Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search
Alaska Gold Forum :: Alaska Prospecting Forum :: wotus
Unsubscribe From Newsletter

Welcome, Register :: Log In Welcome to our newest member, Placer_Pacer.

people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 44 at 17:01:08 Tue Nov 20 2012)

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify of replies made to this post ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

geowizard
Offline
1521 posts
Reply
wotus ( 22:37:40 MonMar 6 2017 )

Members of the Forum,

One of the executive orders that affects placer miners in a very positive way is the recent executive order signed by President Trump on February 28th;

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-and-economic

There hasn't been much discussion on this. The EPA and ACOE have been on a continual move to tighten the noose on placer mining through the regulatory process.

This executive order in plain English is a move toward revision and rescinding much of the regulatory constraint on placer mining.

- Geowizard
[2 edits; Last edit by geowizard at 22:40:00 Mon Mar 6 2017]

  
peluk
Offline
1612 posts
Reply
Re: wotus ( 00:04:08 WedMar 8 2017 )

It looks like "mission creep" on the part of some federal agencies in a quest to expand their roll and thus the size of their department and staff needs has come to a halt.

  
chickenminer
Unavailable
550 posts

Reply
Re: wotus ( 19:13:16 WedMar 8 2017 )

Yes, and BLM's planning 2.0 just got canned with the CRA also !
Maybe there is some hope after all.



---
Dick Hammond - Chicken, Alaska
Chicken / Stonehouse Creek Mining
Chickenminer.com
 
 
geowizard
Offline
1521 posts
Reply
Re: wotus ( 01:33:12 ThuMar 9 2017 )

chickenminer,

I also hope to see the reversal of the "Scenic Rivers Act".

That will open up the Fortymile River System.

One trade-off is that the conversion or Transfer of Federal domain to State of Alaska, etc. is ending. Nothing in print yet that I am aware of.

- Geowizard

  
Jim_Alaska
Offline
4659 posts
Admin

Reply
Re: wotus ( 07:10:26 ThuMar 9 2017 )

Wiz, that;s "Public Domain". It may be managed by a Federal agency, but it is Public Domain.

The distinction between “public land” and “public domain”

Any interpretation of mining law requires that it be read “para materia”, interpreted all together. The definition given to distinguish the difference between “public land” and “public domain”, citing the Congressional Record of October 2000, page 1885-1866, states, “2.

The true nature of ‘‘public lands.’’ ‘‘Public Lands’’ are ‘‘lands open to sale or other dispositions under general laws, lands to which no claim or rights of others have attached.’’

“The United States Supreme Court has stated: It is well settled that all land to which any claim or rights of others has attached does not fall within the designation of public lands.’’ In additional support we add from the same record, “The courts have repeatedly held that when a lawful possession of the public lands has been taken, these lands are no longer
available to the public and are therefore no longer public lands.

Possession of the mineral estate in public lands could be lawfully taken under the mining acts. Where valid mining claims exist, that land is no longer public land.”

The “public land” that is disposed by claims under the act of 1872 is public domain as stated in that Act, reference “USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment: The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain. . .”



---
James Foley
Property and Mining Rights Advocate
Hamburg, California
jfoley@sisqtel.net
 
 
geowizard
Offline
1521 posts
Reply
Re: wotus ( 12:55:40 ThuMar 9 2017 )

Jim,

So, you can file a mining claim but you cannot get a permit to mine. Note: Recreational panning isn't "mining" IMHO. :smile:

- Geowizard

  
Jim_Alaska
Offline
4659 posts
Admin

Reply
Re: wotus ( 14:57:13 ThuMar 9 2017 )

Wiz,

I was pointing out something that we miners, the general public and agencies frequently misstate.

I have made the same mistake most of my life. We consider that any land overseen by a federal agency is federal land, which it is not. They cannot show title or ownership because it is Public Land or Public Domain.

We refer to Federal land, just as you referred to Federal Domain. Both are misnomers. Federal land implies Federal ownership, which it is not.

My concern is that once we acknowledge an erroneous designation it can and will be held against us in future court litigation.

I posted a long explanation to show the difference in land designation. It also applies to what we commonly call Federal Land. Once a claim is filed it is removed from "public land" status and becomes private property on Public Domain. This guarantees "exclusivity" of your claim for mining purposes.

