What's new
By:

The Counsel’s mission is; 1: Bring together all the groups and organizations that are

As I said earlier fowledup, my note taking is not that great but you are correct it is the AMRA but it sounded like some sort of legal stuff was involved with them. I must have missed who the legal guys were they were talking about. I am not harsh on those who dare to question. Only those who question but fail to seek answers. The ones who take things out of context and make statements without knowing the facts. The ones who have nothing but negative statements without knowing. I had concerns about this. The difference is I didn't sit on this forum and complain or make a bunch of negative statements. I went looking for answers. I contacted them with my concerns. I went and listened to the conference looking for those answers. I realize some had to work, or cut cord wood and couldn't listen, or were traveling or what ever. Then don't come in and make uninformed statements.

I do not hold claims in California. In fact I believe California is so screwed up you couldn't give me land or pay me to come to that state. I really feel sorry for your plight there. You ask what will I lose if you in California act without question? What I fear is what will I lose because you question but don't act. There are those here on the forum that I have seen do go to the rallies and meetings and give financial support. But there are far more who sit and do nothing but have a very big if not misguided uniformed opinion. I commend you fowledup for your honesty and the fact you are questioning this. I just ask that you go looking for the answers from these people. Over the years you have made some great post and shown great wisdom. You are a respected leader in this forum. Now it is time to lead and find the answers everyone is asking and share them with all. That is what I tried to do today, however there is so much misinformation on here and negativity I fear the truth will be lost and it will really harm the mining community. I still have more questions and concerns and I will seek the answers. I hope the rest of you will also.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!
delnorter said:
I appreciate the write up B H P.

I'm guilty of not listening to the conference call. I was working most of the day and then after work sawed, split, loaded and unloaded a half chord of firewood. I am taking today off besides stacking the wood.

Any way, again, thank you for keeping us posted. I would like further information about of one of your statements. You said "The law enforcement is not to watch over miners like the BLM, USFS. EPA and others are doing. It is to help settle miner to miner issues through the administrative mining districts and MMAC without going to county, state, or federal courts." Are there a lot of issues between miners that need law enforcement or court action?

Mike
Click to expand...

You know Mike I don't know that there is a lot of miner to miner issues, and they are not saying that there is. They are saying that if there is any that arise, it is their belief that it should be settled by miners as in the old days through the mining districts and not by courts who know nothing or very little about mining. Hope you got your wood stacked.
 

BH, we all lead busy lives and therefore have to prioritize. I have yet to read anything here that has changed my initial thoughts of this being a bad idea. I will keep up on it because of that. IMHO, I am unaware of any issues (especially mining districts) that are dividing miners right now, except for maybe this thread. I think we would all be happier if the government would just allow us to mine and dredge with the abundant regs they already have in place.
 

BH- thank you for the kind words no matter how undeserved they may be. I am in no way shape or form in the same league as the "real deal" Knowledgeable folks we have here, but I do have every intention of gaining that level of knowledge at some point. I'm a rather simple untrusting, pig headed guy that god blessed with a fair amount of common sense and an extremely inquisitive "gotsta know" nature. Like a lot of foks I'm not against them I truly would like them to be all they say they are but honestly I can't get passed the red flags and that gut feeling that seldom lets me down (when I actually listen to it). I think they are more than likely misguided but not ill intended people. I believe the biggest worry as this plays out will be the long term consequences for future endeavors, or calls of support by new or existing organizations. When trust is lost it's a bad deal all around and seldom regained! On the other hand if it gets folks involved and gets the ball rolling to take our own destiny into our hands and actually do something- then job well done!
 

Clay Diggins said:
This is an important point you have made fowledup. :thumbsup:

Mining districts are historically and practically limited by the type and extent of mineral deposits. Miners form districts to govern themselves. Mining districts never were intended to represent all miners in a political area, instead they represent one type of mining in one type of environment. I can assure you that the Bauxite, Barite and Asbestos miners have no interest in being governed by gold miners. I can also assure you that a "district" as large as the Jefferson has never been, and never will be, supported by the majority of miners within it's boundaries.

In my view mining districts today have a primary role as establishing best practices mining within the district. The methods used for the disseminated gold deposits in the Carlin Trend have nothing in common with dredging in California, hardrock mining in Oregon or gem mining in Nevada.

A real mining district can make regulations about mining methods in their domain. A small district may have very different soil, rock and deposit conditions than another district in the next valley over. That is why mining districts are historically small and numerous. There is no such thing as "one size fits all" in mining.

IF a district is organized with the participation of the majority of miners and IF that district creates self regulation concerning proper mining methods that are unique to the mining conditions in that district and based on expert local knowledge THEN the mining district can present expert testimony that no government agency can counter. That is where the power of mining districts will be found today.

Bringing the expert knowledge of local mining methods to the table can bring you wins. The dredging ban could have easily been overcome by expert testimony from small local districts that have already established proper dredging procedures for their district. Sadly the only "mining districts" today are political organizations more interested in building membership than self governance of mining practice on a local level.

I believe mining districts can be a powerful tool for miners. I can not support any non-local effort to create mining districts. I see no use in another organization wishing to rule miners. The mineral grant is an individual grant that is earned one claim at a time. ALL the important mining cases have been won by individual miners - not organizations. Mining districts are intended to be self regulating and for the benefit of the individual miner - not the mining district.

Heavy Pans
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^This is how it's supposed to be^^^^^^^^!!!! The real lesson to be learned from PLP and MMAC's efforts is not so much if what they are doing is right or wrong, but seeing the reality of what can be accomplished when folks set their mind to do something. I'm not for another federal bureauracy, and I don't agree with how they want to set this up. However while we've been skeptically watching and voicing our objections, they've been busy doing and are obviously making headway towards their goal. For over a year now we have known what they were trying to do. For many many years we've had the exact same opportunity to reinstate what has already been congressionally granted and our right to do as outlined by Clay Diggins in the above post.
I've always had a love hate relationship for the saying "You make your own conditions" it's a bitter medicine that's hard to swallow but it's true.
 

I mostly agree and Clays post was great. I read a lot of old journals and am all for districts as anyone would be, its just that we live in a different time and I don't think this is the best approach. I still think we have a great law that stands up in court.

Plus this is confusing, how do people who don't live in a district get represented or even get contacted by these representatives of they do live in one? They don't have our email or phone number to ask our opinion rally people or update us on matters, so I assume we have to blindly hope they don't cut a bad deal with agencies as part of their advising duties.

To give them the right to speak or negotiate with government agencies for claim holders everywhere seems like a slippery slope as I don't see how they represent a small miner but I could be totally wrong like I say it's confusing. Personally I'd rather send yourself, Clay, GW and Mad Marshall to Washington DC to speak for me as I feel I'd have better representation:)
 

Almost looks like trading one government agency for another too me at first glance . I will follow the thread as a noob to this part of the mining industry for gold . We the people need a voice in government that favors the mining industry . JMHO
 

That is kind of the point- they have no legal right to represent anyone, nor or are they asking for the right they are creating that ability. They are going to force their "authority" thru the formation of this new agency, reinventing and ignoring many of the rights we already possess. Other than a portion of the government going along with them, what is the basis and backebone of their authority?
Nothing has changed for me, there are still a zillion questions that have gone unanswered. When they first came out we voiced concerns and asked questions. I don't think it was the introduction they were expecting. Instead of answering questions, listening and taking the time to work it out with those they want to represent they hit the ignore button and continued on to Washington. Like I said I don't agree with what they're doing but certainly applaud their tenacity and committment, just wish their goals were more in line with defending our existing laws and bolstering the authority we already possess. Their approach reminds me of a certain segment of our populations approach to gun control- rather than enforce the laws in existence they choose to create more laws, many that are in direct opposition to the rights we were once guaranteed.
Gonna be a hard row to hoe for this new agency to introduce or enforce anything that is not in line with or contrary to the existing mining laws, and Heaven help us when we are told we will fund them by way of new taxes, fees, and licensing.
Yep, because more laws and bigger government has worked so well for us in the past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Last edited:
Alex Burke said:
Plus this is confusing, how do people who don't live in a district get represented or even get contacted by these representatives of they do live in one? They don't have our email or phone number to ask our opinion rally people or update us on matters, so I assume we have to blindly hope they don't cut a bad deal with agencies as part of their advising duties.
Click to expand...

Each district is composed of the claim owners within the district. There has never been any requirement for a miner to live within the district - only that they own a mining claim within the district. The district boundaries are defined by the terrain and the nature of the deposit, not by who lives there.

District members are claim owners and district area is naturally limited by the physical realities of the mining taking place. That's why all mining districts are small defined areas - not state or nation sized.

Each district is governed by the claim owners within the district. All these claim owners mine the same minerals. That is part of the natural limit of the size of the district. Asbestos miners have a district formed by the extent of the mineable asbestos deposit. Gold miners have no part of the business of the asbestos mining district. Each district is concerned only with the mining affairs of it's claim holders within the natural area of the single deposit. This is natural self government by claim owners facing the same conditions and problems. These claim owners are best equipped to make decisions about their mining needs and methods, not the miner in the next county or someone in DC. The miners of a single well defined district are the best and only experts on the mining and miner's needs within their district. That's why Congress allowed them self government over mining matters within their unique district.

There is no mining district without the claim owners. Miners DO NOT HAVE A VOTE in a mining district, only claim owners do. Many miners may work a deposit yet never own a claim. If miners could have representation in a mining district any claim owner could hire a few hundred miners and take over the mining district with bogus votes by non claim owners.

