by citizens of the United States, according to provisions detailed in the law, and also according to local customs and to the rules established by miners in various districts. The law validated the mining districts which had been and would continue to be established to govern mining activity in localized areas. The law authorized mining districts to govern the method of locating and recording claims, and to specify the amount of work necessary to hold the claims in so far as district regulations were not in conflict with the laws of the United States or the laws of Utah (Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations, of the United States of America, 1872, vol. XVII, chap. 152). At least 90 mining districts were organized in Utah Territory and by-laws for many of these were filed in the General Land Office in Salt Lake City. These are contained in the book and file which comprise this series. Each set of by-laws defines the boundaries of the mining district and designates the name by which it was to be called. By-laws define the responsibilities of a mining district recorder, designate his term of office, provide for his election, and specify the amounts he can charge for his services. Additional district officials may be authorized. By-laws specify how records should be kept and designate who had access to them. They detail requirements for marking, recording, and working mining claims"

I don't see how "explaining" anything leads to confusion That will be clearer at a "presentation". You will actually be putting your info in front of quite a few claim owners here. This is a place for conversation and it can be quite educational. You might take more away from what YOU learn here than a good number of people will take away from your presentation. Unless you are presenting a real solid reason to form or support a district. Unless you aren't interested in what others think about it.

With the lack of direction, I've read so far I don't know what I could possibly take away from a presentation. At this point you are way too big picture, I think?

I still haven't read from any group who is trying to "bring back the power of the districts" make the proper argument or even show how a district is authority that "allows" dredging or will clear up the "motorized mining issues" real or perceived.

 

[MadMarshall]

So I am wondering. With Mmac creating mining districts. And the occasional do gooders goin around starting mining districts. And then possibly actual claim holders maybe creating a district. What happen if these districts overlap? What could be the reprucussions? Could the actions of Mmac and dogooders undermine and demolish the effectiveness and ultimately destroy the concept and legitmacy of mining districts?

 

[MadMarshall]

Well gentlemen. So far from this thread I've have drawn the following conclusions.
That's the actions taken by Robert and Kevin have amounted to zero. The mining districts they restaffed holds no merit nor will it be legally recognized. Until recently they were working with Mmac . For some reason they can't or won't disclose why they have branched away from Mmac and taken upon themselves to unite/create California's mining districts? This meeting to restaff the tuolomne county mining district will amount to zero. Just people who wish to assert themselves for our best interests but don't take any effort into learning about the crap they claim to hold dear...
I encourage and welcome them to provide evidence to counter my claims....

 

[AMP_kbell]

We all agree on the validity of Mining Districts — Historical MDs provide date of precedence, set boundaries and defined claimholders which makes it easier to contact claimholders and setup meetings. With new districts you add the complexity of setting boundaries and defining claimholders. I have chosen to focus my energy on historical districts instead of taking on the increased task of creating a new district.

Some of the MD meetings that Robert and I have setup are because we have a direct interest as claimholders. Others have been done to fill in geographic areas between re-staffed district areas. For whatever reason, we are not paid anything and won’t ask for money later on. I would hope that miners in these districts would “pay it forward” by volunteering to research and/or setup meetings for other districts that either they or family/mining partners have an interest in.

Mad Marshall asked about the reality and legitimacy of MDs that Robert and I have worked on. Their legitimacy is defined in Federal law and MDs are as real as their claimholders and elected officers make them. We have a long road ahead of us — One of the biggest challenges is having enough volunteers in the district. Volunteers to create or update bylaws, cover mandatory Agency meetings, meeting with elected representatives, outreach to the public, completing all necessary compliance requirements, collecting scientific and other research data/information, educating and training claimholders about current and upcoming laws and monitoring issues that affect them. This is what I mean when I talk about the “subtleties” of MDs. Discussions on each one of these points (and others) could take months on TNet - In my opinion it would be better for claimholders attending Tuolumne and future meetings to get an overview of MDs then discuss as a group how they are going handle things amongst themselves in their own district.

These MD meetings are the “launch pad” — The real work begins after you say yes to your district. What are the alternatives?

1. Acceptance of the State continuing to erode your ability to mine — this is assured.

2. Denial saying “I don’t care what the State or anyone else says, I’ll just keep doing what I want anyway”.

Not sure of any outcome but I’m picking MDs. This is a path that has not be traveled in many, many decades so there is no defined and absolute course. We can’t go to Barnes and Noble or Amazon and pick up our copy of Starting Your Mining District 101 or Mining Districts for Dummies. We are all going to learn together.

Clay Diggins — You demonstrate historical knowledge and good research skills. We really need help in researching and reporting on other questions that have come up. Please call me (my phone numbers on the card example page 1) if you’re interested.
I would appreciate it and so would the claimholders and MD officers I’m sure!

 

[MadMarshall]

I wasnt asking about the legitimacy of mining districts. I was inquiring about and the legitimacy of the mining districts you and Robert created restarted whatever. I also challenge the legitimacy of any future guidance and services you provide. What qualifies you gentlemen as advisors to anything? Miningdistricts.com makes me sick. It's easy to see what you gentlemen have accomplished for the mining community.. plenty of post in icmj amra mmac websites to know what these guys are about. Now they not part of mmac no surprise there. Same people new orgs to support and the whole time the small scale mining community i's running around in circles. I'm not sure who the jokes on?

