Arkansas River Pointbar Options

[Boogie]

Hi Coalbunny,

So far, my experience with GPOC has been very good. If they had a Forum, it would be better, but I can not complain one bit. Maps are up to date and information is clear. I feel confident that I won't get shot at when visiting their claims. The folks I've talked to and met so far have been nothing but helpful. I'm lazy. I'd rather join a group that allows access to their claims and spend my time prospecting instead of hours of research and verifying old information.

By the way, in the recent newsletter from GPOC they warn members to mind thier p's and q's because they just had to terminate the membership of one of thier members for not following etiquette. I don't think it's fair to blame a group for the actions of a few.

GPAA on the other hand... I feel like I've been left high and dry but that's just my personal experience.

I'm afraid I don't see how you can hold other groups responsible for claiming up all the land when every swingin' pick in the country can file a claim. Locations to prospect on public lands isn't all sacred information. Some well invested time searching the BLM sites and some well placed phone calls can get your pan in the water. Take the Texan who claimed up pointbar for example. I think I've read somewhere that GPOC left that section unclaimed so folks could have an open area to prospect. Then along came the Texan who even claimed up some State land and that (is this correct?) can't be changed.

Let's be honest... When was the last time the information from CP was verified? As near as I can tell, not since 2003 (for most sites), so folks still have to do their homework or keep an ear out for gunshots. Or am I wrong? Can we just go to a site that is posted in the protected area and start prospecting (without calling anyone or doing additional research) without any fear of breaking the law? If so, I'll joyfully retract my comment.

Boogie

[Denise]

Thanks for the kind words and respect Boogie. Even though your a member, you have obviously missed reading this page.

CP Membership Information


Thanks Carl, its MOTIVATED members like you that makes this club the best on the net.

[ASTROBLEME]

Hi Everyone,

Here is a copy of the map filed by BLM for the Point Bar Recreation and Public Purposes site that was set aside by federal legislation in September 1999. The blue shaded area is still open to the public.



ASTROBLEME

[Boogie]

ASTROBLEME

Could you post the text (or a link) that goes with that map?

Boogie

[ASTROBLEME]

ASTROBLEME

Could you post the text (or a link) that goes with that map?

Boogie

Hi Boogie,

Sorry, but there isn't a link to the map available. I made that copy directly from the legal files at the BLM's Royal Gorge office in Canon City.

Here's the text of the legislation.

[Federal Register: May 13, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 25902-25903]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13my99-86]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CO-057-1430-01) COC-49757]


Notice of Realty Action--Fremont and Chaffee Counties

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Realty Action COC-49757, Recreation and Public
Purpose Classification, Application to Amend Lease, and Opening Order,
for the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Recreation and Public
Purposes Act Lease, Chaffee, and Fremont Counties, Colorado.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: After completing an environmental assessment the following
public lands are classified as suitable for lease under the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) of July 14, 1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C.
869 et. seq., and the regulations thereunder 43 CFR 2740 and 2912. The
public lands involved are segregated from the public lands including
the general mining laws, except for the R&PP Act.

Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado

T. 14 S., R. 78 W., section 23 that portion of the NE\1/4\NW\1/
4\SW\1/4\ and S\1/2\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\MW\1/4\ west of Chaffee
County Road 102 consisting of approximately 12 acres known as the
Collegiate Peaks Gateway, Chaffee County.
T. 15 S., R. 78 W., section 12 SW\1/4\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\ consisting of
approximately 10 acres known as Ruby Mountain, Chaffee County.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado

T. 49 N., R. 10 E., section 28, that portion of lots 6, 7, 10, and
11 lying north of U.S. Highway 50 right of way and south of the
Union Pacific Railroad right of way consisting of approximately 35
acres known as Point Bar, Fremont County.
T. 48 N., R. 11 E, section 35, that portion of lots 17, 18, 19, and
20 lying south of the Arkansas River and north of the U.S. Highway
50 right of way consisting of approximately 5 acres known as Canyon
Trading Post, Fremont County.

These four properties will be leased as part of the Arkansas
Headwaters Recreation Area administered jointly between the BLM and
the Colorado State Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Normal
terms, conditions, and standard stipulations will apply. In
addition, the lease will be subject to valid existing rights, and a
program of monitoring stream banks, riparian and wetland vegetation,
soil erosion, runoff sediment, upland vegetation, and the success of
any rehabilitation projects. The following public lands have been
leased under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The
environmental assessment also determined that these parcels should
be removed from the lease. The lease is now amended and the lease of
these parcels is terminated to that extent and the associated
classifications are hereby terminated as authorized under 43 CFR
2741.5(h)(2):

Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado

T. 18 S., R. 72 W., section 21, a portion of the S\1/2\SW\1/4\NW\1/
4\ and N\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\ containing approximately 2 acres known
as Bootlegger, Fremont County, T. 18 S., R. 72 W, section 14, a
portion of lot 2 containing approximately 2 acres known as Parkdale,
Fremont County.

