Lode over Placer Claims

[Rail Dawg]

Been researching this issue extensively but have a scenario for discussion.

We have a placer claim.

Another prospector files a lode claim over ours.

My understanding is that without our permission to prospect for the lode discovery the other prospectors lode claim is invalid.

What if we give permission for another prospector to locate a lode, they find one and file a lode claim?

Can they during their mining operation prevent us from going after the placer not attached to the lode?

Crazy scenario perhaps but we now have a neighboring claim owner who wants to test drill on our placer claim.

Any Words of Wisdom before taking this path? We are friends with the neighboring owner and would like to keep it that way.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rail Dawg]

Clay I did read Cole vs Ralph but need to read it a couple more times.

 

[Clay Diggins]

If you allow them to prospect for a lode and they do discover a lode they have a right to claim that discovery to the exclusion of the placer claim. The area within their new lode location would be off limits to your prospecting, exploration or mining. As in no longer yours.

Mining claims include ALL the valuable minerals found on the claim no matter whether it's a placer or a lode claim. Unless of course you own a placer claim and you foolishly allow others to prospect your claim and the permitted prospectors discover a lode.

There is no right for another prospector to investigate your claim without your permission. A lode claim overfiled on a valid placer without a permitted discovery is not a valid mining claim.

Prospecting is the method of establishing a right to discovered valuable minerals. Why any claim owner would allow a prospector to work their claim is beyond my ability to rationalize bizarre acts. "Prospecting" clubs are a bad example of how to occupy and develop valuable mineral deposits. Clubs need to wake up and develop limited licenses or leases to their claims or they risk losing them to lode discoveries.

All the mineral rights belong to the claimant. They can lease, rent, license or give away those rights whenever they want. Their is no government authority or law that can protect you from your own actions.

Mind if I drill your claim buddy?

Heavy Pans

 

[Rail Dawg]

If you allow them to prospect for a lode and they do discover a lode they have a right to claim that discovery to the exclusion of the placer claim. The area within their new lode location would be off limits to your prospecting, exploration or mining. As in no longer yours.

Mining claims include ALL the valuable minerals found on the claim no matter whether it's a placer or a lode claim. Unless of course you own a placer claim and you foolishly allow others to prospect your claim and the permitted prospectors discover a lode.

There is no right for another prospector to investigate your claim without your permission. A lode claim overfiled on a valid placer without a permitted discovery is not a valid mining claim.

Prospecting is the method of establishing a right to discovered valuable minerals. Why any claim owner would allow a prospector to work their claim is beyond my ability to rationalize bizarre acts. "Prospecting" clubs are a bad example of how to occupy and develop valuable mineral deposits. Clubs need to wake up and develop limited licenses or leases to their claims or they risk losing them to lode discoveries.

All the mineral rights belong to the claimant. They can lease, rent, license or give away those rights whenever they want. Their is no government authority or law that can protect you from your own actions.

Mind if I drill your claim buddy?

Heavy Pans

Thanks Clay. We never allow anyone to access our claims. Never.

You bring up yet another reason why not to do it.

 

[Goldwasher]

Awww what about a weekend visitor in the fall wink wink. I"ll sign off on any right to discovery .Though I might be out there looking for a claim of my own and would want to lean on someone with local knowledge.

 

[Rail Dawg]

Awww what about a weekend visitor in the fall wink wink. I"ll sign off on any right to discovery .Though I might be out there looking for a claim of my own and would want to lean on someone with local knowledge.

We’ll take you out to Rye Patch anytime Goldwasher.

Bring that trash pump lol.

 

[Bejay]

So Clay.....here is a scenario for your wisdom. I am out hunting and I am on and or passing over an unpatented placer claim. I happen to see an outcropping and decide to sit down on it and watch for what I am bunting for. I happen to see something glitter and it catches my eye. I pick it up and low and behold the outcropping I am sitting on has gold in it. I return home and do some research and find that no lode claim is on the placer. Many a lode gold strike has been found simply by hunters. Unpatented placer mining claims are still open to the public (in most cases).

Would it be wrong for me to locate a lode claim?

Bejay

 

[Goldwasher]

It's a claim you don't have permission to prospect or make a discovery on. So, nope. In fact you just committed mineral theft.

You may not have claim to the lode itself just like the placer owner doesn't ..however you can not remove any minerals from within a placer claim without permision. Even if its lode within a placer boundry.

 

[rockbar]

.... and if the valid claimant of the placer becomes aware of this new lode discovery, he would have the right to file a new lode claim upon it.

 

[Clay Diggins]

ALL the valuable minerals within a valid mining claim are the property of the claimant.

There are ONLY two exceptions.
1. When a non owner is INVITED to prospect a valid placer claim and discovers a lode deposit.
2. When a patent is applied for a placer claim and the patentee is PROVEN to know of an existing lode before the patent is granted.

A placer claim owner also owns any lodes discovered after they make a valid placer claim.
A lode claim owner also owns any placer discovered after they make a valid lode claim.

Neither type of mining claim (lode or placer) limits the mineral ownership within the bounds of the claim.

Sitting on an outcrop on another man's placer claim might require a blind eye but should you, by chance, see some valuable minerals you have no valid claim to them.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

That is interesting. As you know...many lode claims sit atop placer claims. A placer can "NOT BE" located on a lode. But a lode can sit atop a placer. I am hesitant to suggest that there are a lot of Blind eyes out and about. Of course then we get into the "validity" of the location. Of course then we get into the "resolve" issue by the courts. Then of course we get into the issue of "occupation". As you know....from our previous/past experiences: many lode claims are even geographically set as Placer in size...not even correct. Yet they are treated as if they truly exist. Past experience. So while the "truth" is set in "writing" the actual "it is what it is" does not rely on an end result suitable to the locators.

Prey tell!

Bejay

 

[Rail Dawg]

ALL the valuable minerals within a valid mining claim are the property of the claimant.

There are ONLY two exceptions.
1. When a non owner is INVITED to prospect a valid placer claim and discovers a lode deposit.
2. When a patent is applied for a placer claim and the patentee is PROVEN to know of an existing lode before the patent is granted.

So my neighbor locates a lode claim on our placer claim and permission wasn’t given.

I would assume the permission although not recorded would have to be written to carry weight in the event he starts work on his claim?

In a court the neighbor couldn’t say we gave verbal permission which of course we would contest?

What’s interesting is this is probably the exact kinds of issues a mining district would have dealt with back in the 1800’s lol.

Thanks Clay. This isn’t just conjecture but what’s actually happening.

 

[Bejay]

There is a reason why people file location notices for lodes on top of placers. That being; should the placer become void (for any reason) the placer can not be relocated over a lode. So the lode becomes the only thing allowed. Many lode locators actually file lode claims with the same geographical configuration of the placers...that way when the placer becomes void (for any reason) the lode is what is left...no placer can be located over a lode. So it is not always about "extracting the mineral" (mineral theft) it is about securing the future to do so. IMHO

Now; one would think that a locator who locates a lode geographically structured as a placer would be "shoot out of luck" as it is not even located properly. But of course then the issue would have to be resolved via the court. Then things start to get very tedious to say the least. Oh what fun! NOT!

 

[Assembler]

There is a reason why people file location notices for lodes on top of placers. That being; should the placer become void (for any reason) the placer can not be relocated over a lode. So the lode becomes the only thing allowed. Many lode locators actually file lode claims with the same geographical configuration of the placers...that way when the placer becomes void (for any reason) the lode is what is left...no placer can be located over a lode. So it is not always about "extracting the mineral" (mineral theft) it is about securing the future to do so. IMHO

Now; one would think that a locator who locates a lode geographically structured as a placer would be "shoot out of luck" as it is not even located properly. But of course then the issue would have to be resolved via the court. Then things start to get very tedious to say the least. Oh what fun! NOT!

Having a "Discovery vein" can make a difference with a "Lode in place claim" and has nothing to do with a "Placer claim".

 

[Goldwasher]

how can you legally file a lode over a placer without a discovery on the ground?

 

[bug]

yep its not legal, but if no one disputes it, or has time & energy to go to court, it seems BLM takes the money and everyone goes on their way.

 

[Goldwasher]

well, the thing about court is such a case would be quick ..right?

hell, theres a few claims I consider prospecting and top filing cause i know they aren't valid..

 

[Rail Dawg]

These are issues where mining districts played such an important role right?

We all would get together as a group and decide the best way to resolve a dispute.

There's another small battle going on out at Rye Patch (I'm neutral) that is hopefully going to get resolved soon with both parties feeling a little sting but the end result fair.