Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Wallrat

Jurisdiction Question

In Idaho, I have a federal mining claim, on US Forest Service lands. The State regulates the dredging season...Do they own the streambed, the water, or exactly how does that work? I'm questioning their jurisdiction.
NCrossman

CORRECTION! The state thinks they regulate the dredging season.
cowboy444

The 1866 and 1872 mining law gave the public land to the people. The state is supposed to oversee the use and care of that land but they think they own it. Any time you have a problem with the state it is your duty to fight them and educate them as to what they are supposed to be doing.
We need to abolish the Oregon Department of State Lands because they have given their jobs over to other agencies to do the work. U.S. Forest Service is closing roads, closing rivers and stopping us from using OUR land to prospect in. In reality the Forest service maintains bushes and trees not rocks and water unless a "significant surface disturbance" is possibly being done to the land. Then the POO(Plan of operation) or the NOI(notice of intent)may be required but no one has ever defined significant so it's up for inturperation(sp?)

cowboy444
beebarjay

In River Bed.

The state is the owner of minerals found in the bed of a
navigable stream. Malcomson v. Wappoo Mills, 86 F. 192. A
mining claim may be located upon the bed of an unnavigable
stream. 43 L. D. 248.



STATE LANDS.



In Montana, Nevada, and "Wyoming the state lands are by
statute open to prospectors. The state patent does not pass
mines claimed under the Nevada Act. Stanley v. Mineral
Union, 63 P. 59, 26 Nev. 55.

By Colorado Act of 1905 (R. S. Sec. 5215) prospectors dis-
covering mineral on state lands are allowed to pre-empt a
claim 1500 by 300 feet whether lode or placer and ultimately
to obtain the state's title to the same at a minimum price of
$10 per acre.
Wallrat

When I asked this question originally, I was still falling into the trap of trying to play by "their" rules...understanding the CFRs and laws being used to diminish our grant rights. I can  see the problems with that tactic.
 At this point, I'm becoming more of an "originalist" in that all we need are the original 1866, 1872 laws. But when the 1872 law says;

SEC. 3. That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral veln, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim exists at the passage of this act, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said 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, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire clepth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface-lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side-lines of said surface locations

 I'm still having trouble getting my head around how to defeat the passage about following the laws etc. I understand that CFRs are Administrative Regulations, correct? Do the courts not see these CFRs as "Laws"? If so, then they can diminish our grant at will. If not, then we are on much more solid ground. I'd appreciate and help here with clarifying this.
beebarjay

You must not focus on "laws of the state" in so far that the rest of the sentence says "as long as they don't conflict with the laws of the United States."  That last part simply means that the Federal Grant/Laws pre-empt any State Laws.  The catch here is a State can pass laws that they feel "do not" conflict with the Federal Laws.  The States can thus put the burden on the miner to prove the state is in error.  Then of course the state will tie the issue up in state court for eternity until by challenge the issue before the court gets to Federal court.  States often pass laws that conflict with Federal laws....this is nothing new.  When done by states; who is going to challenge them?  The answer to that depends on the players in the game.  Added to this is the fact that OTHER laws such as NEPA and ESA allow states some ability to support their actions.

beebarjay/bejay
Underburden

"so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title"

This seems to only refer to local regulations regarding possesory title (claims). If states are using that implied authority to write rules governing method of mining, etc, they are dead wrong as it only applies to possessory title, nothing else.

Bob
Wallrat

Underburden, I like that last bit quite a lot...frankly, I read that section maybe a dozen times and all I saw was OBEY!  
  Thanks for the eye opener. Can't believe I missed that one!

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home