USFS and BLM agency visits

[Bejay]

On a different thread the question was asked: How many miners have had visits by an agency person(s) who wanted to bring forth some agency authority.......Say a visit by a USFS or BLM agent.

I have, and it was pre-emoted by a USFS District Rangers letter....and that Dist Ranger came with 4 of his staff and the Hired hand Sheriff who was funded/employed by the USFS.

Also:

Last year I met and talked to a Douglas County Oregon Sheriff (a nice guy) who was employed by the BLM. He was putting up emergency road closure signs for the BLM.... (Douglas Complex forest fire). He even explained to me he was acting on behalf of as an employee of the BLM. He told me personally he does not harass miners.

The reason for this post/thread will be to see how many miners have actually had "out in the field" visits/confrontations/etc. with agency personnel.....And we may be able to clarify some of the issues miners are being asked to deal with.

A prospector/miner has a lot of potential issues to deal with.


Bejay

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[AzViper]

The Placer claim maintenance fee structure was changed. The $140.00 placer claim maintenance fee for a single placer went to $140.00 per 20 acres of placer for claim holders who had over 10 placer claims. So clubs with large placer claim acreage were the hit the hardest. Miners who have 10 nor less claims can file a waiver prior to Sep 1st of each year and escape the new increased fee structure. But not those claim holders having over 10. All a matter of $$$$$.

The positive thing that resulted was that a huge amount of claimable land became open for reclaiming by individuals making discovery. Been there....did it.

Bejay

Like I said its all about $$$.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Hoser John]

It's not about law or $$$ really as some idjet on the klamath claimed up over 100 miles total on 3 rivers and then violated the intent of the law and resold the right to mine public lands by turning into a business of mining newbies wallets. It went all the way to the halls of congress-MASSIVE LANDGRAB ON THE KLAMATH-and then the laws were changed,rules updated and fees multiplied 100s a times original. GREED killed the golden goose....sic sic sic-John

 

[Goldwasher]

I know about the fee change. I didn't know about claims being " shutdown". I thought they would just charge more when you pay every year.

 

[Bejay]

If you don't pay the fee the claim is "no longer". It becomes open ground. Two times a year one can see such happenings. After Sep 1st (non payment) and after Dec 31st (failure to perform assessment work affidavit). Failure to comply results in "shut down" if you want to call it that.

Bejay

 

[jog]

There was an article believe in the ICMJ awhile back on this & and it stated that BLM lost money because of those changes. Just goes to show that when it comes to making money and screwing things up just call on your Gov, agencies, they can F*** up a wet dream.

 

[Bejay]

Sec. 28i. Failure to pay



-STATUTE-


Failure to pay the claim maintenance fee or the location fee as


required by sections 28f to 28l of this title shall conclusively


constitute a forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill or


tunnel site by the claimant and the claim shall be deemed null and


void by operation of law.

==========================================================

Here is the whole CFR
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-27/html/2012-18352.htm

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

I thought you might like to know the real story of what happened in one instance to association/club claims. I know of one local BLM that gave out advice that was incorrect.

----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

Here is some valuable information that may help miners and also show that the BLM even fails to perform in accordance with the law. The following was a letter comprised by myself and sent to a regional BLM office after "overclaiming" resulted due the BLM's failure to follow the law.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
It has become very obvious that potential conflicts arise (and currently exists) as a result of a failure of the BLM to notify the owners of placer claims that they acrued a "non payment of maintenance fees status" which resulted in the "null and void" classification of their claim(s). Thus new claims, sit upon what were active 2012 claim(s).......but lost due to a failure to pay Maint Fees. It is very obvious that the defaulted claimants/claims having commited "a failure to pay the maint fee(s)", in accordance with the correct application of law, should have resulted in a Claimant losing the claim. When said maintenance fees are NOT paid per the September 1st deadline date; per the Federal Register law shown below: many new locators, (having made discovery) , took advantage of previous claimants "FAILURE TO "MEET/PAY" THE WAIVER FEE" and filed a new location claim that was asserted by law to be open gropund: Thus new claims, having been received and stamped by BLM should be the new locators justifyable claim. It is obvious that claim conflicts must be adjudicated in a court of law per the current Federal Mining Laws. It would seem prudent that potential existing conflicts could be avoided if the old claimants; who failed to meet the Maint Fee Payments, were notified that that their claims were deemed "forfeited/closed/non-active". It has been brought to my attention that many old club claimants who failed to pay the maint fees (per law) are still promoting their failed claims as active and allowing designated individuals to actively mine on claims that are acutally deemed closed. Further it should be noted that most new claimants "signs" are being removed and destroyed.....which is in itself an Arizona....Class 6 felony. Such conflicts arise when the BLM fails to notify any failed claimant that their claim is null and void, and thus other individuals have therefore filed on the new open lands. Such instances result in contested possessionary conflicts of claimants and miners that burden the sheriff and courts;.....This is most commonly termed "overclaiming". Please give consderation to the issue and understand that "Many new discovery and new locations" are based on the following codified law(s) which resulted as failure of previous claimants to meet the lawful maint fee criteria set forth:

CITE---30 USC Sec. 28j 01/03/2012 (112-90)-----EXPCITE----TITLE 30 - MINERAL LANDS AND MINING---CHAPTER 2 - MINERAL LANDS AND REGULATIONS IN GENERAL
-HEAD----Sec. 28j. Other requirements-------STATUTE-
(a) Federal Land Policy and Management Act requirements----Nothing in sections 28f to 28k of this title shall change or modify the requirements of section 314(b) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(b)), or the requirements of section 314(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(c)) related to filings
required by section 314(b), and such requirements shall remain in effect with respect to claims, and mill or tunnel sites for which fees are required to be paid under this section.
(b) Omitted
(c) Fee adjustments

(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall adjust the fees required by sections 28f to 28k of this title to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the Department of Labor every 5 years after August 10, 1993, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an adjustment to be reasonable.
(2) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any adjustment made under this subsection not later than July 1 of any year in which the adjustment is made.
(3) A fee adjustment under this subsection shall begin to apply the first assessment year which begins after adjustment is made.
-SOURCE- (Pub. L. 103-66, title X, Sec. 10105, Aug. 10, 1993,... 107 Stat...406.)......-COD----CODIFICATION
Section is comprised of section 10105 of Pub. L. 103-66. Subsec.-------(b) of section 10105 of Pub. L. 103-66 amended section 28 of this...title.
-MISC1---SIMILAR PROVISIONS ...........Similar provisions were contained in Pub. L. 102-381, title I,.........Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1378, 1379.
FURTHER
CITE---30 USC Sec. 28i 01/03/2012 (112-90)----EXPCITE---TITLE 30 - MINERAL LANDS AND MINING--CHAPTER 2 - MINERAL LANDS AND REGULATIONS IN GENERAL-HEAD-
Sec. 28i. Failure to pay
-STATUTE-
Failure to pay the claim maintenance fee or the location fee asrequired by sections 28f to 28l of this title shall conclusively constitute a forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill or
tunnel site by the claimant and the claim shall be deemed null and void by operation of law.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 103-66, title X, Sec. 10104, Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 406;---Pub. L. 111-88, div. A, title I, Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2908.)---COD-
CODIFICATION
Pub. L. 111-88, which directed the amendment of section 28i of title 30, United States Code, was executed by making the amendment to section 10104 of Pub. L. 103-66, which is classified to this
section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. See 2009
Amendment note below
-MISC1---SIMILAR PROVISIONS
Similar provisions were contained in Pub. L. 102-381, title I, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1378, 1379.
AMENDMENTS
2009 - Pub. L. 111-88 substituted "28l" for "28k".
Parts Affected from the Federal Register
Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents. The Federal Register contains rules and regulations which are regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect. Most rules are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR.
Users are able to browse CFR Parts Affected from the Federal Register to find final and proposed rules that affect the CFR and have been published in the Federal Register within the past 24 hours, week, month, or within a specific date range. About the CFR Parts Affected from the Federal Register.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3830

[WO-620-1990-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AE27
Administration of Mining Claims and Sites
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this rule to amend regulations on locating, recording, and maintaining mining claims or sites. In this rule, the BLM amends its regulations to respond to a
recent law that changes the way the maintenance fee is calculated for unpatented placer mining claims. The law specifies that the holder of an unpatented placer mining claim must pay the initial and annual
maintenance fee for each 20 acres or portion thereof contained in the claim; and reiterates that an initial maintenance fee payment is due at the time of recording the claim with the BLM and that the annual
maintenance fee is due on or before September 1 of each year.
[[Page 44156]]

