New 49er     


:: :: McClure short-lived?
Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search



Make a donation to our message forums through Paypal


Make a donation to our Legal Fund.

 

Photobucket

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

people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 34 at 15:22:43 Fri Sep 10 2021)

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

jeff_jas
Offline
posts
Reply
McClure short-lived? ( 20:40:33 SunOct 14 2007 )

"Prohibition of Camping on cliams?"


http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2007/May/Day-10/i8706.htm

..."As a result of the McClure and Lex court decisions, it is advisable to again amend certain paragraphs in 36 CFR 261.10 to clearly tie them to locatable mineral operations and other mineral operations. The Regions dealing with suction dredge operators are particularly concerned about the effects of the two adverse ruling on their use of provisions in 261.

Clarification for Issuing a Criminal Citation for Unauthorized
Occupancy and Use of National Forest System Lands and Facilities by
Mineral Operators
..."



Can someone clarify this for me. please.

Does this May 2007 Forest department amendedment mean a dredger can no longer 'camp' on his claim as in the past? i thought 'occupancy' was a part of the Mining law so long as one was working it?

shut the rivers down; shut the roads down; shut the sleep overs down;

it never seems to end even with victories.

jeff



  
UncleMark
Offline
531 posts
Reply
Re: McClure short-lived? ( 16:53:32 MonOct 15 2007 )

I am not sure where this proposed rule has ended up. In other words, I don't know if it was implimented or not. Irregardless, the Forest service is going to end up back in court with this one if they have implimented it, because the intent of both rulings was that the Forest Service only has the legal right to regulate surface resources and activities that will cause harm to the surface resources, and suction dredging is a subsurface activity that the equipment that we use in the performance of mineral extraction has been proven in court to pose no threat of harm to the surface resources they are authorized to manage. They can change their regulations to try and include "all motorized equipment", but the original intent of their scope of authorized regulations was never meant to include small scale equipment that is incapable of causing suface damage. The crudeness of this new change in rules and terms will be a tough one for them to uphold in court because it is to vauge in nature. This rule would require you to file a plan of operations to just drive and park on your mining claim, and that was never the intent of our government when the USFS was created. The part of this that is a joke to me is the USFS does not have the legal right to change their scope of allowed regulatory area, this has to come from CONGRESS and that is why this new rule will end up in court if it is implimented. The other quetion I have about this rule change is this, Why is the USFS getting a rule change like this through the EPA when it should be going through congress????

Mark
[1 edits; Last edit by UncleMark at 18:55:12 Mon Oct 15 2007]

  
jeff_jas
Offline
posts
Reply
Re: McClure short-lived? ( 17:12:47 TueOct 16 2007 )

i should have typed "LEX short lived" rather than mcClure..

(i had wrong url registered -sorry)

according to ( Tom K - Waldo Mining District) over at Mike's it is suppossed to come up again any day for "comment" because notice to miners was not suffienctly done.

http://www.49ermike.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=181&topic_id=76438&mesg_id=76438&page=


their 'intent' to cite miners for camping was my primary objection - prohibiting objects a miner needs as 'sleeping quarters' kindah means a miner can still be on, and work, their claim without interference yer honor - we just wanna regulate their gear isall...
[2 edits; Last edit by jeff_jas at 17:45:39 Tue Oct 16 2007]

  
LipCa
Offline
714 posts
Reply
Re: McClure short-lived? ( 15:05:48 WedOct 17 2007 )

I brought this subject up 5 months ago, but other things were more important at the time, I think.

More comments:

http://bb.bbboy.net/thenew49ers-viewthread?forum=1&thread=173&postnum=0&highlight=Did%20I

  

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

 Total Members: 4903

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

    The time is 01:09:35 Sat Jul 2 2022

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]