"closed" placier claims - open?

[G-bone]

Hello all!
I'm ready to use my new xmas gifts (panning gear)
I want to take the boys and due a little local panning/sluicing.

But my biggest fear is treading on an existing claim.
I downloaded "Gold maps on line" for California.
It shows Active Placer Claims as well as closed Placer claims.

SO my questions is, if a Placer claims is listed as "closed" and is within the National Forest or BLM, does that mean it is open for free panning?
When labeled "closed" does that mean it is no longer a claim and re-open land basically?

I'll do some searchin on BLM site for the answer as well, but just so impatient that I'm hoping to find an answer here

I will be looking into local clubs as well as I get deeper into this new hobby.
but so much in our local mountains to explore on our own as well.
But I just want to do it fairly.

Thanks all.

G

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Clay Diggins]

I can only share the current law with you desertphile. You won't find "readily visible" or "well maintained" in either the California law or the mining acts. The California law on locations can be read in full here.

The BLM has no part in determining the validity of claim staking or monumenting, neither do other prospectors. Looking to the BLM as a source of legal information is like looking to a goat to provide you with beef, In the end it's still a goat and the BLM is still just a land management agency that can't be held responsible for giving you bad advice.

You are correct that the physical location trumps the paper location - should there be a discrepancy between the two. I know that people have a hard time understanding why the Legal Land Description can replace your own stakes. Try to picture it this way - the licensed surveyors corner pin placed for the public land survey is more permanent and accurate than most locators ever will be. Locators have always been encouraged to use prominent permanent landmarks to describe their claim location. PLSS survey pins are prominent permanent landmarks by definition.

If you feel the grass is greener on the other side feel free to overclaim and sue within the 30 days. Otherwise, no matter what your beliefs, locators are entitled by law to exclude other prospectors and miners from working their claim. No matter what your opinion is about the quality of their location work.

All that being said I would encourage all locators to clearly mark their claims for practical reasons. You can't be there all the time and the Sheriff might get tired of chasing the highgraders down. Many prospectors have similar beliefs and as any claim owner will tell you some will highgrade you given even the slightest excuse.

Heavy Pans

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[G-bone]

Thanks to all for your input. Lots to read and interpretation is very important as I can also see.

I just wish it were a little easier to find out "where it is" and "who to contact".
I see SO many little canyons and and narrows to explore on day hikes and want to maybe pan or sluice a little.
and at this stage of my new hobby, I would do so little damage to any claim.
But if I could easily be able to find out if an area does happen to have a placer claim, I would gladly contact owner for maybe permission to pan or sluice for royalties. no problem!!

I realize that is not the way the world works.
And common sense, respect and courtesy seem to no longer exist in most people I meet now a days Generally speaking of course. Always good people out there every day too (just don't seem to see them as much any more).

I will continue to learn as much as possible on any area, before picking up any dirt.

Thanks again.

G

 

[goldenIrishman]

Hang in there G-bone, Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are good miners. There is a learning curve to this just like anything else. Listen to those more experienced than you, do your research and get hooked up with a local club to get some hands on in valid areas. Then branch out.

Prospecting is one of those things that the more you put into it, the more you'll get out. There are some great research tools on-line that can really up your game so use them!

 

[Desertphile]

Since it is the BLM that handles the paperwork, I follow what the BLM says regarding what is and is not a valid location of a mineral claim. The California handbook on claiming minerals at a placer site is what I go by, because that is what the Barstow Office goes by and that is where my papers are filed. What they dictate, I do. The law requiring readily visible monuments, with readable notices, was set in year 1893 and it still applies. In year 1992 the point-of-discovery monument requirements were standardized, and mineral claim holders had until January 1 year 1995 to comply: monuments that could not be seen at a reasonable distance had to be augmented by additional monuments, and in each case a notice must be placed that can be read.

Last night I discussed the issue with one of my associates and we thumbed through the laws (I have the entire set in PDF form). We could not find any revision of the statement made in year 1903 by Richard Henry Stretch regarding markers: if they cannot be seen or read, there is no valid claim.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Since it is the BLM that handles the paperwork, I follow what the BLM says regarding what is and is not a valid location of a mineral claim. The California handbook on claiming minerals at a placer site is what I go by, because that is what the Barstow Office goes by and that is where my papers are filed. What they dictate, I do. The law requiring readily visible monuments, with readable notices, was set in year 1893 and it still applies. In year 1992 the point-of-discovery monument requirements were standardized, and mineral claim holders had until January 1 year 1995 to comply: monuments that could not be seen at a reasonable distance had to be augmented by additional monuments, and in each case a notice must be placed that can be read.

Last night I discussed the issue with one of my associates and we thumbed through the laws (I have the entire set in PDF form). We could not find any revision of the statement made in year 1903 by Richard Henry Stretch regarding markers: if they cannot be seen or read, there is no valid claim.

Belief is a funny thing desertphile. I gave you the source and authority of current law in California. You reply that you believe that someone at the Barstow office is in charge of your claims. Even though the law specifically states that the BLM state office (not the district office) is entitled to a informational notice of your public recordings relating to your claims. It's right there in the book of agency regulations you are treating as gospel.

You ignore the facts in the current law and go with something someone wrote in 1893. You don't share that "law" or even indicate where it might be found yet you want us to believe it trumps the current public law. That is the nature of belief as opposed to fact.

Richard Henry Stretch in his book did not write or pass any laws, he was merely giving his opinion - just as you have. You will not see any revision of Stretch's statement because you will not find any law that agrees with his statement.

I could point you to dozens of cases where other prospectors believed as you do but were proven wrong in a court of law. If I've misjudged the depth of your belief and you will reconsider just say so and I will provide you with facts aplenty to help you correct your misunderstanding.

Heavy Pans

 

[Hoser John]

I have seen 100s of claims stolen by backfiling by computer hacks these past few years. I stand by what I said ALWAYS. Better to have a claim than lose one or go through much litigation/bs . Err on the side of caution and mine for gods sake.John

 

[Desertphile]

Belief is a funny thing desertphile. I gave you the source and authority of current law in California. You reply that you believe that someone at the Barstow office is in charge of your claims. Even though the law specifically states that the BLM state office (not the district office) is entitled to a informational notice of your public recordings relating to your claims. It's right there in the book of agency regulations you are treating as gospel.

You ignore the facts in the current law and go with something someone wrote in 1893. You don't share that "law" or even indicate where it might be found yet you want us to believe it trumps the current public law. That is the nature of belief as opposed to fact.

Richard Henry Stretch in his book did not write or pass any laws, he was merely giving his opinion - just as you have. You will not see any revision of Stretch's statement because you will not find any law that agrees with his statement.

I could point you to dozens of cases where other prospectors believed as you do but were proven wrong in a court of law. If I've misjudged the depth of your belief and you will reconsider just say so and I will provide you with facts aplenty to help you correct your misunderstanding.

Heavy Pans

Thank you for the time you spent educating me: I really do appreciate it. I accept the fact that what the law says, and what the people at the BLM office in Barstow tells me the law is, are far too often contrary. When push comes to shove, I do what the person at the office tells me.

 

[Goldwasher]

Thank you for the time you spent educating me: I really do appreciate it. I accept the fact that what the law says, and what the people at the BLM office in Barstow tells me the law is, are far too often contrary. When push comes to shove, I do what the person at the office tells me.

And that is how bad practice becomes bad policy.............People at the BLM are supposed to do what the law says......enabling their ineptitude makes it even harder to get them to follow the right policies and practices.

 

[galenrog]

What I did when I bought a gemstone claim in Nevada a few years ago was simple and straightforward. Because the claim was located in Nye County, I verified that all paperwork was proper and up to date at the county offices in Tonopah. The seller then met me in Tonopah where a sales contract was executed and all required paperwork including sellers Quit Claim Deed.

Once I was satisfied that all county paperwork was complete and proper, I then drove to the BLM state office in Reno. Here I filed copies of all required paperwork.

I did did all of this with the advice of an attorney who deals with mining law. His help was worth every penny.

 

[goldog]

Good info all. Thanks! As for the original post G-bone appears to just want spots locally (SoCal) to prospect. This is not "gold country" so every mile is not claimed up. LA and Ventura Counties have some claims (I even have one) and obviously there are areas which are private property. Other issues include "closed" areas, Forest service leases or even parking etc... These are more of a challenge in our area.

The biggest concern is getting good info. The local USFS website indicates mining, prospecting or even panning is illegal in a certain area which has been a public mining corridor for many years. No real law is cited. This is because there isn't one. Prospecting/mining continues but some individuals and news organizations refer to this "illegal mining" as being "tolerated". This downright false info from a government agency gives ammo to other groups opposed to mining.

I try to follow the law but it gets harder all of the time. When agencies just make **** up what's a guy supposed to do?

 

[Desertphile]

{CUTS}

The biggest concern is getting good info. The local USFS website indicates mining, prospecting or even panning is illegal in a certain area which has been a public mining corridor for many years. No real law is cited. This is because there isn't one. Prospecting/mining continues but some individuals and news organizations refer to this "illegal mining" as being "tolerated". This downright false info from a government agency gives ammo to other groups opposed to mining.

