Mining Claim Question

[Dig em all]

With regards to mining claims. If I understand this correctly,,,You as the claim owner, after all your paperwork is complete with the BLM. means trespassing would be illegal regardless of what they were doing.... Like Hunting or fishing for that matter ..What I'm getting at is if you are the claim owner ,,you can lease your claim out but can you lease the land area for camping,, hunting,,fishing,,etc..? to someone that wants to hunt or camp the area?​

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[benny]

Nope. Sorry. Your only rights are to the minerals on that claim. Anyone can come in and do anything ordinarily legal as long as they don't touch your minerals or interfere with your work.

 

[Dig em all]

Nope. Sorry. Your only rights are to the minerals on that claim. Anyone can come in and do anything ordinarily legal as long as they don't touch your minerals or interfere with your work.

What is considered trespassing?

 

[Asmbandits]

What is considered trespassing?

There really is not "trespassing" on public land, others can camp or hunt and fish on your claim, you literally only own the minerals on your claim, not the land. If someone were to get in the way of your mining operation or take your minerals in any way then there is a legal issue.

Say you arrive at your claim camp site and there is someone else camped there, they have the right to be there as long as they are doing anything related to your minerals.

 

[winners58]

Mineral trespass, check the statutes in the State you are in. if you have problems with homeless campers or constant trash piles and such.
you can work with BLM or FS to put in double lock gates, boulders or dead head the road, you would take responsibility open & close
with your mining season, if the general public wants access they would still be able to walk in, as long as they don't interfere with your mining.
on one of my claims BLM said we could put a cable across the old logging road in, but no lock.
if you have problems with people, or someone is blocking access and cant be resolved get the sheriff out there.

ORS 517.130 Mineral trespass in Oregon;
(2) A person commits the crime of mineral trespass if the person intentionally and without the permission of the claim holder:

(a) Enters a mining claim posted as required in ORS 517.010 or 517.044 and disturbs, removes or attempts to remove any mineral from the claim site;

(b) Tampers with or disturbs a flume, rocker box, bedrock sluice, sluice box, dredge, quartz mill or other mining equipment at a posted mining claim; or

(c) Defaces a location stake, side post, corner post, landmark, monument or posted written notice within a posted mining claim.

(3) Mineral trespass is a Class C misdemeanor. [1999 c.354 §5]

517.133 Interfering with a mining operation. (1) As used in this section, “lawful mining operation” means any small scale mining operation that is in full compliance with state and federal laws.

(2) A person commits the crime of interfering with a mining operation if the person intentionally:

(a) Interferes with a lawful mining operation; or

(b) Stops, or causes to be stopped, a lawful mining operation.

(3) Interfering with a mining operation is a Class C misdemeanor. [1999 c.354 §6]

517.128 Restricting access to open mining area or mining claim prohibited. A person may not attempt to restrict access to any open mining area or valid mining claim or to harass or interfere in any way with a person engaged in lawful mining activities. [1999 c.354 §4]

517.135 Exemption from crimes of mineral trespass and interfering with a mining operation. (1) ORS 517.128 to 517.133 do not apply to conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense when it is required or authorized by law or judicial decree or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of official powers, duties or functions.

 

[Dig em all]

Define a mineral? is that the dirt you walk on?

 

[Bonaro]

Define a mineral? is that the dirt you walk on?

Just about every rock has a mineral in it and the law could be literally interpreted to mean every rock or speck of dirt.
When you file your claim you have to have made discovery of a "valuable" mineral which would be something greater than country rock and dirt. To perfect your claim you have to have marketable minerals which means it has to be in profitable quantity's.

I think I smell what you are stepping in...I think you are looking for a way to prevent people from disturbing the dirt on your claim thereby using the claim as a means to deny access to your very own private spot. If this is the case, you are on a very slippery slope. I personally will hunt fish hike and camp all over your claim to the greatest extent of my pleasure and boldly defy you to stop me...which you could not.

A mining claim gives you ownership to only the minerals. A civil court would probably interpret this to mean the marketable precious minerals and not the mud that may stick to a hikers boots as he passes through. A prudent man would not believe that digging a fire pit could be considered "disturbing your minerals". If someone comes in and prospects on your claim you can ask him to leave or in more severe cases, call the sheriff. Mineral trespass is the crime and in Washington it a class c felony. Some people kinda lose their mind when they get a claim and begin acting like Yosemite Sam. They will threaten all kinds of bodily harm and even threaten to "shoot the claim jumpers". I hope that you fully appreciate that we do not live in 1872 anymore and this kind of attitude will get you beat up, jailed or shot.

Keep it real

 

[M.E.G.]

What do people not understand about "shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations." Act of May 10, 1872, amending. ?