"The law precludes the BLM from exercising discretion as to the level of fees or when they are due; Publishing the regulations in final form gives the public notification of the change so that placer mining claim holders can correctly calculate the amount of the maintenance fee based on the acreage in their existing placer mining claims or when they locate new placer mining claims; and Publishing the regulations in final form gives time to placer mining claim holders whose claims are greater than 20 acres to reduce the size of their claims before September 1, 2012, if they do not wish to pay the adjusted fees. The Department also determines that the exceptions under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) apply and there is good cause to place the rule into effect on the date of publication. First, the matters addressed in the rule are statutorily required. Second, the payments this rule affects are payable to the BLM at the time of initial recording and annually thereafter. Because claims and sites are continuously being recorded with the BLM, this interim final rule serves as notification to all placer mining claim holders that they must begin paying the newly established fees upon recordation"
"The fees under this rule are due for all existing placer mining claims, starting with the maintenance fee payment due on or before September 1, 2012, for the 2013 assessment year. For new placer mining
claims, the rule is effective immediately and the fees under this rule are due when the placer claim is first recorded with the BLM as well as annually thereafter on or before September 1"
----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood that the new maint fee placer claim rule was codified into Law when it was placed in the Federal Register.
It is understood that it is up to the claimant(s) to meet the letter of the law and that the BLM assumes no responsibility regarding such issues/matters. Would not a multi 20 acre claimant lose his/her claim if they failed to pay the maint fee by Sep 1st?. Would not this result in the "failure to pay claimant" losing his/her claim and it being deemed null and void? . Note:.... the new placer waiver fee law states that the publication of the law in the federal register is in itself legal binding NOTICE....thus it is up to the claimant to meet the letter of the law. It is NOT the BLM's responsibility to notify the claimant(s}of the need to make any maint fee payments. And even at that, should BLM allow descretion, (where none should exist), notification of a failure to pay maint fee must results in the BLM sending out cure notices within 7 working days, and then a cure period is dictated to be resolved in not more than 60 days. Given a prudent amount of time for mailings; any attempt at a "cure", whether justified or not, would have been exceeded if submitted after Dec 4th. But that is ONLY if the BLM allows descretion for a late payment when in fact none should be allowed per the letter of the law. Yet the LR2000 does not convey accurate data and is NOT to be used as a source of active or non-active/closed.
Rather than court remedies it would be reasonalble and prudent to assume any such contestd claim action could be avoided per a clear understanding of the BLMs position regarding "active/inactive/closed/forfeited" status. It is a valid contention that the BLM has errored when giving any possible maint fee considerations using descretion. If the BLM has cause for any deviance from the law it should be posted in a manner easily obtained by the public, stating that the BLM is deviating from the law......... and the BLM should be able to show cause.
========================================================================

This letter had no effect on the BLM to act lawfully. The BLM office used discretion and allowed claimants who failed to meet the letter of the law the ability to pay months latter.

Bejay
　

 

[goldenIrishman]

Well I had an interesting phone call from a friend that works for BLM today. This guy is the person in charge of restoration at the Kentucky Camp and Empire Ranch historic sites and is a good guy. Clay and several others here know him and can attest that he's one of the "Good Guys".

The call was about the gate that goes down to the wash from Kentucky Camp. Turns out that one of the "anti-mining" caretakers decided to try to block access to the wash by going through the camp. My friend wanted to know when the last time we had been out there was and if the chain and lock was in place at that time. I told him that we hadn't been out there for a few months because we now had a claim of our own, but a couple of guys I know were out there on the 20th of March and had a little run in with the care taker. Seems that the caretaker for that month didn't like miners going through the K.C. area to get to the wash. It seems strange that the next care taker reported that the chain was in place when he got there at the start of this month. The chain and lock has been removed by the powers that be, but they're still wanting to know when and why it was put in as well as by who.

While we were talking I also was able to ask my friend a couple of questions about that foundation slab on our claim. I was told that it's ok to clear it off but not to alter the slab in any way. No problem at all since I have no plans or desire to remove it and it's going to be handy for setting up camp on. Now that I know I have the blessings of the BLM historical preservation honcho for the area, I won't be as worried about clearing it off for use as I was. I also told him about finding lots of cast iron stove parts and that I'd save them for him so he can at least check them out.

It pays to be on the good side of some of these people when you can..... Much nicer being able to work with them than against them if possible.