New Western Mining Alliance Newsletter Out

[minerrick]

Mining Newsletters

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

It appears that either the May or June issues will have the outcome of the two or three "Cases" that are being covered in the past issues. Is this correct?
Thanks.

Will all the dollar amounts be posted or published on all of the "Cases" after June or July?

 

[Clay Diggins]

WMA needs to get a clue about the basic mining laws. The "mystery" of 216 mining claims in the Pinto mountains shows a lot of ignorance about how actual productive profitable mining works. The Dale District is known for it's large Iron/Silver deposits as well as gold. Mining a large deposit requires acquiring a large surface area. 216 lode claims cover less than 7 square miles. That's a pretty conservative claim group for a large deposit.

This part cracked me up and really showed how ignorant the writer is.

Here’s another odd thing – why on earth would someone file a mining claim with a single claimant and 20.66 acres? It’s void from the start.

Do the math. Lode claims are legally allowed to claim up to 600 feet by 1500 feet. That's 900,000 square feet. 900,000 square feet is exactly 20.66 acres. Not void or improper - these claims are the standard lode claim size.

20.66 acres per lode claim - Every professional miner knows that number. Heck yesterday I was talking to a Canadian mining company just beginning to research mining in the U.S. and they knew that. It's just wrong that foreign miners know more about locating mining claims than a United States mining advocacy group.

80% of all mining claims are lode claims of 20.66 acres. Not knowing that shows a huge ignorance of the mining laws and industry.

There have been 25,439 new mining claims located since last September. It's not unusual to see 200 or more claims located in a group every few weeks.

The assumption seems to be that all claims are placer (less than 20% of all claims are placer claims) and that mining claims are located for gold (less than 20% are located for gold).

This might seem like nitpicking but it's a demonstration of why groups like WMA can't get mining company support. There is big money and great lawyers available through these mining companies and they know how to get stuff done. They aren't about to support a group that doesn't even know what size a lode claim is.

If you want to win mining cases you should go it alone (cheap and fast for the educated miner) like so many have successfully done (Tierney, Eno, McClure and more) or go big and get the support of the mining companies (Minard Run and all the rest). The local issue groups like WMA, PLP and MMAC and their long drawn out, expensive and underfunded efforts to win against the State have been universally unsuccessful. No wins ever. That's not a track record I can invest in. Mining is my livelihood

This story is a demonstration of how this group and several others end up spending precious time and money chasing imaginary boogey men. How this story of 216 mining claims has any relevance to the WMA mission is a mystery best left to the editors. The story reeks of a general anti mining suspicion that seems to be endemic to California. Not what I'm looking for in representation and not what I would expect from a group that's created to be the "Voice of the independent miner".

The homey stories and DANGER! DANGER! a 20.66 acre claim are emotional appeals to a particular group of people. It seems like politics and lifestyle appeal is the binding force for these groups rather than any concentrated effort to assist small miners. Just my perception but that idea keeps getting reinforced with each newsletter.

I know I've done this rant before. With every WMA newsletter I see basic errors like this. I could write one of these for every newsletter they produce. If I responded to each newsletter I would just end up harassing this group. I don't want to be that guy. As it is they are their own worst enemy.

These are not bad guys who formed and support WMA with their money and time. They are trying to do the right thing. We need groups like WMA but we also need them to step up to the plate and research their actions, writings and positions before they put them out to the public. This constant blundering and misunderstanding of mining law is not inspiring me to support them. They need to up their game if they want to be effective. They could start by reading and understanding the mining laws. That would help avoid the constant misinformation and would help them understand better how they can serve their supporters and all miners.

Educate yourself and Prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[gold tramp]

I know these chinese guys they didnt just show up one day out of the blue.
They spent many hours in the field sampling every square foot every hole out there .

I think it was 3 years it took them took get to the point there at now with there property.
Lots of hard work kudos to them as most wouldnt even waste there time in the dale.
Kinda sad just because there chinese they get bad rapp.

Gt....

.

 

[arizau]

WMA needs to get a clue about the basic mining laws. The "mystery" of 216 mining claims in the Pinto mountains shows a lot of ignorance about how actual productive profitable mining works. The Dale District is known for it's large Iron/Silver deposits as well as gold. Mining a large deposit requires acquiring a large surface area. 216 lode claims cover less than 7 square miles. That's a pretty conservative claim group for a large deposit.

This part cracked me up and really showed how ignorant the writer is.

Do the math. Lode claims are legally allowed to claim up to 600 feet by 1500 feet. That's 900,000 square feet. 900,000 square feet is exactly 20.66 acres. Not void or improper - these claims are the standard lode claim size.

20.66 acres per lode claim - Every professional miner knows that number. Heck yesterday I was talking to a Canadian mining company just beginning to research mining in the U.S. and they knew that. It's just wrong that foreign miners know more about locating mining claims than a United States mining advocacy group.

80% of all mining claims are lode claims of 20.66 acres. Not knowing that shows a huge ignorance of the mining laws and industry.

There have been 25,439 new mining claims located since last September. It's not unusual to see 200 or more claims located in a group every few weeks.

The assumption seems to be that all claims are placer (less than 20% of all claims are placer claims) and that mining claims are located for gold (less than 20% are located for gold).

This might seem like nitpicking but it's a demonstration of why groups like WMA can't get mining company support. There is big money and great lawyers available through these mining companies and they know how to get stuff done. They aren't about to support a group that doesn't even know what size a lode claim is.

If you want to win mining cases you should go it alone (cheap and fast for the educated miner) like so many have successfully done (Tierney, Eno, McClure and more) or go big and get the support of the mining companies (Minard Run and all the rest). The local issue groups like WMA, PLP and MMAC and their long drawn out, expensive and underfunded efforts to win against the State have been universally unsuccessful. No wins ever. That's not a track record I can invest in. Mining is my livelihood

This story is a demonstration of how this group and several others end up spending precious time and money chasing imaginary boogey men. How this story of 216 mining claims has any relevance to the WMA mission is a mystery best left to the editors. The story reeks of a general anti mining suspicion that seems to be endemic to California. Not what I'm looking for in representation and not what I would expect from a group that's created to be the "Voice of the independent miner".

The homey stories and DANGER! DANGER! a 20.66 acre claim are emotional appeals to a particular group of people. It seems like politics and lifestyle appeal is the binding force for these groups rather than any concentrated effort to assist small miners. Just my perception but that idea keeps getting reinforced with each newsletter.

I know I've done this rant before. With every WMA newsletter I see basic errors like this. I could write one of these for every newsletter they produce. If I responded to each newsletter I would just end up harassing this group. I don't want to be that guy. As it is they are their own worst enemy.

These are not bad guys who formed and support WMA with their money and time. They are trying to do the right thing. We need groups like WMA but we also need them to step up to the plate and research their actions, writings and positions before they put them out to the public. This constant blundering and misunderstanding of mining law is not inspiring me to support them. They need to up their game if they want to be effective. They could start by reading and understanding the mining laws. That would help avoid the constant misinformation and would help them understand better how they can serve their supporters and all miners.

Educate yourself and Prosper!

Heavy Pans

This is nitpicky but one article that I read by a self described "Geologist" was talking about a "load" deposit. Funny personal story. My wife once worked in a corporate headquarters mine engineering office and the mining engineer department head spelled it the same. Even she as a math major knew the difference.

 

[Assembler]

Any talk about "Lode lines and End lines" on the above "Claims"?
Thanks

Just asking for more money for the "Fight" with some of the above groups.

 

[Goldwasher]

oh man it bugs me too.

I have an ear at WMA I'll mention something to him in person.

I'm not shy about mentioning stuff to Shannon either.

though you tend to get the "you're a know it all " attitude

My sticking up for these groups ends with their right to exist. I don't stick up for them ranting about stuff that isn't in touch. The fact that I know people on the boards and have never seen anything malicious. Means I do send them feedback.

Though pushing the fear factor does almost kill it for me.

Just like the motor stuff in Ca. I know sb637 doesn't flat out say no motors....that you aren't going to get a ticket for a wheelchair or posthole digger.

But, the fact that the new bill to clarify was tabled and that the Senators want to know why the water board hasn't done any thing and that they want the language to be more specific within 637 shows that some of theses efforts are warranted.

On top of that just plain screw MMAC and PLP.


Also I learned a long time ago that some people out there want the "outlaw" status for some reason and get involved just to gripe. Not helping anything.


Guess I'll just keep getting called a know it all.

 

[Goldwasher]

Minerrick if you are on the board please read what clay has to say... PLEASE

I'll be griping to the other Rick

 

[minerrick]

You’re right, we’re wrong. We didn’t pay attention to it being a lode claim – our bad. We’ll probably make more mistakes next month too.
We’re not the Mining Journal. Never will be. We work for free and we do make mistakes. We’ve never claimed to be the experts and frequently acknowledge our own stupidity and we’ll do it again – yup, we got the type claim wrong.

We disagree with a couple of your points though, but acknowledge our lack of expertise in the matter. The filing of 216 claims in the Dale District is exceptional. That's the whole point, it's not normal. Despite our general ignorance in all things mining we can tell you with certainty that a person who owns 216 mining claims in California owns more claims than 99.76% of all other claimants. We would call that extraordinary when those claims are filed by one guy, in one day, in a district which hasn't seen any appreciable commercial activity in nearly 70 years.
We acknowledge your point that it often takes a large block of claims to create a successful mine, but let's be realistic, this guy isn't filing iron mining claims he's claiming historic gold mines.
The point is why would anyone file 216 mining claims - in California? Do you believe they'll be able to begin an open pit mine, in California, on the borders of Joshua Tree National Park, or is that just our anti-mining bias coming out?

216 claims is extraordinary. Only about 2,000 new mining claims are filed each year (not 25,000), and about an equal number are forfeited so in general the number of California claims has remained steady around 25,000 for the past few years (24,267 last we checked) of that it's about evenly split between lode and placer (11,063 lode versus 11,732 for placer). California is primarily a small miner state (96% of people own 10 or fewer claims). For good reason - California doesn't support mining.

Your point on the lawsuits is well taken, it's always better to get in and get out. For the past 9 years anyone, could have stood up and showed us all how its done. The closest we had was Rinehart. The lone miner filing suit just hasn't happened. Our last lone miner, Keith Walker, just received a 90 day eviction notice and has agreed to drop his lawsuit against the State. However, the Yuba River is wide open right now. Anyone can throw a dredge in, get a citation, fight it and perhaps win dredging back for all of us.

We're playing a hand which was dealt us, not one of our choosing. It's a serious game we're in and there is a potential judgment against us for over $150,000.

Here's the bottom line - you're right, but what purpose does that serve? Would you like us to drop the appeal? In the newsletter we printed exactly how much money is donated versus what we need. Tell me, would you take on our risk looking at those numbers? Indeed, we must be as dumb as you say to go forward with this, but who else is standing in this gap?

Some say mining districts are the answer, some say legislation is the answer and some say the lone miner lawsuit is the answer. Perhaps, and we pray for their success. Whether we agree, or disagree with their approach, we simply hope someone wins.

Thank you again for at least reading the newsletter. We sometimes wonder whether anyone does, and your comments aren't nearly as harsh as some we've received.

Good luck in your mining this year.

Respectfully,

The guys at the WMA

 

[Assembler]

You’re right, we’re wrong. We didn’t pay attention to it being a lode claim – our bad. We’ll probably make more mistakes next month too.
We’re not the Mining Journal. Never will be. We work for free and we do make mistakes. We’ve never claimed to be the experts and frequently acknowledge our own stupidity and we’ll do it again – yup, we got the type claim wrong.

We disagree with a couple of your points though, but acknowledge our lack of expertise in the matter. The filing of 216 claims in the Dale District is exceptional. That's the whole point, it's not normal. Despite our general ignorance in all things mining we can tell you with certainty that a person who owns 216 mining claims in California owns more claims than 99.76% of all other claimants. We would call that extraordinary when those claims are filed by one guy, in one day, in a district which hasn't seen any appreciable commercial activity in nearly 70 years.
We acknowledge your point that it often takes a large block of claims to create a successful mine, but let's be realistic, this guy isn't filing iron mining claims he's claiming historic gold mines.
The point is why would anyone file 216 mining claims - in California? Do you believe they'll be able to begin an open pit mine, in California, on the borders of Joshua Tree National Park, or is that just our anti-mining bias coming out?

216 claims is extraordinary. Only about 2,000 new mining claims are filed each year (not 25,000), and about an equal number are forfeited so in general the number of California claims has remained steady around 25,000 for the past few years (24,267 last we checked) of that it's about evenly split between lode and placer (11,063 lode versus 11,732 for placer). California is primarily a small miner state (96% of people own 10 or fewer claims). For good reason - California doesn't support mining.

Your point on the lawsuits is well taken, it's always better to get in and get out. For the past 9 years anyone, could have stood up and showed us all how its done. The closest we had was Rinehart. The lone miner filing suit just hasn't happened. Our last lone miner, Keith Walker, just received a 90 day eviction notice and has agreed to drop his lawsuit against the State. However, the Yuba River is wide open right now. Anyone can throw a dredge in, get a citation, fight it and perhaps win dredging back for all of us.

We're playing a hand which was dealt us, not one of our choosing. It's a serious game we're in and there is a potential judgment against us for over $150,000.

Here's the bottom line - you're right, but what purpose does that serve? Would you like us to drop the appeal? In the newsletter we printed exactly how much money is donated versus what we need. Tell me, would you take on our risk looking at those numbers? Indeed, we must be as dumb as you say to go forward with this, but who else is standing in this gap?

Some say mining districts are the answer, some say legislation is the answer and some say the lone miner lawsuit is the answer. Perhaps, and we pray for their success. Whether we agree, or disagree with their approach, we simply hope someone wins.

Thank you again for at least reading the newsletter. We sometimes wonder whether anyone does, and your comments aren't nearly as harsh as some we've received.

Good luck in your mining this year.

Respectfully,

The guys at the WMA

It take guts to admit one or one's are wrong and got to give you some credit for this. Thanks for the update and keep us posted.