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 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

Unlike today, back when new laws were being created it was pretty organic and relevant.

Miners had already been governing themselves and the smart civil ones wanted a code of ethics at the least. Though just as we see in modern times personal agenda can rear it's head.
Before the acts were combined in 1872 there were other acts to help straighten the curves if you will but, even the administration of "claims" was the duty of the miners/claim owners. They put that burden on them selves as they knew the business of mining while still being literally connected to the pitfalls both physically and financially.

Contrary to the picture painted in school that is mainly based on attitudes and incidence after the Civil War. The early Rush in and to California was an extremely diverse affair with the exception being the Anglo miner. The "easterners"
The early miners who had " no law" actually deferred to the current law of the land and that was Mexican Mining Law. Mining for gold was not a new thing in in the Southwest. The Sailors ( a high number were Pacific Islanders), militia, explorers, Chinese, farm workers, and others that heard of the large finds in the foothills, Got along relatively well and the local rules were pretty inclusive. When you read old journals It is rare to hear the writer use a contemporary derogatory term for a miner of a different stripe. Though social justice warriors would lose their minds every few pages.

Anyways as territories turned into states and the U.S. grew and more people with minds to wield their their caste in life showed up. There was a need to take things past "miners Code" and into law.

The 1866 act 1866 Mining Act text and the 1872 General Mining Act of 1872 - WOW.com combined act set in stone the rights of miners.

It combine the Chaffe act and the 1871 placer act with the 1866 act. Western representatives successfully argued that western miners and prospectors were performing valuable services by promoting commerce and settling new territory. In 1864, Congress passed a law that instructed courts deciding questions of contested mining rights to ignore federal ownership, and defer to the miners in actual possession of the ground.[SUP][10][/SUP] The following year, Congressional supporters of western miners tacked legislation legalizing lode (hardrock) mining on public land onto a law regarding ditch and canal rights in California, Oregon, and Nevada.[SUP][11][/SUP] The legislation, known as the "Chaffee laws" after Colorado Territorial representative Jerome B. Chaffee, passed and was signed on July 26, 1866.[SUP][12][/SUP]
Congress extended similar rules to placer mining claims in the "placer law" signed into law on July 9, 1870


You will notice when you read the 1872 act it still specifically speaks of the district purpose and right to exist. PER THE MINERS OF THE DISTRICT.
After the Civil War many people used by laws to cut out certain people it was unconstitutional and you can not revive a "dead district" The main thing to note is what the wording maintained in place for miners and prospectors...and what it definitely didn't take away.

Once a district is gone as in not staffed that's it. Start over if you can get the majority of the miners in an area to do so. If you try to revive one and hold a vote and say you reformed or revived or whatever....you did not.

Start smaller actual miner participation is the only way a district can exist. Even then the notion that you put your self in between you and state regulation is false. Saying and thinking you formed a mining district does not mean you can go dredge or run an operation and not end up in court and lose your @$$. If you aren't following certain rules.

I am not saying that having several active districts in regional areas coordinating with others in other regions wouldn't do great things for small scale operators. I am saying that could impress others to do the same. That is really the only way to bring the "power" of districts together. And to get the respect of the agencies we have to work with.

Getting up at a meeting that is so far pretty inclusive of the parties involved. Berating them for not contacting non existing districts. And talking down to them and threatening them is not what a mining district president or large gold club President needs to be doing. The low attendance to the meeting is because unfortunately the majority of people who prospect. aren't claim owners ,and not all that serious. And a great many claim to be supportive , Yet possess the same amount of "I don't really care " as you see in the rest of the population does in regards to most things. It pisses me off but, at this point I expect it.

It is not because the SWRCB or DFW didn't notify enough. This stuff is plastered all over facebook and miner social media. Get miners to be more supportive of the rights and powers they already have. remind them that they must take part. Inform them properly and get away from the financial support to support infmative group schemes because it obviously isn't working.
Actually if there Is the Delta Gold Diggers, and the Mariposa district and the New Toulumne District pretty much right where this workshop took place then please tell me again why the attendance was so low?

Did GPAA fill the San Bernadino workshop. People can say what ever about AMRA but, his presentation was good and he is putting the effort into going to every workshop. Gpaa should be all over this.
Thanks to Craig from WMA as well. I know they have been working together pre workshops and it shows.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldfleks]

The claim thing is a big deal. It's hard to get the public involved when it's for things they are told to keep out of. People are inherantly selfish.