Patented mining claims are private land that used to be a mining claim. Patents are excluded from the district because they are no longer mining claims - there is no claim owner to be a member of the district once the land is patented. The patented land owner makes all their mining decisions based on their own needs and and the mining regulations within the County and State. Mining claim patents are no longer in the public lands and they have no rights under the federal mining laws. The owner of a patented claim has entirely different concerns, regulatory concerns and goals than a mining claim owner on the public lands.

When a mining district is formed the claim owners join together and set the mining rules and claim standards for the district. It's important to understand that only the claim owners within the district can do this. No one else can call those claim owners together and only the claim owners themselves can vote or propose rules and regulations for the district.

Getting the claim owners together to form a district can be difficult. Miners are like cats - they are not easily herded. The most successful districts historically are formed by miners with a common interest to protect. Mining districts can easily and legally set standards about how claims are worked and what constitutes a valid claim. Claims mongers, overclaimers and unworked claims can legally be eliminated from the district by establishing work and claim rules within the district. That alone could provide enough common interest within a small area to get claim owners interested in forming a district. There are many more legal powers districts have that can help claim owners mine their claims and build value in their discoveries. Just eliminating the cloud on mining titles from overclaimers can be a huge boost for claim values without having to pay lawyers or spend months in court.

Since a district can only be formed by the claim owners within the proposed district it is critical that every claimant is notified in writing. Phones and email may be convenient but they are not legally sufficient notice. Websites and newsletters even less so. Being sloppy in contacting claim owners is not only rude but invalidates voting and district formation from a legal perspective. Without written notice on paper any effort to form a quorum is invalid and so is the "district".

Luckily it's quite easy to contact all the claimants within the reasonable boundaries of a proposed district. Every location notice for those claims have a mailing address where the claim owner can be contacted. Location notices are available to the public so you can look up any locator or owners legal mailing address. That current contact information is part of the legal requirement for making and maintaining a mining claim. Simple and straightforward.

For "districts" encompassing many square miles, whole counties, whole states, multiple states or the entire nation the possibility of reaching an agreement of all the claimholders in their proposed districts is a virtual impossibility. Asbestos miners would not want to be subject to placer miner rules, gold lode miners won't be agreeing on voting power with association placer miners. Mining companies would take over a large district by default just due to a huge majority of claims being theirs. Essentially large districts would be run by whoever had the most claims. The vast majority of mining claims are lode claims owned by mining companies. Placer owners would be pretty disappointed in a mining district based on anything but the local interests of a group of placer miners mining the same deposit. Anything larger and placer claim owners get ruled by lode claim owners.

Such a large district is faced with the required notification of all the claimholders within their proposed district before the district proposal can be heard by the qualified claimants. Further mailed notices will be required should the district need to reform or amend it's charter. Contacting all those claimants is not an impossibility but the process requires a lot of organization. Even so it can be done. The BLM does it every year and we all know how well that's working out.

One of the most powerful and locally useful abilities of a true mining district is their ability to settle mining disputes between miners in their districts. Going to your fellow miners and explaining your position while the miner you have the dispute with does the same and letting your district members decide who is right is what you all seem to want. Here it is right in your local mining district. :thumbsup:

Now compare that possibility to having 5 guys in suits in Washington you've never met deciding which miner was right after reading your attorneys explanation. Same concept, same rights, same miners dispute just a much larger district. Welcome to the national mining "district". What good is self governance if everything you do has to be reviewed and approved at a national level?

Perhaps that is as it should be in a representative district. Technically an overriding national district might seem to offer a bigger voice on a national level. But I think that would be better served by a representative association with a real track record. Putting my mining rights into a national management basket by the district method seems foolish to me. I don't want any organization to have the legal right to claim they speak for me just because I made a mining claim location. I don't need another layer of management over my mining activities but if I felt I did need help I would form a local district with my neighborhood miners. I'd rather have the help of my fellow claim holders than be subject to the rules and structure of an organization created by people who have never even seen my claim.

Now you see why mining districts are formed around a common deposit type in a logically defined area. Anything more does not help the miner. If you want to be a national force why not go ahead and form your local mining district and simply communicate your process and problems with other willing districts. Make rules about what works for you locally and consider adopting some rules that other districts have made. By all means decide among yourselves - don't let anyone tell you you belong to another group because they say so. Local miners have the right to regulate and make standards for themselves. Within that power there is a solution to nearly every mining issue complained about in these forums. Don't waste that power on a "district" that has never seen your claim or mined in your area. No matter how good their intentions they can't possibly set rules that apply to your unique mineral deposit and mining needs.

So there's an opinion. I'm sure every reader here has their own. Please share your thoughts here. We can't form a mining district on this forum or the internet but we sure can discuss what we would like one to look like. :thumbsup:

Heavy Pans
 

Last edited:
That why I was saying all miners need to unite , like all outdoor sportsman need to unite . It's the decention between the ranks , that keep us devided . Thats where the anti's win , they are united against everthing .
 

Somethings to think about-- If the absolute best possible scenario already exists, which is the ability to govern ones self than why would a group or individual seek to reinvent the wheel and not take advantage of it? Where's the gain? By the same token why aren't we MEG's taking advantage of it, I mean it really doesn't get any better than that when dealing with the government does it?

Clay brought up a very pertinent point, which is mining districts are for claim holders, do some rainy day research and look into the by laws of the original districts and notice what the requirements were to form a mining district. Is that the reason to reinvent the wheel? I'll leave it at that.
 

Last edited:
fowledup said:
Somethings to think about-- If the absolute best possible scenario already exists, which is the ability to govern ones self than why would a group or individual seek to reinvent the wheel and not take advantage of it? Where's the gain? By the same token why aren't we MEG's taking advantage of it, I mean it really doesn't get any better than that when dealing with the government does it?

Clay brought up a very pertinent point, which is mining districts are for claim holders, do some rainy day research and look into the by laws of the original districts and notice what the requirements were to form a mining district. Is that the reason to reinvent the wheel? I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I was thinking if we all united ,it would be better than self governing on our own . United we stand devided we fall . JMHO
 

motohed said:
I was thinking if we all united ,it would be better than self governing on our own . United we stand devided we fall . JMHO
Click to expand...

What I mean as self governing is it is up to us claim holders as our own group to govern ourselves and not governmental agency oversight. What government oversight we have now is because we have not fulfilled our part of the bargain. Doing it the wrong way won't make it all better either. At some point we are going to have to do what is required of us, which I suspect will be sooner than later, probably around the time a new government agency comes to fruition and starts imposing their agenda on us.
 

Barry explained it very clearly for me in his post! BUT what would happen if a claim owner in a Mining District that was forming or is currently established , decide that being part of this district wasn't for him OR he just didn't want anyone telling him how-2- do -it! How would that situation be handled or wouldn't that be just the same as what these groups are trying to do? Over the years theres been lots of groups (that wanted to help) have been formed and failed because of one reason or the other. where would we be today if these people saw the need to help and just didn't do it , or didn't want anyone else speaking for them ?? I gotta agree if everyone isn't onboard there will be problems by the truckload! and here we are ! what can be done to gell a plan to make it good for all ? or is it even possible anymore???
 

We need to realize that the land grab, is happening . While this is happening , the potential for the rest of us who would like to make a claim ,won't be able too at the rate they are moving now. It will eventially limit the number of voting miners . Realize that all mining votes are being deminished by the land grab it's self [ Anti's ] . I think planning ahead for what ever will happen is better than waiting for the horse to get out of the barn , and have to chase it . We need to face the fact , that laws have been amended to get rid of miners , guns , hunting , even ways of life . JMHO I have seen how much we have lost in New England , Believe me it's coming your way .
 

Last edited:
russau said:
Barry explained it very clearly for me in his post! BUT what would happen if a claim owner in a Mining District that was forming or is currently established , decide that being part of this district wasn't for him OR he just didn't want anyone telling him how-2- do -it! How would that situation be handled or wouldn't that be just the same as what these groups are trying to do? Over the years theres been lots of groups (that wanted to help) have been formed and failed because of one reason or the other. where would we be today if these people saw the need to help and just didn't do it , or didn't want anyone else speaking for them ?? I gotta agree if everyone isn't onboard there will be problems by the truckload! and here we are ! what can be done to gell a plan to make it good for all ? or is it even possible anymore???
Click to expand...

They are not setting themselves up as another advocacy support type group. They are establishing themselves as the main federal authority over us. As to what would happen once they become a federal agency. I suspect it will be much like our current government agency relationships. They will be more than happy to govern you if you let them. NOI and POO type scenarios come to mind. ...........Or we do what we are supposed to, follow the existing laws, create our districts, take them to court and tell them to pack sand as they have no legally binding authority over us.
 

I'm thinking at this point we should delagate our own advisers for the the mining and small mining industry , That way we could send people who we believe would make a difference for the cause . We are chasing our tales talking about what we need to happen , but we have'nt made a difference at this point . I think it's time to have a deligation of our own . JMHO
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

New 49ers drawing winners

⬅️ Previous Thread

AMRA event this weekend

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Similar threads

Old Bookaroo
The Myth of Padre La Rue
Replies
5
Views
2K
russau
R
dognose
  • Suggestion Suggestion
Texas Panhandle Archaeological Society Monthly Meeting
Replies
1
Views
340
newnan man
newnan man
D
Unearthing a Treasure Near an Ancient Castle
Replies
18
Views
2K
ConceptualizedNetherlandr
ConceptualizedNetherlandr

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom