americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index 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
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why miners need to drop the word 'Recreational'
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
beebarjay



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 230
Location: Central Oregon Coast & Az

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:46 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

I have enjoyed such discusson with the USFS District Ranger when he came to my claim to address issues contrary to the USFS management policies of miners on their claims.  

Durring the discussion I mentioned that I, and my adjacent claim owner, had been using the claim site for our hunting camp.  Give consideration to the "mining/dredge season" policy/permit".  I was allowed to be living temporarily on the claim for the durration of the mining season but was then required to remove all traces of the activity....(remember the 14 day camping rule.....which was allowed to be exempted for mining activity).

I was reminded by the Distgrict Ranger that using the claim for a huning camp would negate my claim/intent.

Two things come to mind after reading the discussion so far.  1st.... I was made to follow their mining season....thus you could term me a small scale miner per their conditions of allowance.  2nd,.... had I been allowed to mine for the full year the activity of hunting would be limited to the actual hunting seasons and could be determined "not to be" recreational but rather life supporting.  But even if recreational; people have a right to recreate when they are not actually working.  An example would be target shooting, or even playing cards

But of course I had given up my Grant by allowing the USFS to dictate my activity and by my own hand: submitting a POO etc. etc.
Understand I was asked by the USFS to submit a POO in order to help the USFS in a court case challenging the right of miners to mine.

The aspect of "recreational" and "small scale" is exactly what the USFS wants a miner to be; as it further inhances their authority over the activity and keeps the miner within the realm of the USFS.  

But I guess I need to take a walk and give thought to how my past actions have led me down the wrong path.....so my learning all that I can will help me choose the path that I walk correctly.

It will undoubtably require a tactical meneuver
in order to escape my State Permits/and Reporting.....my DEQ 5 year permit.....and my POO.  

So all that has been conveyed by Woof stands squarely with the what the USFS and BLM want....they want to remove you from the Grant.  The phrase is "GOTCHA''.  

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GoldPatriot



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 219
Location: Waldport, Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bejay;

The core of what woof and I have been saying is, that we can and have been in the past, our own worst enemy, by both allowing ourselves to talk in terms such as "dredger, recreational, hobby, small scale, etc, and then allowing government agencies to use our own words and deeds, to put us in catagories, which allows them to control us under their regs, not the 1872 mining laws.

I admit I had the same failings in the past, but not for years.

We owe to to ourselves, our fellow miners, to our industry and to this nation, to retain our standing as miners, as defined by the 1872 Congressional mining law and as upheld in Constitutional law.

Woof and the rest of us, have long held, that talking to employees of any government agency, be it State or Federal, is simply a fishing trip for those employees, seeking anything they can, to use against us, be it word or deed. Talking with them is taking a very large risk that you do not have to do.  Most any question that an agency employee may ask you can simply be answered in one of four ways.. "yep", "nope", "maybe" or "it's not applicable under the 1872 mining law".
_________________
" America is at that awkward stage......... It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 90
Location: Gold Trail

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

beebarjay wrote:

Understand I was asked by the USFS to submit a POO in order to help the USFS in a court case challenging the right of miners to mine. 

bejay


Hi bejay,

So your "intent" was to assist rather than comply?

Very Happy

Woof!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GoldPatriot



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 219
Location: Waldport, Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL WOOF!
_________________
" America is at that awkward stage......... It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 230
Location: Central Oregon Coast & Az

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woof! wrote:
beebarjay wrote:

Understand I was asked by the USFS to submit a POO in order to help the USFS in a court case challenging the right of miners to mine. 

bejay


Hi bejay,

So your "intent" was to assist rather than comply?

Very Happy

Woof!



Yes.  But I will have to check my records to see if the USFS gave me any written letter to that effect. My recollection is; they sent a letter requesting a special meeting of the miners within their USFS area to discuss the issue, and there may not be a written record of the statement.  I'll check and see.....I try not to spend much time with the USFS and their requests.

But I understand the tactic of conveying "intent".  But that act with the USFS lead to many other "permitting" actions as a result of my "assistance" to the USFS.

It is really interesting in the sense that even if the USFS were challenged to stop mining in the district the USFS did not have the lawful right to do it.  But then again none of us miners were knowledgeable of our rights; having never studied the mining laws and the other agency's authority.

I will be paying close attention to the Miner Dave/USFS situation.  It seems very relevant to the correct application of the law.  

Thanks

bejay


_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum