Extent of Federal Authority upon the miner.

[Bejay]

This is relevant to anyone entering the public lands open to mineral entry.........looking for and or discovering "locatable minerals"....subject to the mining laws of the United States.

1st it is wise to learn what these mean!

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. These get published in the Federal Register.

US Codes: The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. It gets published in the Federal Register. (known to be the "record").

The Federal Register, abbreviated FR or sometimes Fed. Reg., is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices.[1] It is published daily, except on federal holidays. The final rules promulgated by a federal agency and published in the Federal Register are ultimately reorganized by topic or subject matter and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is updated annually.

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

So CFR's have to follow the LAWS In Many cases the agencies assigned to administer the Laws per the CFR's get confused and get completely off track.

So that is why the miner must understand that the USFS and the BLM must adhere to the CFR's correctly. Lately, more often than not, the agencies run amuck.

Much confusion results from the failure of such agencies to truly understand FLPMA (Federal Land Policy Management Act) and the 1955 Multiple Use Act. Acts are law ....CFR's are published agency rules adopted from the law.

One must be able to understand how this fits together like a big jig saw puzzle. Regional agencies often get it completely messed up. They read one part but fail to see the whole picture. Kinda like picking up a piece of the sky in a jig saw puzzle and because it is blue saying it is the water.

So miners MUST learn when an agency has authority and then learn when the agency authority does not exist....because the agency authorities often really get it wrong.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY REMEMBER WHEN YOU ARE OUT LOOKING FOR THE GOLD YOU ARE A MINER/PROPSECTOR....PLAIN AND SIMPLE! When challenged while out in the field always ask politely: "by what authority are you acting...and by what authority are you demanding this or that". They will quote you a CFR. Then you can look into it later if you want and decide if the agent is correct or not. If not you can find the correct CFR application or even show them within the Acts (laws) that you are not subject to their request. Letters and docs always leave a paper trail...better than he said she said.
Even if you were to lose the argument/discussion. Providing expert knowledge of such matters makes an agent realize you are not some push over. Of course always maintain your cool. No need to escalate the situation at the moment. Best to let both you and the agent give more thought/strategy to the issue at hand.

This has worked effectively for me and other miners as well.

But as you have seen me post: Cut and Paste & Copy docs are a real handy thing to have on hand in a briefcase or portfolio...or even your lap top or "I" Pad etc.

I'll post FLPMA and Multiple use Act understanding info later on this thread if interest is maintained here. One must understand the Mining Laws as well. But that is pretty easy stuff if one is guided through it correctly. It has already been done on another mining law forum.....and probably Land Matters as well.


Bejay

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bejay]

So we have all this information. And it seems to be overwhelming. We have the LAW(S) and then we have them placed into U.S. Code and then assigned an agency such as the BLM and the USFS to administer the CFR's as adopted.

We must not confuse the BLM and USFS CFR's. (Code of Federal Regulations that guide the BLM and USFS authority/policies)

But for the miner we can make this relatively easy. And in so doing we can, in most cases than not, avoid any court proceedings.....or for that matter any of their Hearings Officers., When the miner can show the mis application by an agency the agency is left with very little alternative but "let it lie/die"

So we were getting all confused by the immense amount of information....and I have files upon files of it. I referred to all the info as being like a jig saw puzzle. Many were getting a headaches trying to figure it all out....me included. And it was mentioned earlier questioning where I was going with all this. Information/knowledge is the key. But I added that knowing how to use it is of utmost importance.....And most importantly knowing where to look for the correct answer is critical!
So how do we make it simple. I'll point to the fact that I built my own house from the ground up. I did not start with the roof....but rather the foundation (even after clearing the spot for it). I also used tools to do/perform certain tasks......I did not attempt to cut boards with my hammer.

So all this talk so far has been like building a house without a specific plan of attack.........such as starting with the foundation. Of course blue prints for each house are nice to have...and all houses can be relatively different.

So now we want to make it simple: How might we do that, with the prospect of never having to set foot in a courtroom?

I would suggest that (and it has often been conveyed to me) we simply ask to see if it (CFR) or (Code) applies to us or not. So the Scope and Purpose is where we want to go 1st. One must understand the scope and purpose and simply ask: "Does It Apply?" If and when you do, the answer will most often be Yes or No. If Yes then one continues in the discovery of application. If NO then why continue to have the discussion.

So one might want to consider this: If and When the USFS or BLM were to present their authority one would of course ask "From Where Does It Come From" What Code? What CFR? If the agency did so in a letter then you are beginning to form a record.....always nice thing to have.....and you can respond in same. Then look/work back to the Scope & Purpose. No need to go all the way back to the Law if the Scope and Purpose is/are not applicable to you the miner.

More often than not the BLM and USFS go beyond their "scope and purpose" and so their "request" is not applicable to you the miner. When and if you find errors by the agencies with their mis-application of the "rule(s)" you can respond with a reply with your position statement.......... and if nothing heard back your position stands as a record of acceptance by the agency.

That is not to say that somehow their scope and purpose are beyond the intent of the law....more often than not, that really may not be for you the miner to decide.

Does the BLM and USFS overstep their authority or embrace it where it is not applicable. YES! So knowing their limitations upon the miner is important. Looking at the Scope and Purpose of their specific issue confronting the miner is extremely important. It can make it very easy and solve much of what miners have to deal with regarding the Extent Of Federal Authority...as the agencies bring forth their "rules".

More to the focus I believe!

Bejay

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Hefty1]

1. TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 478
   Section 478. Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting
   Nothing in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers residing within the boundaries of national forests, or from crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach their homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Nor shall anything in such sections prohibit any person from entering upon such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof.Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests.

This last sentence is a good example of the headache causing.
I take this last sentence and disregard it because it is in Sec, 478

Any other thoughts?

 

[Bejay]

So I have been spending considerable time going back over this thread trying to grasp all that was said. Most was discussing FLPMA and the "intent" and or "meaning". M.E.G. made a statement and then later asked us to do something. Clay responded with: The Law focusing on the following: (I took the liberty of highlighting that which I went back and spent considerable time analyzing)

Except as provided in section 314, section 603, and subsection (f) of section 601 of this Act and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.


"That is the law as it was passed by Congress. The Act is very clear that there are 4 amendments to the 1872 Mining Act. Leaving out those amendments is not helping matters. Trying to pretend they apply to common minerals is not supported in law or any court decision."

For those of you who would like to have a copy of the WHOLE law to study for yourself just go to the Land Matters Land Laws page and enter "FLPMA" into the search box. You can download the WHOLE searchable Act of Congress there. You will find the portion of the law we are discussing here near the top of page 21 in that PDF.



1. The Congress clearly passed a law making locations under the Mining Act subject to new requirements. The Mining Act of 1872 was amended just as it states in the WHOLE law quoted above. End of Clay part I worked on.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So in FLPMA there is applicability . 314 deals with BLM filing requirements. 603 deals with wilderness, Roadless and grazing lands. 601 deals with Calif Desert land.

So none of my claims lie in those areas. So the mining Law was not amended in a manner that subjects my claims to application of FLPMA. As it specifically states in the Law that: "no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress."

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

So the mining law was not amended where it applies to locatable minerals on the lands open to mineral entry where discovery has occurred. Unless of course 314, 603, & 601f apply to ones claim.

So where does FLPMA apply?

Well in going back over the information and discussion it appears the "applicable" amendment is: (314 Filings with BLM), ( 603 Wilderness designations, and road less areas, as well as grazing lands), ( 601f Calif Desert)

I'll spend more time on this.

Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

You got three of the amendments right Bejay, and of those three only the requirement that you give the BLM an annual informational filings apply to any of your claims.

There is just that fourth amendment to consider.

"and in the last sentence of this paragraph"

In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.

Now you see where "Extent of Federal Authority upon the miner" ends. Make your annual informational filing and avoid unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.

The rest is all BS and drama.

Happy New Year!

Heavy Pans

 

[fowledup]

Thank you all so much for your comments and contribution. GOOD STUFF! I use to avoid this part of the mining world like the plague thinking others that knew better would keep it straight for me. Well like most things the person that will do the best job for you is you. So I take some aspirin, turn off the boob tube and listen up. Looking forward to more and more keep it coming fellars. One thing I would like to ask you all, which will be somewhat of a pain but will really help us layman, is to please list out exactly where you are listing or quoting your reference from. most of you guys can tell by the verbage or numbers but allot of aren't there yet. I find myself having to go back and forth trying to get it straight which code or law the poster has taken his material from. Not intending to be critical I very much appreciate this thread and your efforts, just trying to help us all follow along and maintain the point of the discussion.

 

[Bejay]

Well I read that differently. I read that as the secretary application of "public lands" were those "public lands" that the Amendment applying 603 and 601 were put into law. That the amendment was not to amend the mining law(s) unless they were applicable to 603 and 601. Prior to the FLPMA there were no EXCEPTIONS allowing for the discretionary Secretary authority on such appropriated lands......603 and 601. That the "'savings clause was maintained in the language of the Act.....(FLPMA). Would not the savings clause being again restated reinforce the desire of Congress to protect the miners ability to maintain the 3 Grants as originally proclaimed in the Mining Laws. The grazing lands are the split estate lands you mentioned earlier. Public domain to private domain brings forth the difference in land status. So we must look at the land status that the miner enters.

It always appears that Congress does not in effect amend the miners right per the Mining Law(s) and the "Public Domain" concept. Such savings clauses always become part of the Codes, Rules, Law. ALWAYS we see the savings clauses. Always they appear.....in both CFR applications of BLM and USFS. Does this not simply go to "appropriated lands" and "Un-appropriated Lands"?

Happy New year to you. Now I still struggle with the BS and drama. But always words matter. The original Grant matters. But the public lands referred to in FLPMA appear to address those lands in 603 and 601f. That would appear to be the main thrust of question would it not? Why would 603, and 601f have to be acknowledge in the amendment if the authority extended to "ALL PUBLIC LANDS"? If in fact all public lands were the intent of the law there would not need to be any special mention of 603 and 601f.

In trying to understand where the Feds get their current authority. This one question would have to be answered...would it not? What is the intent of the law? That has been discussed and the reasons for the FLPMA and Multiple Use Act have been explained in detail. Where do we NOT SEE the savings clauses protecting the original Grants? It always appears the Congress is protecting those Granted Rights.....always. To make an amendment altering the granted rights would not need such savings clauses...would they not?

I would agree that drama is not warranted. But I would agree that it is important to understand if authority is correctly applied. So after much info brought forth from my files; I see a Question still exists? It takes me some time to go back and do an "autopsy" of all this gathered info (and even all that is in this thread). So now I am breaking it all down to specifics. Point by point as discussed.

It is easy to get sidetracked on these threads and now I am going to focus on what was said earlier!

Go Ducks. When 2pm comes I am outa here.

Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

A must read! Lots of pertinent info to this discussion. Long but worth it.


http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/opinions/M-37007.pdf

 

[Bejay]

OK. Time to see who is paying attention.

What simple steps did I ask you all to do that Clay refuses to do, instead boasting erroneous generalizations and making evasive or miss-leading even incorrect statements?

I'll give you all a hint. I'll finish what Clay should have told you all when he said the "CFR is not law".
He should have added, [the CFR] Rules implement law. Rules are not law; Rules implement law.

Now, what did I ask you all to do that would show which law these rules implement?

What simple method did I ask you to accomplish for the answers to find out if the rule pertains to you and what you've claimed, where you have claimed it?

Understand, the right parts Clay has to contribute are irrelevant until you have those answers. And even then, depending upon your answers, what he says may remain irrelevant and impertinent.

What did you come up with for your answers in following the suggested method?

Bejay, since you referenced it, I believe I've discussed this situation minimally in the Layer Cake explanation. That should explain to you the foundation for how this lays out; What this section pertains to.

In review my answer would have to be: What is the actual status of the land based on the Law? Disposed of or not! Appropriated or Un-appropriated! Private land or Public land! If disposed can such disposal be revoked? If disposed how was it disposed? Grazing would be a split estate. Homestead would be a split estate. What actually is the status of the land when any subsequent "administered" land Law is written. Clay brought forth the split estate issue. So specifically what is the status of the land when any land law is written. Kinda like asking who was first up to the plate and bat getting a hit. When and if the batter gets on first base can the subsequent next batter pass him upon getting a hit or must the first batter advance before the next. One would have to look to the rule book (law).

So it would appear that the contrast between what Clay says and what you say is dependent on the status of the land(s). The initiated legal RECORD (if you will) would have to be established as to the status of the land. All subsequent issues (rules) stem from this one foundation.

So my question would have to be: Is the mining claim a split estate? Where is the title and who has it! Disposed land or not?

Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

So my question would have to be: Is the mining claim a split estate? Where is the title and who has it! Disposed land or not?

Bejay

Bejay from the 1865 Act that amounted to the first mining law:

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

Until the claim is perfected to patent the United States hold title.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

Bejay from the 1865 Act that amounted to the first mining law:


Until the claim is perfected to patent the United States hold title.

Heavy Pans

Yep...I remember that from way back when. So prior to patent; title is held in "trust" by Congress. If said title to the land is held in trust; until perfected to patent. What is the land status? When the miner enters those public lands open to mineral entry, files a claim (forms the record) upon discovery there is a Title to the land. That land is not owned by the Government...as the Government does not own land unless it purchases it after previous disposals....right? Even acquired lands such as monuments and other such designated lands are not removed from the public. They become the split estates do they not?

When Congress passes subsequent public land laws (subsequent to the 1866, 1870, 1872 MEG).........3 Granted rights. Which as we know can not be revoked or taken back..........are those later Acts able to modify or effect that original appropriation?

And when Congress does pass additional Acts (Law) what lands can they bring forth in the discussion? That which has been given away by the Grant or all other lands not so disposed?

I find it a question in my mind as to the status of the land. That land status would appear to be the "foundation" from which all else stems. As we know when such land status changes it effects what can or can not apply. The rules change do they not?

As I see it the bottom line is the land status. Where is the title and who controls it. If Congress has it in trust per the 1865, 1870, & 1872 can they MODIFY the conditions of said title?
It would appear from discussions bringing forth FLPMA that such conditions to title are allowed even if Granted rights to the surface and sub-surface have been previously disposed!

So for the sake of discussion lets take "Homestead Lands"....the split estate if you will. Who has the right to a specific use of that surface? Not the BLM or USFS...as those surface uses of the lands are disposed...understanding the minerals usually have not. The surface has been disposed of and does not come under the jurisdiction of the BLM or USFS. One has to do a title search to find out any special conditions/conveyances/etc ...right? The Feds disposed of lands in many ways. Some went to states for schools, some went to the railroad...etc etc etc. Once lands are disposed can they remain under the jurisdiction of an agency whose task it is to manage the undisposed public lands?

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

So if we look into the Intent of FLPMA and the 1955 we see that the BLM and USFS had gone to Congress and brought forth the fraud that was occurring when people were filing claims simply to have the use of all the surface resources. I remember the hippie movement setting up their "resorts" if you will and timber companies laying MEG claims just for the timber. Neither really made a discovery or intended to meet the purpose of the Grant(s). So Congress attempted to clean it all up; so fraud could not occur! They wanted to rid the fraud from the mis use of the MEG?

We see this if we read the two Acts....don't we? When it came to specific resources...such as water, and critters we see Acts brought forth to deal with those issues. So when and if we concern ourselves with the Clean Water Act and NEPA we can go to the specifics and what the courts have ruled pertaining to how that pertains to the Granted Rights of the Water. Wildlife appears to be a whole different matter.......as the miner was not Granted the right to adversely impact critters.....however we must even come back to the title and rights held therein...right? I am not sure that the ESA applies to private lands...but maybe that is a whole different issue.

Gotta hold up here....as getting ahead of myself...but it all boils down to "what is the land status".

Bejay

 

[goldenIrishman]

Bejay from the 1865 Act that amounted to the first mining law:


Until the claim is perfected to patent the United States hold title.

Heavy Pans

That brings another question to my mind here Clay. Since they are no longer allowing for patenting, does the land still remain the peoples even if the claim is perfected? I hope I said that right....

 

[Bejay]

The word "perfected" becomes one of considerable concern! What did it mean prior to the BLM? What role do states play in determining "perfected"? When is a claim perfected? Is it perfected when it is located per the State requirements? Or is it "perfected" when it is "proved up" for patent (issuance of title)

I believe your question should have been: If the patent process is on hold, does the land remain the peoples if the claim is "proved up"? I believe there are a couple of other errors in the wording of your question though.
Rmember: when a claim is located and recorded the public land is "disposed of"/"appropriated" to the miner and the title held in trust by Congress until the claim/mineral deposit is "Proved up". So a title exists as soon as the claimant "perfects"/"locates per State Law" his discovery.

Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

The title to the public land existed and was in the U.S. before the claim was made. The claim is against the valuable minerals and those are segregated against other prospectors. The title is still in the U.S. the land is still public land to the extent not involved in the valuable minerals.

The public lands, with the exception of the valuable minerals and the surface resources needed to mine them, remain open to the public until patent is granted.

The locators claim to title to the valuable minerals is dependent on the locator completing those things that are required of him in the 1866 and 1872 Acts, and since 1976 the requirement in the FLPMA. If they fail to do any of those things required to keep their location the claim is void and they no longer retain the possessory right against other prospectors.

If they do the required things their claim is still possessory only and even then their possessory right is only against other prospectors until the patent is granted.

When the locator completes all the acts required to obtain a patent the claim is considered perfected. A perfected claim has a proven value and must be compensated for in a government taking. Unperfected claims have no proven value and can not win a takings judgement. A perfected claim can be submitted for patent as soon as Congress budgets the expense of processing the patent.

The key to perfecting a claim is proving the valuable mineral deposit. There are other acts required to perfect your claim but the big one is proof that there is a valuable mineral deposit. Proof is not finding gold or even a lot of gold. That's only proof that there was at one time valuable minerals. You must prove that there are valuable minerals in place that can be mined and that a prudent man would mine them and reasonably expect to make a profit.

Keep in mind the mineral grant only promises possessory title to the valuable minerals and so much of the surface resources needed to mine the discovered mineral deposit. The United States always retains paramount title to the land until patent. The United States, not the claim owner, holds the paramount title.

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

The 1865 law quoted above was passed before the Mining Acts and you will find nothing in those acts or anywhere else repealing Congress' declaration that they retain title to those mineral lands.

Go Ducks! Go Deer! Go Miners!

Heavy Pans

 

[delnorter]

These latest posts, regarding title, seem for me, to be an excellent foundation upon which I can build my understanding of our rights.

On a separate note: I worked on the required survey to locate one of the last patents approved in our neck of the woods. It was quite a challenge as forest fires had destroyed most bearing trees to the original PLSS corners and shoddy work by the original surveyor made the corners which were set all the more important. Working out from the subject property to original controlling corners can be very time consuming / expensive. While hiking along a creek to get to a particular 1/4 corner we we searching for, a new chainman on the crew found a beautiful quartz and gold specimen with about 3 ounces of gold in it.

Mike

 

[goldenIrishman]

Good information guys! I know I may not have worded it quite right, but ya'll caught my drift. While I've been slowly learning the laws, I had yet to start learning about the patent process which I'm sure was/is fairly involved. Maybe sometime in the future we could do a thread on it in more detail. For now I only have one more question on this... I know that they're not currently giving out patents, but is there honestly any hope of them doing so in the future?

Mike, that sounds like a nice find! While we were prospecting down here, we were checking out an area just above an existing claim and came across a rock that while ugly as sin, ended up having about 8 grains worth of gold in it. Not too bad for a rock that was only a couple of inches long and maybe an inch thick. it's always nice to find something right on the surface like that.

 

[Bejay]

I would like to thank all who have contributed to this discussion. I spent most of the day going over all that has been said on this forum. I would especially like to thank M.E.G. and Clay for their contributions to this issue, and it took quite a lot of thought to distinguish where they are separated upon their "perception" of what applies. I know that the word "perception" may be wrong but there is a distinct difference in their opinion on the matter sometimes.

It took a lot of understanding. Both will agree that words matter. And both will rely on the 1865, 1870, & 1872 Acts.

What I will share is this: If you can use the law, rules, reg, policies to benefit you the miner then you have all of them at your disposal. Use them effectively and you will benefit. I have often said: "Use whatever works". The USFS and BLM are not that smart in most instances.

Here is the quandary as I see it! The BLM and USFS "have some authority" or they "have none" upon the miner. If you accept they have even limited authority you are on a slippery slope! If you say they have none you are also on a slippery slope as well.

Be very careful what you ask for; as either one can create huge obstacles for the future miner. It took me a number of years to now reach MY conclusion....and it is mine. As a miner I have choices how to argue my conclusion. Knowing how to do so effectively is either simple or it can become extremely hard. As stated earlier: "I like simple". So I would just as soon keep it that way and try not to make things difficult.