The following lands were classified but never leased as planned
under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The classification is
hereby terminated as authorized by 43 CFR 2741.5(h)(2):

Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado

T. 18 S., R. 71 W., section 18, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, and
portions of the W\1/2\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, NW\1/
4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, and SW\1/4\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\
lying west of the threat of the Arkansas River containing
approximately 140 acres known as the Parkdale South parcel.

At 10 a.m. on July 1, 1999, the three parcels described above
known as Bootlegger Parkdale, and Parkdale South shall be opened to
the operation of public land laws, including the United States
mining laws, subject top valid existing rights, to the extent that
the existing R&PP classification segregated the sites.

DATES: Interested parties may submit comments on this action on or
before June 15, 1999. Objections will be reviewed and this realty
action may be sustained, vacated, or modified. Except as vacated or
modified, this realty action will become final effective July 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: District Manager, Canon City District Office, or Area
Manager, Royal Gorge Resource Area, 3170 E. Main St., Canon City, CO
81212. Telephone (719) 269-8500; TDD (719) 269-8597.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hallock, Realty Specialist
Phone: (719) 269-8536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Classification comments--interested parties
may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for the
purposes stated. Comments on the classification are restricted to
whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use
will maximize future use or uses of the land, whether the use is
consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use if consistent
with State and Federal programs.
Application comments--interested parties may submit comments
regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of
development, whether the BLM followed proper

[[Page 25903]]

administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor
not directly related to the suitability of the land for the proposals.
This action is in response to applications by the Colorado State
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreations. Lease of the lands will not
be authorized until after the classification becomes effective. Lease
of the lands for recreational use would be subject to the following
terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. Provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and to all
applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.
2. All valid existing rights documented on the official public land
records at the time of lease issuance.
3. Any other reservations that the authorized officer determines
appropriate to ensure public access and proper management of Federal
lands and interests therein.
Adrian Neisius,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc 99-12127 Filed 5-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASTROBLEME

[Boogie]

Thanks ASTROBLEME,

That notice is from 1999. I believe the Texan claimed up Pointbar recently (2009 or 2010).

Boogie

[ASTROBLEME]

Boggie,

There were two claimants from Texas that filed four claims in the Point Bar area.
Their discovery date was March 30, 2009.
All 4 placer claims were filed with BLM Colorado State office on June 26 2009, and then they were subsequently filed in Fremont County Clerk and Recorder's office on June 29, 2009.
One of the claims, the "Ginger Girl" was sold two Colorado residents in November 2009 for a sum of $4050.00.

ASTROBLEME

[CP]

I have requested information from Ben, but so far no response. So I'm guessing the GPOC is too special for me.
I used to be a GPOC member, but I withdrew when I encountered a number of members that have a problem with safety and that have a problem legality. I'm debating IF I want to re-join or not because of that.


Now.... based on the issue of legality, I have to sing a few praises and criticisms.

First I want to give Dan and Denise the praise they deserve for all the hard work they have done for the CP group. Guys, my fellow members, you simply have no concept of the level of work Dan and Denise has put into this. A hell of a lot more than the GPAA/LDMA does, far more than GPOC, and there's a few other small groups that, again, can't touch the work and quality of CP.

Second, one thing I saw in GPAA/LDMA is when they will go out, join a small club, and then hit up the members of the club for GPAA/LDMA membership. Once they have a fair number of additional GPAA/LDMA members, they won't be seen again for quite some time if ever. One mistake I have seen there is when the "local" GPAA "leaders" will ask claim holders to allow them (the leaders) to take over the claims with the idea that they can have unrestricted access, if they remain members or not. And when the former claim holder decides to leave GPAA/LDMA, guess what? They no longer have the right to access/use their claim because as they find out the hard way, it's no longer their claim.

Third is along those lines, but in the realm of GPOC and CP.
My concern is that members of other groups may come here, and they may even pay for membership. Then they go out on the unclaimed lands we work, and claim them. Then WE no longer have access to those claims, and they do. Using our data, our member's hard work, for their personal gain and the gain of their club.

That is one glitch I see. I will discuss that at length with Dan later on though.

Thank you Carl for the kind compliments and recognition outloud of our behind the scenes work as well which we are happy to do. Education, research and acting as a bonafide prospector/miner in the field is what exercising our rights are all about. It is very very refreshing when a club member shows interest to learn and demonstrates they have learned in the field ........ie properly filing and holding their own claims. OOOOORRAAAAAA! Congratulations to them for DIGGIN' IN!! That's how ya' git'-r'-done!!

I'll be looking forward to that discussion too. In reality though, with having compiled over 30,000 acres in total research so far (enough open land for 1,500 - 20 acre claims), they'd be awfully busy trying to make discoveries and file properly on all of it.

Hi Coalbunny,

So far, my experience with GPOC has been very good. If they had a Forum, it would be better, but I can not complain one bit. Maps are up to date and information is clear. I feel confident that I won't get shot at when visiting their claims. The folks I've talked to and met so far have been nothing but helpful. I'm lazy. I'd rather join a group that allows access to their claims and spend my time prospecting instead of hours of research and verifying old information.

By the way, in the recent newsletter from GPOC they warn members to mind thier p's and q's because they just had to terminate the membership of one of thier members for not following etiquette. I don't think it's fair to blame a group for the actions of a few.

GPAA on the other hand... I feel like I've been left high and dry but that's just my personal experience.

I'm afraid I don't see how you can hold other groups responsible for claiming up all the land when every swingin' pick in the country can file a claim. Locations to prospect on public lands isn't all sacred information. Some well invested time searching the BLM sites and some well placed phone calls can get your pan in the water. Take the Texan who claimed up pointbar for example. I think I've read somewhere that GPOC left that section unclaimed so folks could have an open area to prospect. Then along came the Texan who even claimed up some State land and that (is this correct?) can't be changed.

Let's be honest... When was the last time the information from CP was verified? As near as I can tell, not since 2003 (for most sites), so folks still have to do their homework or keep an ear out for gunshots. Or am I wrong? Can we just go to a site that is posted in the protected area and start prospecting (without calling anyone or doing additional research) without any fear of breaking the law? If so, I'll joyfully retract my comment.

Boogie

Ok Boogie, I know you were addressing Coalbunny, but as the website owner, club founder and the one who does the land research for the club, I feel the need to respond...........This club/website/business is run by only two people, Mrs.CP and myself. We are proud to say it's a very different club concept and has many wonderful club members nation wide who've also contributed to the sites information via the forums and club participation.

In your entire month long analysis of the club since joining, I'd say Mrs.CP hit the nail on the head.....you must not have read much of the club's membership page when signing up for the club or since, funny though since it states you will be learning in this club and we in fact will not hold claims for club members to use. why?
BECAUSE HOLDING CLAIMS FOR "MEMBERS TO USE" IS NOT A MINING PROCESS OR USE!!
For any club to hold claims for that purpose is not only against the intent of the 1872 mining law, but is also contributing to the serious confusion/lack of knowledge the public has about our right to mine, how to research and file properly, and the continual attempts to take that away!!!
In my opinion, if a BLM officer who was considering the "validation" of a claim and saw that it was being held for "members use" according to the club who owned it, then the BLM would have a reason to INVALIDATE all their clubs claims!! "members use" wouldn't fall into the catagory of "mining uses or one reasonably incident to mining" as the law states.

Reverified areas? Yes, I've reverified several of the original areas and there are many that have been reverified since (by club members as instructed and reviews), and many are new areas added only last October culminating from 100's and 100's and 100's of hours of my personal work. Some spots I'd kept tabs on for 2+ years. No I will not continually reverify them as that is what you are suppose to learn about, not to mention, I'd much rather be researching more new open areas for club members if possible when resources allow.
Yes this information is compiled from several public sources, maps, etc. however, MY PERSONAL RESEARCH COMPILATION FOR CLUB MEMBERS IS NOT PUBLIC INFORMATION!!

Comparing another clubs 4 claims (held for non mining purposes-imho) to open land I've researched, (OUR LAND) where 1500 claims could be filed?!! GOOD GRAVEY!! There is absolutely no comparison!
Can their 4 claims be verified by you? Do you even care to know? and if not, I would definately keep an ear out for gunshots where ever you are sent by a "someone says". In the field you are responsible for yourself, on or off any claim, no matter who told you "okey dokey".

In doing the 1000's of hours of field work we've done over the years, we've never once heard a gunshot glance over our head or run across a gun toten' crazy claim owner yet!! We have met some awefully nice claim owners and prospectors out there though.

CP club offers reverification info so you can know how I came to the findings and repeat them, not only on the areas I've done research on, but also on any areas you wish to check out later.....in Colorado or any state with FS and BLM lands!
As the saying goes, you can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.......or you can teach him how to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.
CP club members learn how to research and prospect open lands, and can further learn about filing, holding, and working their own claims if they wish.

If you don't like doing it for yourself, learning about history (mining is prehistoric and a huge part of our AMERICAN HERITAGE!) and exercising yOUR RIGHT as citizens to prospect for and develop those mineral deposits within our lands....then you may as well just go to pay to digs, the free panning sites posted here, or the popular recreational areas......you don't need to join any club what so ever, or make any phone calls to dip your pan as you stated. You are clearly defining yourself as a recreationalist and you have no rights under the mining law!

Hope this helps clarify things a little bit for you Boogie and anyone else with the same confusions about the Colorado Prospector club reading this thread.

[Boogie]

I've accomplished quite a bit in my first month of prospecting didn't I?

So you're saying that an organization like GPAA and all it's members are in violation of the intent of the mining law? I find that hard to believe but I don't care enough to argue about it.

Tell me this, Why should a first year newbie like me give a hoot about how to file a claim when I'm still testing the waters to determine if this is an activity that I would like to pursue further? FIRST I'd like to learn how to prospect for gold. In order to do that, I can either go to BLM and research places to go, join a club like yours and still have to go to BLM and do research, or join an orginization that gives me the access to go and pursue my interest on one of thier claims.

And do you know what? The age of the information didn't really bother me too much. The real worth of this membership is this forum. That was until I saw people getting censored, then I got censored (in a protected area even)! And for what? Did I or anyone else say anything offensive or say something derogatory? No, I posted a link to grubstakers.com to help a fellow member find information. I was told that grubstakers were a bunch of criminals. I asked (Coalbunny) why nobody ever reported them to the authorities and nobody had an answer. Sound like defamation to me... If they are such criminals why not press charges and get them shut down instead of bad mouthing and censoring links to their site? How is that protecting anyone? It's not, you're just masking the problem.

My analysis of this club? I think it's a super great group of people! The prejudice and slander towards other clubs by the owners really turn me off though. I really wish y'all could just get along with other groups. Prospectors need to work together to protect this great freedom that we are blessed with? Safeguarding our interest isn't going to be easy with folks at each others throat. Will I renew my membership? That's a good question. I hope so! For the most part, I really like it here, and I like the people who frequent this forum. However, if I continue to see finger pointing and foul mouthing towards those who arn't around to defend themselves, then sadly I probably won't renew my membership. I don't want to be a part of that sort of group. I'm sorry.

Four claims may not sound like much to you, but they mean a lot to me! Also, those four very sweet claims are ones that you will probably never enjoy working on because of some personal grudge you have against that club. That's a shame, but your choice.

Before I finish this up, did I misunderstand something? I got the impression that Coalbunny doesn't want to see all the public land claimed up. He's one of your best members and here you are advocating that people should get out there and file mining claims. Aren't you then contributing to the reason that We are losing more and more public areas to claimed lands? Coalbunny, I think you're blaming the wrong group! It seems to me that groups like GPAA and GPOC are helping to protect those public areas by sharing their claims. Once I learn prospecting and I'm satisfied that this isn't one of my passing phases, and if I feel like getting really serious, I'll learn how to file a claim. I see no sense of learning that until I'm ready.

Well it's your turn turn to jump back on the soap box so you can counter my response.... Remember, I didn't throw the first stone. All I did was defend a group (GPOC) that I'm proud to be a member of. I hope that all of this will somehow lead to a more positive relationship. At least we are now aware of our differences.

Boogie

[CP]

No thanks, this is rediculous. I've answered your questions but you seem to only want to poke buttons and argue with me while I was trying to help you as a club member.
This argument will go no where and you've now accused Denise and I of being prejudice and slandering. We have no grudges against any groups, many of the club members are members in other clubs too. We've always tried to help everyone out around the forums, club members or not, and even questions about other club claims.
You still need to look around this site more, especially at the history of who we have worked with in the past.
We have extended our hand to work with others as the CP site/club in the past to many groups who've slapped it down.

More clubs and more education is what is needed, if presented properly for the members to learn about with proper information they can use.

My appologies everyone, I was trying to help folks understand land research and status importance as this club has always done.

CP

[ASTROBLEME]

My appologies everyone, I was trying to help folks understand land research and status importance as this club has always done.

CP

Dear CP,

Thanks for all your effort to help everyone understand more about researching land status and filing mining claims. The Point Bar area is drawing lots of interest lately and this thread may help folks understand the importance of doing the ownership searches first!

There are many of us out here that really appreciate all you and Denise have done for the small miner community. Keep up the good work.

ASTROBLEME

[CP]

Thank you Astrobleme and you are very welcome.
I agree, that area has been getting alot of attention and thanks for your contribution about the area, that should help alot of folks.

CP

[ASTROBLEME]

Dear CP,

I'm always glad to help when I can.

The recent string of GPAA advertisements on the Outdoor Channel displays the "Point Bar" area on the open pages of their claim guide. That likely draws additional attention to the area as well.

ASTROBLEME

[OkieJon]

The claimant from Texas still holds 6 of the 7 claims. Is was my understand that a single person could only file 20 acres(placer) What am I mis-understanding?

[CP]

Hi Jon,

Each claim is limited to 20 acres maximum size, but you may file/own more than 1 claim.
Small miners are considered to be those with 10 claims or less, if you own more than that then you are not allowed to use the yearly maintenence waivers and are required to pay the fees on each claim.

Hope that helps a bit.

CP