Placer claim surrounded by lode claims...

[Rail Dawg]

We did some discovery recently and want to place a placer claim in the middle of several lode claims.

The land is sub-divided using aliquot. No Government Lots to deal with.

The placer claim boundaries would remain entirely within an aliquot quarter-quarter section boundary but would not be the usual 660' x 1320'. The claim is about 18 acres... not 20.

If we file the placer claim can we do so using the aliquot description or do we need to use metes and bounds like we would for a lode claim?

If my phrasing of this question is murky let me know and I'll try to explain it better.

My interpretation is we can use the aliquot description for the placer claim with the map we file showing exactly how the placer claim lies in relation to the PLSS.

Thanks!!

Chuck

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

When in doubt read the law.

1872 Mining Act, Section 10:
"...where said placer-claims shall be upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer mining-claims hereafter located shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant, but where such claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands..."

You will need to do a metes and bounds description and map.

Don't fall into the trap of describing your claim in relation to another claim. When the other claim is closed you will be hard pressed to prove your boundary. Do the metes and bounds and your claim boundary will be clear to all.

Heavy Pans

 

[Rail Dawg]

When in doubt read the law.

1872 Mining Act, Section 10:
"...where said placer-claims shall be upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer mining-claims hereafter located shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant, but where such claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands..."

You will need to do a metes and bounds description and map.

Don't fall into the trap of describing your claim in relation to another claim. When the other claim is closed you will be hard pressed to prove your boundary. Do the metes and bounds and your claim boundary will be clear to all.

Heavy Pans

Ah I was wrong but I'm glad to have you point out my mistake before we submit!

I should have known better. I try to know the law but it does confuse me at times. When you post the facts it makes the process crystal clear.

Thanks Clay. That really is a big help. Going to add this situation to my myriad of notes lol.

Chuck

 

[Rail Dawg]

Good reminder too Clay about not linking any of the metes and bounds to another claim.

Every mete and bound will be referenced to a Section survey marker.

Chuck

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Would an aliquot description cover the area entirely that you want to claim?

Is your 18 acres based on an estimation of the area left unclaimed between the surrounding lode claims?

I'm just wondering in the case of minor overlaps where aliquot descriptions lie adjacent to claims described by metes and bounds description, if it makes sense to use the aliquot description and allow junior/senior rights to take care of the minor overlaps that might be revealed when the other claims are surveyed?

Is this frowned upon in the mining claim world?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Would an aliquot description cover the area entirely that you want to claim?

Is your 18 acres based on an estimation of the area left unclaimed between the surrounding lode claims?

I'm just wondering in the case of minor overlaps where aliquot descriptions lie adjacent to claims described by metes and bounds description, if it makes sense to use the aliquot description and allow junior/senior rights to take care of the minor overlaps that might be revealed when the other claims are surveyed?

Is this frowned upon in the mining claim world?

It's done all the time. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's prohibited in the mining law.

So the question that comes to mind ... if the deposit is worth claiming isn't it worth claiming according to the law? Put the other way around ... if the deposit doesn't matter to you why bother claiming it?

In my experience a well located claim is worth a lot more than a poorly located claim should you decide to capitalize on your hard work in proving the valuable deposit you've discovered and developed.

Heavy Pans

 

[Auenone]

As to the 1872 Mining Act, you may as well use it to start your campfire when dealing with the morons in Sacramento. You still need to use it to file claims but as these democrats keep closing access to federal mining claims, less protection you will get here.
Hope you figure this out and good luck with your claim.

 

[Clay Diggins]

As to the 1872 Mining Act, you may as well use it to start your campfire when dealing with the morons in Sacramento. You still need to use it to file claims but as these democrats keep closing access to federal mining claims, less protection you will get here.
Hope you figure this out and good luck with your claim.

I doubt the "morons" in Sacramento have any say about what happens to mining claims in Nevada.

Welcome to Tnet - amazing first post.

Heavy Pans