Again I would really like to thank all who have helped me reach the understanding that I have. There is always more to learn, but it sure helps a miner, such as I, to have gained such knowledge. Remember this though: "THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONEWAY TO SKIN A CAT". When skinning cats it is wise to make sure they are dead....as a live cat can make for some terrible ouies.

I'll close with this: The USFS and BLM like to pick and chose how they want something to apply and how they want to use it to their benefit. 99.9% of the time they get "their way" wrong! So use that to your advantage!

Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

When Congress passes subsequent public land laws (subsequent to the 1866, 1870, 1872 MEG).........3 Granted rights. Which as we know can not be revoked or taken back..........are those later Acts able to modify or effect that original appropriation?

Congress can change the Mining Acts whenever they wish. Congress is the trustee for the public lands and trustees have the obligation to do what's best for the property of the beneficiary of the trust (the people in this case). If enough of the people convince their congresscritters there should be no more mining claims Congress could amend or repeal the Mining Acts. No Congress is bound by the Acts of previous Congress'. There is no law that can't be changed or thrown out by Congress.

And when Congress does pass additional Acts (Law) what lands can they bring forth in the discussion? That which has been given away by the Grant or all other lands not so disposed?

Bejay

The grant is complete when Congress awards a patent. That is where federal involvement ends. The land becomes private property when the patent is awarded. Until then Congress holds the title to all the rights in the land.

Your claims "title" against the United States extends just to the limits of your proven deposit. You own the right to mine the discovered valuable minerals within the bounds of your claim. Your claim to that ownership right is worth exactly what the valuable minerals you can prove still exist on the claim are worth - minus the cost of mining them. That is what you would be paid for a "takings" judgement in court.

The grant extends just as far as the work done to perfect that grant. Simply recording a claim gives you the right to exclude other prospectors. To gain the other rights in the grant you have to do the work clearly explained in the Mining Acts.

That explains the "property" aspect of a mining claim. To understand the other rights you have to discover and develop your location you will need to look at the Mining Acts. By this I mean ONLY the Mining Acts (complete set not just the 1865, 1866, 1872 Acts). The CFR (regulations) being discussed here do not describe your rights or limit them.

The regulatory agencies would like to be the ones to interpret the law for you. This causes a lot of confusion. Those agencies do not make law nor do they have a right to decide what a law means. Relying on regulatory agencies like the BLM or the Forest Service for legal interpretation or advice on your mining rights is like hiring a cook to do heart surgery - you have only yourself to blame for the outcome.

Stick to a deep understanding of the meaning of the laws of mining and the regulations will be a lot less confusing. Go at it the other way around and your head will never stop spinning.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

USC is Law. CFRs are not. So here we see a part of the law. Of course all laws must be seen "Para Materia "

USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment

The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,

Well Clay you said: "The grant is complete when Congress awards a patent. That is where federal involvement ends. The land becomes private property when the patent is awarded. Until then Congress holds the title to all the rights in the land."

I thought the title was held in trust FOR the miner until patent was issued. Carrying this further one would extend the rights of the lands USE per the Granted Right of the miner to possess. When a valuable locatable mineral deposit is DISCOVERED and the CLAIM is established per the State Land Office recording the right of possession and enjoyment begins....does it not?

What gives the miner that Granted right?....Is it not the discovery of a valuable locatable mineral deposit.?

So lets discuss what that means.

Discovery....?
Valuable......?
Locatable.....?
Mineral........? .... Ah ha! this is a trick one is it not. As the 4 in the Granted rights are actually metallic elements!
Deposit........?

But I'll throw a "knuckle ball" across home plate. Does not valuable have extremely important meaning. Finding a few flakes here and there and filing a location may not be "valuable" in the sense of economic viability. So your prove up has merit per obtaining the paramount title. But if a miner makes a discovery he believes is valuable and deserves his continued work has he not met the intent of the Grant?

What you propose regarding the "Prove Up Perfection" is definitely the obligation to obtain patent. But who has the responsibility to deny a mineral deposit has value? Does not the affidavit of location and work lay the claim and possession?

So we see the term Prudent....come into play. It would appear that this word has extreme meaning.

Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

exclusive right
What else is there to say?