 

[RobertF]

There is no moratorium on forming mining districts in California or any other State. The right for claim owners to form a mining district is granted by federal law, states couldn't pass a law prohibiting that right.

Check out the supremacy clause Article VI clause 2 of the United States Constitution to understand why states can't overrule federal law. It's important to understand the different powers the Federal and State governments have if you are going to understand how mining districts fit into the regulatory scheme.

Once you get a good grounding there look over the Mining Act of 1872. That is where you will find the authority for claim owners to form their own mining districts - not in any State laws.

I haven't seen anyone here or anywhere else suggest that any law prohibits forming a mining district except yourself. California and most other public land States specifically recognize mining districts. Have you finally realized that the mining law grants the right to form a mining district but doesn't grant any right to reform a mining district?

There are State laws that prohibit the reforming of mining districts. Perhaps you heard that fact somewhere and misunderstood?

Even when the law doesn't specifically prohibit the reforming of mining districts often the bylaws of retired districts can not be included in a current district. Prejudice and exclusionary practices were common in the bylaws of the old mining districts. That stuff don't fly any more socially or legally.

Heavy Pans

I've seen mention of a supposed moratorium on forming districts in CA here on TN (not specifically this thread), from the stooges at MMAC, on mining FB groups, mentioned by other miners in face to face discussions, etc. Since I've never seen anyone actually quote the law that says it, I've question it, hence why I asked for the citation. My general understanding was this purported moratorium was the whole reason people were trying to get old, existing on paper, districts going again versus making new ones. If I go search the current California law for "mining district" I only get three hits, none of which forbid the creation or resurrection of a mining district. So if there is a CA state law against it that you know of, I'd love to see the citation.

As for 1872 mining law, no where in it does it outline any requirements for how to form a mining district, maybe I'm blind, but still no one is showing a citation of the text that covers it. There are people in this thread and others that say the people reorganizing the old districts aren't doing it right, yet they can't say, with citation, the way it should be done. In the 1872 mining law I don't see any requirement for a majority of miners to be involved, anything about a notification process (so many days), etc. So if these people are in fact reorganizing these districts against how mining law states, I'm all ears for seeing the citations that show they're wrong. Maybe I've missed it in the law, maybe it's under a different law and not the 1872, hence why I'm asking for the citations. I'm trying to educate myself here.

I agree that the old bylaws shouldn't be included in the current districts. If you're reorganizing a district under the train of thought that many of these districts are, I think the first thing that should be done is officially vote in bylaws that work for current times, which should include a section that strikes any existing bylaws from being active.

I'm all for facts in this, and for facts to hold up, citations to the law need to be made. Almost every thread here on TN regarding mining districts is mostly comprised of hearsay and speculation, rarely, if at all, is there a reference to legislation/law that supports what either side is saying one can or cannot do.

If these districts aren't being done right, I want to know so I can make sure ones are that are organizing areas I've got claims in don't somehow screw me or cause me more grief. I've got no problem telling any of them to pound sand if I can say, with the citations to back it up, that they're wrong. Hell, I'll even run for district chairman to keep them from screwing it up.

 

[winners58]

Rules of organization go way back, think common law, parliamentary procedure, rules of order
a mining district would be formed as an unincorporated entity, meaning not a state registered corporation, domestic or foreign.
California Code Unincorporated Associations
If you are forming a mining district under an umbrella corporation like MMAC
it seems to me you would be a state legal entity and may not be a federally recognized mining district

as far as older entity's like a Mining District formed before enabling acts, legislation and such that would take some research
but I don't really see a distinction, organizing is organizing there is still a right way and a wrong way especially if you have members.

Local rules and regulations bridged the time from 1850 to 1866 when the first national policy
regarding mining lands became a statute (Hershiser, 1913, p. 143). This law, known as the
General Mining Act of 1866, contained a provision that stated local rules should be recognized
and confirmed (Lindley, 1897, p. 62). According to Lindley (1897, p. 80), the Mining Act of
1872, which, with additions and amendments, is the law under which federal mining rights are
now acquired, contained a similar provision concerning mining-district regulations by miners
that stated:
Subject to the limitations enumerated in the act 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 . . .
Thus the mining district concept, which grew from need in the absence of legislation, became
legitimate through legislation. This same legislation, however, essentially eliminated any further
need for organized mining districts. Lindley in 1897 (p. 80) stated:
. . . generally in California the district organizations are a thing of the past . . . . They have
performed in the scheme of evolution, and have, for the most part, disappeared, to be
replaced by higher forms of legislation.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Below is current California law. I'm somewhat surprised that those "creating" and "reforming" mining districts are still wondering if mining districts are banned in California. Myself and several others on this forum have posted the links to California and Federal laws several times on this forum and even on this thread.

