Another gate question and house question

[et1955]

Here is the first question, in the first pic is the so called gate. It is on my claim, can I repair it and add my own lock to it while not interfering with the other locks on it ? Next there is house with a steal roof on my claim seen in pic 2 " the FS could not burn this one down like they did all the old cabins in the area " what are my options for this house and there is an old rv on the claim. Thanks for the input.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Assembler]

Just asking to get a better idea are the other locks on the gate not being used at all (abandon locks)?
If that steel roof house can not be used in any way for "Mining" may be hard to take advantage of.

 

[et1955]

The locks are old, this claim goes back to the late 1860's, not a sanctioned FS gate. The gate was created by the old claim owner who live on the claim.

 

[Bejay]

Historically many old time miners failed to patent their claims way back when (they wanted to avoid taxation and Gov intrusions). In the old days miners mined their claims to earn a living and thus lived on their claims. The USFS and BLM most often forced them off in later years. Recently a miner friend of mine purchased a long established placer claim. It had 2 houses on it and a couple of other buildings. It had power running to the homes and property as well. It had never been patented....but had been there for well over 100 years. It had big equipment on it as well....trommel, excavator, backhoe etc. Because he was running big equipment he could have a gate, but he had to have EMSHA oversight as well.....(the gate kept people from coming on the place and getting hurt). Plus he then was required to post a reclamation bond....as he assumed responsibility to restore the property to its "non mining" original condition. Basically he was run off his claim due to all the Gov oversight and ever increasing posting bond requirements. In the end he lost the claim and no hint of human activity is present on the property today. The buildings were removed and the power taken off the property etc.

How much Gov oversight do you want? I have such an old placer claim as well. The gate I close and pin but don't lock. The old house is actually something I would burn down myself but it is precarious to do so. I took pics of everything before I acquired the claim by location...as I don't want to be liable for someone else's mess. The claim had sat there this way for a long time without any reclamation resolve. The road into/onto the claim existed prior to FLPMA so it is a pubic right of way.....best to leave it as such.....iMHO. A locked gate makes another statement. A gate with a claim sign is a deterrent to people....no lock tho. As long as the claim is "public" you can not be held accountable for all things people can do........being a good land manager yourself will keep the Gov off your back. Often the USFS and BLM will actually support you being on the claim with the gate and house. Just don't try living in it and taking up permanent occupancy without getting into a pissing match with the Gov land management agency. Mining laws support you being on the claim...but lately that seems to not hold water with the land management agencies. Anything on wheels is not considered to be permanent.....as well as a cargo container. But you are responsible for removing them if you leave the claim. The word "permanency" has a lot of meaning with the land management agencies......as can be understood when you see many of the old claims the miners went off & left a mess with their crud all over the place.

I have another claim with a small "old one room" miners cabin on it....it sets on some corner stones foundation and such. The BLM has left it there for well over 6o years. I don't use it......but could store some mining equipment in it I suppose. I tend to leave things low key for now and try to keep things unnoticed by the Gov.

So it all depends on where you want to go with the issue and Gov resolve. This will undoubtedly raise some mining law issues; but sometimes it is best to avoid getting into conflicts with the Gov. It is kind of a dilemma IMHO. I just know a little history about such previous instances.

Bejay

 

[arizau]

Here is the first question, in the first pic is the so called gate. It is on my claim, can I repair it and add my own lock to it while not interfering with the other locks on it ? View attachment 1588402 Next there is house with a steal roof on my claim seen in pic 2 " the FS could not burn this one down like they did all the old cabins in the area " what are my options for this house and there is an old rv on the claim. View attachment 1588406 Thanks for the input.

Are you sure your claim, placer I assume, is not on some one else's still active lease in a "cabin program" such as this one? The Cabin Program - National Forest Homeowners. If it is then they own the cabin and other items on the lease if I read correctly. Also they would probably be billed for or responsible for demolition and debris removal. It would also probably account for the gate. I think I read somewhere that the claim concept is conceivable since the land is still owned by the feds and is open to public use per one of the guidelines in the link.

 

[Assembler]

What is the history of the "Claim"?

 

[RobertF]

What is the history of the "Claim"?

I wonder if a survey has been done on it.

 

[Goldwasher]

No, don't get him started

 

[DizzyDigger]

Ed, I ain't no lawyer, but here's my thoughts on it.

The cabin and motorhome are not part of a mineral rights claim,
therefore my suggestion would be to leave them alone.

As for the gate, I would leave it as-is. If you replace it, or add
a lock to it, the ownership of it is now on your shoulders, and
if it violates some FS law, all you gotta say is that it was present
when you took ownership of the claim.

BTW, all that bedrock is making me drool...

 

[Hoser John]

Wish you all the best a luck with your can of legal worms-John

 

[et1955]

Ed, I ain't no lawyer, but here's my thoughts on it.

The cabin and motorhome are not part of a mineral rights claim,
therefore my suggestion would be to leave them alone.

As for the gate, I would leave it as-is. If you replace it, or add
a lock to it, the ownership of it is now on your shoulders, and
if it violates some FS law, all you gotta say is that it was present
when you took ownership of the claim.

BTW, all that bedrock is making me drool... View attachment 1588868

Not interested in the house or RV, I just want to mine my claim, I like your idea, I will say the new lock I will add was put there from the guy I bought this claim from. I will be going there in July, forest fires have kept me away for the past 3 years. I know the bedrock is awesome.

 

[Assembler]

I wonder if a survey has been done on it.

Has there been? If so what details?