 

[getmesomegold]

Well, I have a saying that is stuck in my mind from being told it several years ago .....
I don't mind you coming to me with problems if your willing to be part of the solution!
Well Gentleman and Women .... We have been presented with many problems! Me and Kevin have been and will continue to do our best to be part of the solution! Question is , Will You?
It doesn't matter at this point what any entity is doing or not doing if the miners won't stand up for what's rightfully theirs !
I know several of you reading this post have stepped up! I also know that several of you have just sat back to watch what happens next ......
There are no super hero's here or magic answers that will save the day! The only way that we will win is by joining together and showing that we are organized!
Mining Districts are recognized in federal law, State Law and just lately in the Reinhart decision so you have Judicial recognition as well !
Like Kevin said, It's up to the miners to gain or lose legitimacy of a mining district! If it's not used , then it doesn't have legitimacy, if it is, then it could be the most powerful tool in the miners tool box!
What we've been doing as a industry has not worked, we are losing ground it seems daily!
I will ask again, If not the Mining Districts , then what?
And if you don't continue the fight for our laws and rights who will!
So, with that I finish here as it is obvious that some just want something to get Mad about and I'm looking for solutions that will allow me to mine my claims at a profit . If you have a solution to lend to the problems that are at hand , I'm all ears and I'll roll up my sleeves and work with you!
If not, well, I've got to continue working with the people working towards solutions !
Come to a meeting where we are and talk to us in person or call us if you want , but understand we have one goal in mind... and that goal is to make mining viable again with out being a criminal to work your land !!
Our accomplishments are in the public to be recognized or criticized , but either way we are proud to be part of the bigger picture that is doing something to keep this industry moving in a positive direction!
And we welcome you to join the team , it's much bigger then you think and if you participate, you will begin to understand that !
I hope to see you all at the Toulumne District Meeting or maybe at a future meeting! Please introduce yourself and let's have a positive conversation about our future [emoji4]

 

[Goldwasher]

Oh,man. "just want to get mad?"

For one thing its real hard to work a claim for profit if your only on it a few days a month. I know Robert is close to the districts he has attempted to form and at least Kevin is working semi locally at this point.

I really really wish you guys would stop with the attitude that you are educating us about something we don't know about . It's very annoying.

When Blm came to be in 1976 the dynamic and usefulness of districts changed a lot.

One of the positions on the board is the recorder and they used to file notices and claim info for the district and as today you still did everything at the county.

Mining districts don't need volunteers. they have officers that have duties. It is their duty to fulfill the responsibility off the office they are elected to.

To be as clear as possible since you two are not. Forming a district will get you a seat at the table. If either of you had been around here long enough you would know that I said before numerous times. "if your not sitting at the table, you are on the menu"

Just because your at the table however will not take away the BLM or county. You will still have to locate the way that you do know, with the addition of the district filings.
Whether or not your you file within a district the only way you will have a valid claim is if you have recorded properly at the county and the state office that will not change.
You will not be able to skip that step. mining districts will not be taking the place of the other part of the system.
If you don't have the majority support of the claim owners within a district you can't form a valid district in the first place. And claim owners in the" Faux district" created will have no extra power that the non participating claim owners won't get to exercise.
You can't be like "we have a district nah nah nah nah nah nah!" it just doesn't work that way.
Saying your recognized because the mining law recognizes districts...does not make you a district.
M.O.U. will not get you dredging at the local level. You can not go against state law. the preemption argument hasn't worked in California (so far). So, I still don't get how you think reforming a district is going to help. Saying that re-staffing old districts is the easiest way. That would have to have their borders adjusted, most of the bylaws that are illegal and discriminatory scratched, sending mailings to everyone including the out of state absentee owners. and again gaining a participating majority in a geographical area that has changed quite a bit in population and claim concentration. That is not the easy way.

It defies logic. You should be honest and say. "that's what I heard you do" instead of telling us how things have to happen.

Forming new small districts of claim owners that are working in easy to manage geographical areas that the District recorder can actually stay on top of is the way to go.
More than twenty people per district considering who is actually working their claim is just a cluster%$#@!
Anything trying to go so broad is. Look at MMAC. You guys can't even talk about it because your on notice because J Mortari. can pay for lawyers with the money he scams from people and he is copyrighting MMAC materials.
And moron Lemmings are following him because of his fancy presentations, even though he owns no claim, can't form a district and owns a chunk of desert with forty year old trommels and a skip loader to he can have a mine for FUNZIES! They are all following him because they are being told it's the only way.

You two are no different. With the exception that you own mining claims. (I hope you better at last I haven't looked into that yet) Your example would be greatly respected if we were seeing something tangible from the districts you have created. I realize they are new. So, we shall see.

I enjoy greatly seeing Barry being called a great historical researcher Knowing what I know about Barry and what he does for a living good stuff.

Have you guys taken the time to use his website. It will be quite educational for you if you haven't used the research library yet.
Welcome to Land Matters

have a good day fellas hope your feet stay warm cause mine won't.

I'll check in this afternoon to see if we're chasing our tails in circles or up and down stairways.

C+ on the effort to educate us.

 

[AMP_kbell]

Goldwasher - You are right on several points. MDs are not some magic wand that allows us to circumvent processes in place. Filing requirements with Counties, BLM, etc. will not change. And yes changes in laws have changed how MDs have to operate. And "we're an MD so nah, nah, nah" is definitely not going to work. But as long-term relationships with Counties, BLM, etal are made and MOUs and other agreements are negotiated the benefits increase for the collective good. Will we get everything we've lost back? doubt it. Unfortunately all the hard work you and other individual miners put in during the SB637 process was a great attempt and I'm sure a monetary sacrifice (thank you) but as you said had it little affect on the outcome.

BTW yes I do work locally (Galt). I am a retired City employee (June 2016) that operates a small mining equipment business (AMP) out of my home. As you know, there is a show season, usually Feb-Jun where we travel to several states doing mining shows (both GPAA and local Mining Club shows like the August DGD show in Sonora) so it is tougher for me to do MD stuff during these months. I still make myself available by computer and phone when traveling.

You are spot on that MDs will get you a seat at the table - And the more districts at the table the stronger the Mining Community as a whole. Whether MDs have 20 or 200 claimholders collective attendance works.

Logistics as differ even though Public meeting requirements are the same. A district of 20 can easily call each other and meet at local restaurants or libraries as needed to discuss needs, direction, education/training, etc. while larger districts require a larger venue and contact process (email blitz, phone calls to members without computers, postcards, etc.) The big difference is managing all the MD duties I stated above.

I was not trying to be disrespectful on the education aspects. One thing about small MDs (such as the one you'll create) is that the majority of miners/claimholders in that district know each other and are already well versed in most aspects of mining procedures, safety, etc. They will already be up to speed in laws, requirements and issues that affect them. Larger districts have a much more varied mining "base" from seasoned daily miners, weekend warriors and the vacation "occasionalists". These claimholders require a much broader range of training, education and information.

While I agree that MD officers are elected with certain duties, the shear volume of required meeting attendance, compilation of training/education materials and all the other items listed above could not possibly be handled by the two or three officers in the district. It would be another full time job - While some of them may be retired (like me) or have part-time employment, the hours required to do all the duties correctly and completely is staggering. And remember Officers are also claimholders and want/need to work their claims. Imagine if you couldn't work your claim every day possible - you couldn't pay household bills let alone trucks, equipment, medical insurance, whatever. Volunteers are the only way to spread the workload of properly operating an MD.

I will definitely go check out Barry's website and I hope we can work together - I just wish be had about 20 of you, Barry and other experts. It would make it much easier for claimholders to get together and form/re-staff their districts knowing the have a great knowledge base to fill in the gaps.

 

[AMP_kbell]

BTW I have two active mining claims near Greeley Hill, CA (Mariposa Co) and have a notice of location placed on a claim site near Grizzly Flats (El Dorado Co).

 

[MadMarshall]

Well I'll say this. Neither Kevin nor robert hold any water in my opinion. I would not ask Thier knowledge on anything gold related. You ask for volunteers you give donations. Well no doubt you get what you invest... All I can say is if the claim owners and the people in your area listen to your ignorance so be it. But as far as where my interest s lie. Stay away.. preach your rhetoric And ignorance for recreational miners for the Gpaa or whatever alternative wage you earn. No doubt paid consultant s for amra. Anyway it's a pity that you guys are the men influenceing people.. this ain't the first time . Truth is you gentlemen have been screwing the mining community for a few years now. No doubt you guys been doin it with the best intentions but!!!! But!!!! It's a pity that neither of you really cared to learn and comprehend what you guys were preaching.. anyway you want to know the problem.?? It's people like you!! Ignorance is a disease..

 

[RobertF]

So MadMarshall, what do you think we, as local miners, should do to get our voices heard? Is there a group or association you feel is doing a good job representing small mining interests?

 

[Tuolumne]

Robert you need to read more about the concerns of the miners on Tnet like Mad Marshall- Go back and read some of his and others posts on the subject.

Being on Tnet and talking and reading what the most educated miners from all over the world have to say about the "issues" has been better than some one hour amra donation talk or weekend gold club show/outing, or national miners group, facebook pages with likes, or waste of a thursday Tuolumne county mining groups pow wow can ever do.

Someone is always here on Tnet to answer questions and give the other sides point of view, not ask for money to help represent small miners.

Miners help their neighbor miners first, then they reach out to miners in their local area, then to the county wide and so on. This self for other benefit is the best way to organically work towards long term solutions. Tnet makes us all instantly close neighbors.

Tnet puts small miners together in a way thats instant, free, and and no group or club can come close to the speed and diversity of representing small miners questions and their multifaceted concerns. Hell even Paper claim jumpers can reach out for support and info here...... we help each other here on Tnet in ways that clubs and advocacy groups cant or havent been able to so far.