Larimer County considers limiting prospecting!, county commissioner with screwed up priorities Options

[Scratch60]

This story appeared on 9 news.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/300505/1...-on-county-land
Can you say "slippery slope"?

[CP]

Hi Scratch,

Unfortunately this story will/has become wide spread as the price of gold rises and folks think they can find a fortune with a pan because they saw something on tv where they saw nuggets found with only a few minutes of work.
The truth of the matter is in this case......the county is fully within their rights as land owners to make such restrictions and in fact, if they do not own mineral rights then they as surface owners must deny prospectors access as they do not own the minerals sought after.
It will be nice if the county can and does set up some recreational panning area if they find a place they do own mineral rights and do so in the future.

This is another great demonstration of how the understanding of "ownership" would help folks not come under the impression that some private lands are open to prospect (like the fella' on tv) when they should have been looking elsewhere to prospect or gaining permission from the specific land owners prior to ever prospecting....in this case county lands.

After the ownership seminar I hope that those attending well be well versed in this regard and able to understand the many facets of "ownership" that can affect our prospecting any time and or any places we prospect.
I'll be posting updates for the seminar today as well, check that thread for those shortly.

[CP]

I've seen this new's report posted on many sites and the confusion runs rampant across the net thanks to the tv............
Being there are so many confused about the issue, I thought it need be moved to the open forum for all to read.

[Caveman]

Yes, it's all very confusing... I have been overwhelmed by it all and have been staying where I know I'm in the clear. I am also very happy to have also have the water and mineral rights on our property in Westcliffe - they came with the purchase of the of the land - it simplified things when I started getting into prospecting this year.

Caveman

[jjs1978]

They are having a meeting tomorrow....

excerpt pasted from an email I received below:

"Jeff FYI we are meeting with the BOCC tomorrow at their admin matters meeting on our regulations update for 2013."

This was from the Visitor Services Manager

County Ranger Unit Commander
Larimer County Department of Natural Resources

[jjs1978]

I emailed back asking if they were taking public comments, he replied

"Yes they will take comment here is a link to the agenda

http://larimer.org/bcc/121218/adminmatters.htm "

But according to the agenda it is tomorrow morning; and I will not be able to attend to make any comments :-(

Here is the relevant info from the agenda link:

"Type of Meeting: Administrative Matters
Name of requestor: Gary Buffington, Director
Department: Natural Resources
Preferred appearance date: 12/18/2012 Time required: 15
Date decision needed: 12/18/2012

Objective: 2013 Regulation Approval for Public Lands managed by Natural Resources

Situation: There are regulations that pertain to the operation and management of public access areas within Larimer County that the Department of Natural Resources manages in their Parks and Open Lands Programs. Each year the regulations are reviewed by staff and changes are sometimes recommended to meet the needs of the over 1.5 million visitors to these areas annually. Regulations can be both deleted or added each year. The Board of County Commissioners approved the exisiting set of regulations for the 2012 operating season approximatley a year ago.

Proposal: There are three additional regulations that the staff has recommended for inclusion into the 2013 Regulations. These additional regulations were presented to the Parks Advisory Board and they have recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners. The three regulations pertain to the removal of minerals from parks and open lands managed by the department, equestrian camping at Hermit Park Open Space and food storage in campgrounds.

Advantages: The recommended regulation for equestrian camping at Hermit Park is directly associated with the establishment of a new equestrian campground that will meet the needs of campers that want to utilize their horses on designated equestrian trails in and adjacent to public lands near Hermit Park. The recommended regulation pertaining to food storage in campgrounds, relates to all of our campgrounds and was established to protect our campers from attracting animals to their campsite. The major danger would be the attraction of bears to the campsite. The third recommended regulation is adding the word "mineral" to an existing regulation that would prohibit the taking of minerals from our parks and open lands unless someone had an approved mining claim. We do not think that the County owns the mineral rights on most of the properties that we manage, therefore we think that it would not be appropriate to allow the public to take those minerals. We have received concerned comments from people that like to "gold pan" in the Big Thompson and Poudre rivers regarding the prohibition of taking gold from the rivers. The regulation would pertain to all of our properties but specifically to Lions Open Space, Eagles Nest Open Space and River Bluffs Open Space on the Poudre River and four parks on the Big Thompson River where our rangers have noticed an increase in operations associated with gold extraction sometimes to a commercial level.

Disadvantages: Visitors that want to gold pan on parks and open spaces near rivers that are managed by Larimer County.

Requested action: To approve the recommended 2013 regulations for public lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources.

Potentially Affected Interest: Visitors to Larimer County Parks and Open Spaces, and staff.

Level of Public Interest and Participations: High

Audio/Visual/Computer Needs: n/a"

[jjs1978]

If they pass these rules tomorrow panning will be prohibited by my reading.

[swizz]

"We do not think that the County owns the mineral rights on most of the properties that we manage, therefore we think that it would not be appropriate to allow the public to take those minerals."

This is the part that people fail to understand and it sounds pretty damn clear to me (quoted above). They state: "....we think that it would not be appropriate to allow the public to take those minerals".
That is an understatement. A more factual statement would read: "it would be ILLEGAL to allow the public to take those minerals".
Dan has already pointed this out a few posts up.
It is unlawful for them to allow/permit prospecting or other mineral-removal related activities on property they manage but DO NOT own the mineral rights to. Hypothetically... they could even own the property and STILL not own the mineral rights. Mineral rights are often a separate deal.
If they do not own the mineral rights.... they have no authority to allow mineral extraction. PERIOD
There should be no argument of "rights" in this issue. The only entity that has "rights" in the matter are any existing claim owners and/or the one(s) holding the deeds for mineral rights on those properties. Mineral rights, claims, and deeds don't come easy and usually not cheap. These are the rights that should be respected. They (managing agency, DNR?) state that they do not think that the County is in possession of the mineral rights.
The DNR is the managing agency in this case and also not the holder of the mineral rights deeds. I'm assuming this from the previous post. The mineral rights holder(s) remaining unnamed or unidentified. I am also assuming that the County owns the rec lands, parks in discussion.... that makes them private property, not public owned land. They either own the mineral rights or not... somebody does. The mineral rights owner has every right to regulate or disallow mineral extraction. The landowner (County) can allow or disallow any legal recreational activities they wish... but only the mineral rights owner can dictate "recreational" mineral removal activities and must be in agreement with the landowner (County) I'm sure. I only say "recreational" because it is taking place in a designated recreational area(s). It is indeed private property and not on publicly owned land like most BLM and NFS managed lands which are protected by and subject to the Mining Laws of 1872.

mini-rant....
"Recreational prospectors" should collectively pull their heads out of their ashes and take the time to learn that there are no RIGHTS to take minerals from someone who owns the mineral rights on a managed private property designated for public recreation.... which is what these parks and recreational areas are - MANAGED PRIVATE PROPERTIES used for approved public recreation activities. They (County and/or mineral rights owner in this case) can make up any rules they want, it's well within their rights. They (DNR or other management agency) can't "approve" mineral extraction as a recreational activity if they don't own the mineral rights or even own the land. They can only enforce what the landowner (County) and/or mineral rights owner in this case decrees. In this case perhaps the mineral rights owner has had enough.... kinda like Cache Creek which I believe is also a designated recreational area, same concept but thankfully they have not shut it down completely. Any real prospector or miner worth their salt (self included) will always be sided with the mineral rights owner... myself strongly so since I also own mineral rights. It's the law of the land, so to speak (well, one anyway). Hopefully this makes sense to all the Chicken Littles who think the sky is falling, it's not. Maybe some of these recreational folk will actually venture into the mountains and learn to exercise their real prospecting rights legally on BLM and NFS managed public lands rather than constantly subject themselves to the rules of recreational areas, parks, "open spaces", etc. Parks and rec areas are nice convenience but there's really no 'need' to subject one's self to additional rules, regulations, and permitting to have a good day. There is a LOT of virgin ground outside of the parks and rec areas here in Colorado just begging to be tapped which we have the right to explore for minerals and even stake claims. The real treasure is in the hunt.
Like what we constantly preach and teach here.
end mini-rant.

If people are ok with the rules of recreational areas I think it can be a great weekend rec activity and convenient place to go and a great place to get started. I totally get that and also prospect these areas on occasion... and I abide by their rules. I know it's a 'privilege' to be 'allowed' to prospect on those properties. Folks should understand that there are no "rights" relevant to prospecting/mining on privately owned properties (as these areas are)... just "privileges" which are subject to rules, possible permits, and in this case maybe disallow it altogether which I agree is sad. It's all up to the owner(s) of the mineral rights as well as the landowner(s) with these parks or rec areas. Might want to think about finding the mineral rights owner(s) and bake a nice apple pie or something rather than makin a big fuss to the management agency or landowner. But the landowner might need some butterin' up also.
Clear?

[traddoerr]

Well said Chris!

To many people are treating recreational use like small scall mining, the Platte river/Clear Creek areas in the Denver area have been abused as well, and these County's are looking at management issues as well, most County owned land is withdrawn from mineral claim or it falls under the mumbo jumbo laws of no large scall mineral extraction, due to the proximity of City limits or other public use, the areas in the Pouder river/Big Thompson have NF/BLM/Open space/private, making it hard to manage police.