I am not picking on you personally Wiz, we have all done this for years. I just think it is important to get miners to understand that if we continue to insist that we mine on Federal Land it will come back to bite us in a big way legally.

If you read what I posted carefully you will see the differences and the importance of them. This is not some "pie in the sky" flaky idea, it is a valid Supreme Court decision and affirmed by the Congressional Record.



---
James Foley
Property and Mining Rights Advocate
Hamburg, California
jfoley@sisqtel.net
 
 
geowizard
Offline
1521 posts
Reply
Re: wotus ( 15:41:21 ThuMar 9 2017 )

Jim,

Yes, I understand. Public Land and Public Domain are two different things.

Waters of the United States has become another "parcel".

I have read MEG's posts over the past decade almost.

I agree - Mining Claims on Public Land become Public Domain. The Mining Claimant asserts rights to that "Public Domain".

The issue as I see it is that the Federal Government has through a process of "Rule Making", involved themselves in a "Taking". The Supreme court has held that the Federal government CAN withhold a permit for up to SIX years. So, with regulation - not law, the Federal Government asserts Rule-Making as a means to Control Mining.

One of the Rules Made is/was redefinition of "Waters of the United States" to include ALL of the water!

The current administration apparently realizes the over-reach of WOTUS and is planning to roll back "Regulations".

I'm slightly confused about what it is that you are making an issue of - if it is that in some way, recognizing that the Federal Government has a standing in the over-reach to begin with in recognizing their power to roll back the regulation is in some way giving recognition to their standing to have asserted WOTUS to begin with?

- Geowizard
[1 edits; Last edit by geowizard at 15:43:10 Thu Mar 9 2017]

  
Jim_Alaska
Offline
4659 posts
Admin

Reply
Re: wotus ( 08:08:25 FriMar 10 2017 )

Quote: geowizard at 15:41:21 Thu Mar 9 2017

Jim,

I'm slightly confused about what it is that you are making an issue of - if it is that in some way, recognizing that the Federal Government has a standing in the over-reach to begin with in recognizing their power to roll back the regulation is in some way giving recognition to their standing to have asserted WOTUS to begin with?

- Geowizard


No Wiz, that is not the issue. The issue is that everyone, miners, agencies, the public, all call public land "Federal Land".

This has to change, especially on the part of miners. If we agree to this bogus terminology we are setting ourselves up for a big fall in the future.

I'll give just one example that I have personal experience with.

The hard rock mine I worked at a couple of years ago was valid Public Domain. In other words it had been Public Land until the owner filed on it, which then took it out of Public Land status and made it Public Domain, or in other words, "private property." Courts and government have affirmed that valid mining claims are private property.

The owner of the mine nicked the bark on a tree with a dozer blade. Forest Service law enforcement found the damaged tree and charged the owner with "destruction of Federal property." That's what they cited him for. They hauled him into court and tried him and found him guilty of destruction of Federal Land.

The judge refused to consider the argument that his claim was private property on Public Domain. he was very forcefully told by the judge that is he persisted in making this argument he would be held in contempt of court. and removed from the court room by the bailiff.

This is why it is so important that miners stop agreeing with agencies and the public in calling a mining claim on public land "Federal Land." The Federal Government is forbidden from owning land other than for forts and magazines, not to exceed ten square miles.

I Know this is something that has become common place, but we have to stop saying it just because everyone else does. It is a lot more than nitpicking, it is an issue that will decide litigation in favor of agencies.



---
James Foley
Property and Mining Rights Advocate
Hamburg, California
jfoley@sisqtel.net
 
 
geowizard
Offline
1521 posts
Reply
Re: wotus ( 12:28:38 FriMar 10 2017 )

Jim,

Yes, I understand the point now - my error!

Thanks! :smile:

- Geowizard

  

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify of replies made to this post ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

 Total Members: 11931

  • Can't start a new thread. (Everyone Registered)
  • Can't start a new poll. (Mods & Admins)
  • Can't add a reply. (Everyone Registered)
  • Can't edit your posts.(Everyone Registered)
  • Register :: Log In :: Administrators

    The time is now 14:42:37 Wed Oct 18 2017

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
    Alaska Gold Forum :: Alaska Prospecting Forum :: wotus

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]