 

[blackchipjim]

I think the spirit of law is to allow people egress past another's property. From what I have read in other posts people can be really big jerks about access past their claims.

 

[Dig em all]

What do people not understand about "shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations." Act of May 10, 1872, amending. ?

That means you can drive thru the forest servive roads but you cabnt get out and walk around without permission of the claim owner

 

[Dig em all]

I think you might be mistaken..

 

[Johnnybravo300]

There is no trespass afforded besides mineral trespass. Here in Colorado it can be a felony to mineral trespass.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Mining claims are open to the public for all uses that don't interfere with the valuable mineral rights of the mining claim owner. Members of the public have a right to fish, hunt, camp and do all the other things permitted to the public on the public lands except prospecting or exploring for valuable minerals or conducting otherwise lawful activities that would interfere with the mining of the mineral discovery.

The Supreme Court nailed down this concept of public rights on located mineral lands 38 years ago in the case 611 F. 2d 1277 - United States v. Curtis-Nevada Mines Inc.

From that Supreme Court case:

This case concerns the right of the general public to use the surface of land upon which unpatented mining claims have been located, when that use does not interfere with mining activities.

Educate Yourself and Prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[M.E.G.]

In Oregon your Mining claims are as realty ORS 517.080

 

[M.E.G.]

And for those that beleive BLM can arbitrarily invalidate a mining claim in Oregon, here is something else FYI files Performance of assessment work by co-owners ORS 517.230

 

[M.E.G.]

And for those liking to read court cases:

"As between the locator and the government, the former is the owner of the beneficial estate, and the latter holds the fee in trust, to be conveyed to such beneficial owner upon his application in that behalf and in compliance with the terms prescribed by the paramount proprietor. Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348, 351, 8 Sup. Ct. Eep. 1132, 32 L. ed. 168; Dahl v. Eaunheim, 132 U. S. 260, 262, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74, 33 L. ed. 325, 16 Morr, Min. Rep. 214; Gillis v. Downey, 85 Fed. 483, 487, 29 C.C. A. 286. - Lindley, § 539. Page 1201.

“is as good as though secured by patent", Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.

 

[Goldwasher]

In Oregon your Mining claims are as realty ORS 517.080

so, you quote an act of Congress and get all Cliven Bundy about states rights

I don't think it works that way.

The real property aspect holds water in respect of transfer of title and claim to the actual real property.

In the case of a claim that's minerals and minerals only. Not exclusive surface use until patented.

Well established in court.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Yep.

Wilbur v. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306 1930

Under the General Mining Law, a perfected location of a mining claim has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession, and so long as the owner complies with that law, this right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by a patent.

The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term, and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The right of the owner is taxable by the state, and is "real property," subject to the lien of a judgment recovered against the owner in a state or territorial court.

It's important to read the whole sentence or the meaning is very different. Read the whole of the Supreme Court explanation of those rights and responsibilities.

If the claim is not perfected your only right is against subsequent prospectors and locators. This is known as a limited possessory right.

The Supreme Court has explained this possessory right quite a few times. Here's an important Supreme Court decision from 1963.
Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co

A mining location which has not gone to patent is of no higher quality and no more immune from attack and investigation than are unpatented claims under the homestead and kindred laws. If valid, it gives to the claimant certain exclusive possessory rights, and so do homestead and desert claims. But no right arises from an invalid claim of any kind. All must conform to the law under which they are initiated; otherwise they work an unlawful private appropriation in derogation of the rights of the public.

Of course, the Land Department has no power to strike down any claim arbitrarily, but, so long as the legal title remains in the government, it does have power, after proper notice and upon adequate hearing, to determine whether the claim is valid, and, if it be found invalid, to declare it null and void.

It has never been simple but it is understandable. Miners have been working within these same basic legal principles for thousands of years. The Supreme Court just explains what the laws mean, they don't write those laws. By and large the miners have written the mining laws in the United States. Who better to decide what works?

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

yep, unless its patented. other users have the same surface rights as long as they aren't interfering with the claimants work and gear.

M.e.g. should know stuff like this.

 

[Bejay]

What do people not understand about "shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations." Act of May 10, 1872, amending. ?

Full enjoyment and possession. Ok with that. I do not see where sharing is excluded except for that mineral which the locator lays claim to. To argue that your enjoyment is adversely impacted by others who may want to enjoy the surface and other resources is a slippery slope. I would ask that you provide court cases that prove it otherwise would be explanatory. I know of no examples that prove otherwise. We had an in depth discussion on this back on the old GPAA forum. I could dig it up from my files but needless to say "what rules the land today" is "what is happening today" via patented vs unpatented claims. The term prove up/patented is the key determination that gets left out of the conversation most often. It creates a big difference in trespass law.

Bejay