If you are talking about Angeles National Forest, or San Gabriel Mountains, then indeed those areas have been closed to mining, prospecting, and some other activities. Hobby miners, and marijuana growers, and illegal aliens were destroying the riparian areas and putting millions of people's lives at risk. It was and is their duty: if they had not done so, they would not have done their job.

 

[goldenIrishman]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Desertphile. Changing that area from a National Forest to a National Monument (which changed the mining status of course) was nothing more than a land grab. Designation as a "National Monument" isn't going to do a thing to improve the area. What they needed to do was hire more rangers to patrol it the way it should have been in the first place and leave the status as it was. I'd be willing to lay money down that in ten or twenty years, you'll be able to go back there and nothing will have changed at all. Pot growers are not going to care one bit that it's a "Monument" now and neither will the illegal aliens. All they've done is made it so many legitimate users that follow the laws are blocked out.

 

[goldog]

As far as the Notice regarding the EF of the San Gabriel are you saying its been illegal since 1928? That's the "Law" they cite.

All mining operations (location of mining claims, prospecting, and mining, including panning, sluicing, and dredging) under the 1872 Mining Law are prohibited within withdrawn areas of the Angeles National Forest. Public Law No. 578 (1928 withdrawal) withdrew areas from entry and location under the mining laws. There is no provision in PL 578 which provides for even a limited right to enter the withdrawn lands to prospect. Therefore, National Forest System lands within the East Fork of the San Gabriel River are not open to prospecting or any other mining operations.

All these years, we been breaking the law. Who Knew?

 

[Desertphile]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Desertphile. Changing that area from a National Forest to a National Monument (which changed the mining status of course) was nothing more than a land grab. Designation as a "National Monument" isn't going to do a thing to improve the area. What they needed to do was hire more rangers to patrol it the way it should have been in the first place and leave the status as it was. I'd be willing to lay money down that in ten or twenty years, you'll be able to go back there and nothing will have changed at all. Pot growers are not going to care one bit that it's a "Monument" now and neither will the illegal aliens. All they've done is made it so many legitimate users that follow the laws are blocked out.

Er... the land was "grabbed" by the citizens of the United States of America: the same people who still own it before and after the "grab." The area has already been vastly improved by designation as a national monument: funding has increased for staff and equipment and supplies, and law enforcement officers are now allowed to carry weapons and oust and arrest marijuana growers without having to call in other agencies.

Before becoming a national monument, the San Gabriell Mountains was already "withdrawn" from mineral claims, and had been for almost a decade. In fact the visitor's center couldn't even afford to put toilet paper at the toilets: the volunteers at the visitor's center paid for it.

The only things that have changed by making the area a National Monument is #1: more federal funds; #2 federal protection of the drinking water millions of people rely on; #3 more employees to care for the land. Land use has been, and will remain, the same as before the area was designated a National Monument.

This was and is a huge win for every American citizen.

For details you can talk to my brother, who helped make the area a National Monument. If you are a USA citizen, you owe him a big "thank you."

 

[Desertphile]

All these years, we been breaking the law. Who Knew?

Yes, if you have been taking minerals out of the area of the East Fork of the San Gabriel River, you have been committing a crime. Up to a decade ago it was still legal in rare cases, in rare areas; even those areas were withdrawn. Sadly, people are still working illegal mineral "claim" sites along the east fork. There is finally money and staff enough to stop that illegal mining.

 

[CrystalLake]

If you are talking about Angeles National Forest, or San Gabriel Mountains, then indeed those areas have been closed to mining, prospecting, and some other activities. Hobby miners, and marijuana growers, and illegal aliens were destroying the riparian areas and putting millions of people's lives at risk. It was and is their duty: if they had not done so, they would not have done their job.

(Removed by mod)

 

[Desertphile]

That's a wee bit harsh, yes? I already pointed out the above.

 

[QNCrazy]

What has this thread turned in to? Aren't we all miners and prospectors? The topic of this thread is about closed or open placer claim. Let's work together and answer the question and not express our political views or expertise on national monuments. I'm sure there is another thread or forum for that.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clueless.

Made up laws.

The Angeles has never been closed to prospecting anywhere until the National Monument was decreed. If you actually believe it was closed show us the law. Anything else is just an opinion.

PARTS of the Angeles have been closed to entry for several years. Closed to entry is not closed to prospecting. Educate yourself and prosper.

For a skeptic your research skills suck Fredric L. Rice. Welcome to the forum.

Heavy Pans

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Crystalline read our rules and post by them. Keep political insults along with all other insults to your self and watch the language....