Application of Regulations, Who, Why, When, and Where? Options

[CP]

We have had several great suggestions and it seems that we need to cover some ground on who why and where governmental agencies should be able or are "authorized" to regulate mining operations.
Unfortunately we must also cover the terminology of "recretional or recreationalsists" once again to start as well.

We will discuss this in the meeting as well but I'm going to post my view here as well as it is of the utmost importance that it not be used! EVER!

IF.....you are willing to give up ALL MINING RIGHTS, then you may use these "titles"
Miners are not recreating! They are mining!
Now that can be at many different levels...ie prospecting for new deposits to file new claims to working large scale full time mines.
The tools used during that time and or methods are up to the miner or "claim owner".

We all must understand that knowing how to operate as a "bona fide miner" will help all of us be successful miners....at what ever "level" we desire to mine at.

Tonight will be a really fun and informative meeting....Hope to see everyone there.
CP's Conference Hall

CP

[plp.001]

This is a test to see if I can poat yet.

Jerry

[plp.001]

Hi all

I had Dan send me the conference call postings and I will to answer some questions on an issue that many questioned, since I wasn't able to make the chat.

Notice of Intent (NOI) and Plans of orerations (PO). As I see it there is no reason to file a NOI for suction dredging, sluicing or occupying to the Forest Service in any Forest.

1. The lex decision last year clearly held that a miner can occupy his claim without an NOI or a POO for 365 days a year as long as it is incidental to his mining operation. The court went on to say: An NOI or POO is not required for any use that is less than the use of Backhoes, Bulldozers and the cutting of trees.

After that decision the FS comes out with the 36 cfr 228.4 Interim Rule. That rule does not trump the courts interpretation of the Lex case. The Judge made the interpretation of what the FS reg.s say and the FS can not come back and violate a court order and re-interpret what the court has already done. The court also said if the FS did not like the decision that they could change the regs not re-interpret them.

2. The McClure case was a citation issued to McClure almost a month after the FS Interim regs had been imlimented. He was cited for using the forest with out special use authoriztion (36cfr261.10k). That decision found against the FS by stating 2 things, first it upheld the Lex case even after the Interim Rule was published and second the court said that the FS could not cite a miner criminaly for using the forest with out a special use authorization under (36cfr261.10k). But the FS's remedy to stop significant disturbance was civil. In other words sue you for reclaiming a significant disturbance, not cite you.

So if you cannot be cited criminaly for not having an NOI or a POO why would you file a NOI for suction derdging or sluicing? To file an NOI is to invite the FS to require a plan. At that time you would not mine until your plan is in place, maybe years. And if you file a plan the FS may well demand a mineral exam and render your claim null and void.

If you allow the FS to violate your rights and the law you encourage the FS to violate others.

Jerry

[russau]

thanks jerry! that ties it all together in one neat package.i hope everyone has a copy of this for their personal referance! and a PLP challendge card!

[luckynugget]

Hey what is a PLP challenge card I want one. ^_^ Where do I sign up at?

[plp.001]

Lucky Nugget

I will give you my email and you can contact me with your addrees and I will send you a few of the challange cards. jerhobbs2@aol.com

Hope to here from you and others that need one

Jerry

[plp.001]

Lucky Nugget

I will give you my email and you can contact me with your addrees and I will send you a few of the challange cards. jerhobbs2@aol.com

Hope to here from you and others that need one

Jerry

[luckynugget]

;) You bet I'll give one to my brother in law. thanks

[CP]

Thanks Jerry, Great info.

We also have the chanllenge card posted in the forum for easy print out and passin around. :D
You will find it in the CP's "Fight for your rights" forum, but here is a link that brings up the card image as well. Just save the image and print out as needed.. B)
PLP's challenge card

CP

[plp.001]

If I don't get any questions or contradictions on my above post, I and PLP must assume that everybody understands what I wrote and they will not be filing an NOI or a POO for suction dredging in 2005.

Am I right in my assumption

Jerry

[russau]

10-4 jerry!

[CP]

No NOI or POO planned here either Jerry. :D
Thanks again for the great info.

CP

[plp.001]

Here is a little more evidence that I believe supports what I have stated above. The Forest Service own regulations on mining, in part: "36CFR 228.8h"

" Certification or other approval issued by state agencies or other federal agencies of compliance with laws and regulations relating to mining operations will be excepted as compliance with similar requirements or parallel requirements of these regulations."

Do you have state dredging permit?

[CP]

Nope we do not Jerry that I know of,
I just posted what I've found from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology in the "valuable references" forum.
Here is a link to the PDF file. Colorado aggregate extraction guidelines.pdf
It's a little long but still a good read and refers small scale dredgers to the COE for permitting requirements which they happily gave us the okey dokey (in writing) last year, for the rally, to run 6 dredges at once on Clear Creek up to 4" each without any permit needed. (one claim)

We do have a permit sold from BLM for two rivers here though.
One for the Arkansas and the other I'm unsure so I'll wait till the BLM site is back up to say....
When the BLM site is back online this link will hopefully work again... BLM dredge permit application


CP