It's time to get educated gentlemen and if you want to retain that title I strongly suggest you get that education before you make any more attempts to lead miners into organizations that have no basis in law. Winners has done some excellent research and major pointy fingers in his last post. Bone up on the laws governing representation in your State or you may find yourself in a bind over your process. You have been put on notice here so there is no further excuse for ignorance.


CHAPTER 1. Manner of Locating Mining Claims, Tunnel Rights, and Millsites [3900 - 3924]

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

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.

County recorders of the counties shall accept any location notices and other documents affecting title to mining claims of dissolved mining districts. Thereafter all notices and documents shall be open for public inspection.

(Added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 259, Sec. 11.)

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

As for 1872 mining law, no where in it does it outline any requirements for how to form a mining district, maybe I'm blind, but still no one is showing a citation of the text that covers it. There are people in this thread and others that say the people reorganizing the old districts aren't doing it right, yet they can't say, with citation, the way it should be done. In the 1872 mining law I don't see any requirement for a majority of miners to be involved, anything about a notification process (so many days), etc. So if these people are in fact reorganizing these districts against how mining law states, I'm all ears for seeing the citations that show they're wrong. Maybe I've missed it in the law, maybe it's under a different law and not the 1872, hence why I'm asking for the citations. I'm trying to educate myself here.

As I pointed out in my previous post Robert the line between Federal law and State law has been set long ago.

The mining acts only grant the right to form (not create or reform) mining districts to preserve the right to the miners. Congress left it to the States and the miners to determine the process for forming mining districts. That's why you won't find any details in the Mining Acts about how to form a mining district.

Winners has pointed you to the framework for proper formation in California. The State only supplies the basic requirements to keep your activities on the up and up. You have not met those requirements. Just as it says in the mining acts miners can refine those laws all they want to meet their district needs as long as those refinements don't contradict federal or state laws or regulations.

Read the material provided. I think when you consider the facts presented here you will understand that it's not mining districts that are being questioned but the process you are using to try to get others to believe that you could create, reform or form a mining district by just having a meeting with a few people. It just ain't so.

Heavy Pans

 

[RobertF]

A big thanks to you winners58 and Clay Diggins for the information. I greatly appreciate you both taking the time to explain it.

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here as to my intentions or thoughts so let me clarify some. I didn't start the attempt to organize the district where I primarily mine. I received a notice that some members had the intention of doing it with MMAC's help. Being that I've had no love for MMAC since I first saw them, I figured I should get involved with whatever these guys were doing with the hope of keeping MMAC away from our little local word. That said, after I spoke up at the meeting, I was nominated as chairman, I accepted and was voted in. They were going to vote someone in that day and I figured better me than the MMAC related people.

To that end, I've never once said to anyone (here or elsewhere) that I have a clue as to what I doing or that I'm an expert on mining law. No one else at the meeting seemed to have a clue about any of it either, including the ones that had been talking to MMAC. So since that meeting I've been spending a lot of time trying to educate myself to a much higher level of knowledge on mining law than I previously had (a beginners understanding at best). A lot of that knowledge comes from posts by you, Clay Diggins, and several others here on TN. Most miners I come across really have no clue about the legal end of it and basically go at what they think is right until they get into trouble. I on the other hand want to know I'm in the right and what backs me up so I can go about things the correct way and know what to say if and when an issue comes up.

So the topic for the last several replies has been one that has been on my mind since I first read about mining districts as I couldn't really find much here or anywhere else for that matter when I first got tossed into the fire. I've had random tidbits from people here and there but most just kept saying "mining law of 1872!" and leaving the rest hanging. One of the longest discussions I went through was when I asked someone what type of organization a mining district even is, guys were tossing out all sorts of nonsense like being a non-profit or LLC. Which while I knew those weren't correct, I couldn't exactly find what we would be. So to have the explanation from you two, and the references, is truly of great help to me, and hopefully to those others that are trying to crank up mining districts all over.

Personally, I'm not going into this mining district deal thinking it's going to get people dredging or some other mythical hope. My vision for it is just to have knowledgeable district leadership that can help the local miners work through issues with the local land managers (USFS/BLM) instead of seeing the local miners going to bat against them completely ill-equipped and for the most part, being told they can't mine at all without mountains of unnecessary hoops to jump through, so essentially, I want to help them preserve and exercise their right to mine.

My ears and eyes are open, I'm looking to learn and in this situation, do the mining district business properly. I don't want it to be setup in a fashion that won't stand scrutiny.

Thanks again to the both of you.

 

[Goldwasher]

Thanks for more info Clay and winners. I am not trying to be an expert on Mining districts. But, I I have read enough to know hat is NOT a mining district. And That you can not just reform an old one( most of the time)

Anyone else reading this please understand and I can back it up with many personal references here and elsewhere .

My main goal /agenda/ hope/ desire is that every person as an individual that gets involved in prospecting and mining. Be it Gold or other valuable minerals, has the chance to do unfettered by agency issues and especially other prospectors via lack of info or mis- represented info.

I try purposefully to keep money out of the equation I do not like seeing people asking for cash or scaring into donation for the sake of that entity being a big help, that they couldn't be with out the money.
I despise seeing the splits and offshoots from groups into other groups or causes. IMHO it just shows the lack of dedication and focus we need as a group. And when you get the back story it usually shows the personal guff between individuals and their lack of faith in themselves and our rights under the law. Both Fed and State.

I do think we should have groups and clubs for communication and fellowship even..That is why I generally stand up for them and their members , yet will call out people for trying to start certain things. Like invalid mining districts without focusing and creating valid viable useful ones.

I am no expert, I study this as to how it relates to me. I get involved in the conversation, but, Realistically I often think I should just zip it and watch the things that happen and just shake my head.

My reason for sharing mining law is to show that it doesn't take away the rights of miners. Even as states were formed and new acts created the Miners rights wer maintained and propped up even.

In the absence of legislature they had the right to form and as they were "surrounded" by legislature the process was spelled out ( thanks winners I've been looking for that) researching old BY Laws gets pretty old as they don't spell out many things.

It is obvious when you read the Mining Laws and compare them to state codes. That as mentioned to Form a district you have to have a membership. The only people that can be in a membership of a district are owners of claims within the district. That's simple as you can't be a member of a mining district if you own a farm and not a mine.Therefore that is not the forum for a farmer to get involved in mining government. You have to show intention to or be asked to join/form a district. Hence the reason for contacting ALL!! claim holders in the proposed area.

If you put out notice to 400 plus owners in an area and less than one third show up in a room to hold a vote. you don't have a quorum. To form the district in the first place. The lack of initial participation prevents the forming and does not create the voting body required for further action.

At least that's how I read it and have essentially read elsewhere and that is why I have said what I've said.

18330.

Except as otherwise provided by statute or by an unincorporated association’s governing principles, the following rules govern a member vote conducted pursuant to this chapter:

(a) A vote may be conducted either at a member meeting at which a quorum is present or by a written ballot in which the number of votes cast equals or exceeds the number required for a quorum. Approval of a matter voted on requires an affirmative majority of the votes cast.

(b) Written notice of the vote shall be delivered to all members entitled to vote on the date of delivery. The notice shall be delivered or mailed or sent electronically to the member addresses shown in the association’s records a reasonable time before the vote is to be conducted. The notice shall not be delivered electronically, unless the recipient has consented to electronic delivery of the notice. The notice shall state the matter to be decided and describe how and when the vote is to be conducted.

(c) If the vote is to be conducted by written ballot, the notice of the vote shall serve as the ballot. It shall set forth the proposed action, provide an opportunity to specify approval or disapproval of any proposal, and provide a reasonable time within which to return the ballot to the unincorporated association.

(d) One-third the voting power of the association constitutes a quorum.

(e) The voting power of the association is the total number of votes that can be cast by members on a particular issue at the time the member vote is held.

(Added by Stats. 2005, Ch. 116, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2006.)



Please Barry if I have mis- read or mis- interpreted please feel free to repair my damages. I do not want to mis-speak.

As I mentioned before I am considering forming a small district and I want to do it right and If there is no reason I don't want to waste my time either.

Initially from reading what others have been doing for years I thought that you had to use the old districts. But, the more I read the more I realized that wasn't the case. If I had listened to the "experts" I would have been wrong. I'm glad I trusted my gut and dug deeper.

Funny thing is on some other forums I have read guys saying things like "does anyone even understand mining law anyway" in the conversations about districts. People comment about how much there is to "read through"

It takes less than an hour to read all of it. Yet many hours of thought and relating it to State laws and a healthy bit of conversation to get a more than decent grasp of what it says. I wish more people read it more often. Instead of deferring to the "experts"

Not that we don't need them around Thanks Clay and Winners. I promise I'm trying to keep up and be helpful.

 

[Goldfleks]

I really think if you guys are ever going to dredge again, you're going to need to follow the $ trail, no amount of 1872 mining law/districts is going to do anything to get it back.

Righ now the environmentalists, hikers, and fisherman have successfully lobbied that small-scale mining is/was costing the state more money in lost revenue from the reduction in fish habitats, scenic rivers/valleys etc than the miners are bringing in. And it's hard to blame them for believing that. No amount of science, pictures of muddy streams in flood, or fish in dredge holes is going to change that.

Long story short, the state governments and for the most part the public at large believes that the value of the land without mining activity is worth MORE than the value of the minerals in the ground. And until you guys can change that perception, restrictions on mining activity are just going to get worse.

And I really don't know how you're going to convince them otherwise.

Ask a random city day hiker if they want to listen to the sound of gasoline engines running highbankers/dredges along their river hike. An overwhelming majority of them are going to say no. Rafting companies don't want to raft past miles and miles of noisy dredge operations. Rivers tubers don't want to tube past smelly loud dredges. Fisherman do not want to hike out to their favorite fishing spot to the sound of dredges. Campers don't want to listen to engines running. Let alone smell gasoline fumes.

That's the public at large. Who are by and large NOT miners. And the public at large values the land/water much more than the sprinkling of minerals left in it.

So how do you change their perception? Especially when due to 1872 mining law and mining claims you've basically told them to, "Keep Off My Lawn."

Something has to give.

Maybe it's a technology thing. Maybe gas powered dredges/high bankers are a thing of the past and as a concession to noise pollution/air pollution new battery powered dredges/high bankers are developed. So that miners are no longer polluting the air with noise and exhaust. I know it's not as powerful as running a gas motor, but battery technology has come a long way in the last 10 years. Dredging with batteries is better than not dredging at all right?

All I'm saying is that mining in states like California in 2016 means being flexible. Trying to throw the 1872 Mining law in the faces of the public and their representatives who are making the decisions in a, "Our way or the highway" type of a movement isn't going to get you anywhere. Miners are a minority of people and due to the claims system, you are even less represented because it's hard to get the public on board for an activity that for the most part they can't take part in because it's all off limits. So you're going to have to bend a bit on your activities and demonstrate how you can go about mining WITHOUT impacting the revenues of hikers, fisherman, rafting companies, etc etc etc.

I know it's not fair. But life isn't fair. It's obvious that fighting the state is a losing battle. So until dredges and fisherman can carry out both of their activities side by side without impacting each other, it's going to be a really long road to convincing the state that your small scale activities aren't costing them more revenues than the little gold you're digging up.

 

[Goldwasher]

actually that has already been shown. The East fork is not at all like the rest of the state or the states that have mining claims. Your comments actually illustrate the issue quite well. There are plenty of areas where people can go recreate and they won't come across dredgers. There were 3k dredge permits issued the last year you could get them. Out of 38 million population. And we need to bend I don't think so. I Hunt fish and dredge.
Dredging in no way affects the revenue of hikers anglers or rafting co. I own a store right on the most rafted river in the state and that statement could be farther from the truth.

As someone who lived in Riverside county for half of my life. I really feel bad for those who have to "put up with" living in Sothern California. ICK

 

[Goldfleks]

Your comments actually illustrate the issue quite well.

Most people are probably more ignorant than me on the subject. I don't claim to know much on these issues, but I agree that I probably illistrate a bit of how the population at large views the issues.

 

[Goldfleks]

You need to get Toyota to build a Prius Dredge, and slap one of those EcoGreen stickers on the side of it like they use to drive in the Car Pool Lane on the freeway and you'll get the support of all the city folk. LOL And just to be sure, I'm on the side of the miners. I'd love to get in the water and dredge. Mining has gotten me out into and enjoying nature and wildlife more than anything in 35 years. Just throwing out alternative views and idea since the current trend doesn't seen to be working ;(