As for Cach Creek, the land was givin to BLM, which means there is NO mineral claiming (withdrawn) and doesn't fall under normal land mangement practices, it doesn't fall under the 1872 mining law, but is open to public use/managed as a prospecting recreational area, the closer of motorized use was due to abuse, and safety issues as some are digging holes 10'-15' deep in unstable ground

[swizz]

Well said Chris!

To many people are treating recreational use like small scale mining...

Thanks!
You are correct. Many people think that recreational-use prospecting is actually small scale MINING... when it is not.
I hope they didn't show up at that meeting today with a 'pitch fork and torches' storm-the-town-hall meeting attitude. No leg to stand on and downright embarrassing if they think they are fighting for some kind of "rights". Recreational rights? They don't exist.
Curious to see how it turns out, but doesn't really concern me. Hopefully a deal is struck with the mineral rights owner and some type of prospecting will still be allowed for the recreational users there.
If not, they can easily go somewhere else and play. Colorado is a huge playground with an abundance of PUBLIC lands (NFS and BLM managed where mining/prospecting is enjoyed as a right) and plenty more rec areas that allow varying degrees of limited prospecting (if that's their thang).

Cheers!

[swizz]

Well?
Anyone know the results from the meeting on the 18th?
How did it go?

[swizz]

Here are the results.
Recreational prospecting will still be allowed at the Larimer County areas in question: Meeting Results
But beware: (quoted from the article) "If we boil it down, this is not a countywide ban on gold-panning," Gary Buffington, director of the department, said. "It effects seven areas in Larimer County, our parks and open spaces. We don't think we own the mineral rights on those properties, so how can we allow the extraction of minerals?"
This should be a troubling statement to recreational prospectors with interest in these areas for future discussions. The issue of legality will eventually resurface if the question of mineral rights ownership is not resolved.
COME ON GARY... do they pay you for this??? Are you even a competent employee? You really don't know who owns the mineral rights? You can't even delegate to your secretary or intern to actually find out????
just laughable


Department Director Gary Buffington should figure out if they own the mineral rights before addressing issues of mineral rights in relation to recreational use activities, plain and simple. The ignorance of Larimer County officials in this case is astounding, good thing they're not lawyers. You recreational prospectors should thank your lucky stars for now, they weren't at all prepared to make a decision and caved. It will cave in on Gary if he's trampling on someone else' mineral rights under the veil of 'management'. That's not legal.
Larimer County officials appear to be shooting from the hip on this one without knowing if they even own the rights, and they blatantly admit it. (this paints Gary Buffington as a fool)
Could be a pissed off mineral rights owner out there waiting to pounce on Larimer County to collect for damages and estimated mineral loss. I know I would. (this would probably result in Gary being reprimanded, demoted, or even fired)
or.... maybe Larimer County actually DOES own the mineral rights and they just don't know it (if this is the case, Gary is probably not fit to serve)
or... maybe they DO know it and they're toying with the recreational users (lynch mob of rec prospectors? lol)
who knows? I reckon they either know or are incredibly inept
enjoy it for now... the seven Larimer County parks, rec, and open space areas are there for you all to 'play' as they see fit... and for now, the 'play' activity of recreational prospecting "fits".
Is it legal? We'll see... it's not over yet.
The issue of 'who owns the mineral rights' on these lands is still largely in question and it's not a secret... the ownership can be identified as it is a matter of public record.
I may do some research when I have time, someone should do Gary's job for him, right? Would love to know who actually owns the mineral rights.... wouldn't you?
Possibly Larimer County... but Director Gary Buffington surely doesn't know......
How could he know? He's just the "DIRECTOR". Jesus... how did this guy get hired?

[Denise]

No way is it legal!!! I see noting but a blatant disrespect for ownership.

[swizz]

yup, huge red flag if Larimer County doesn't own the mineral rights

[CP]

Grandpa used to say IF is a big word..........IF a buzzard had a radio up it's arse there'd be music in the air......IF.....but that don't mean squat!

Wow, those folks attending the meeting up there in Larimer county were sure lost on the property ownership concept.
Should have been a simple enough task to call the county attorney and ask a simple question.....we don't know if we own mineral rights to the park properties, should we be allowing gold panning/mineral sampling? Answer ..... Nope!

Or here's another view point we could present to anyone who thinks theft to be an "opportunity"? GADZOOKS!! That's a new way of thinking I guess but let's do a comparison......
For those type who think it ok to take others property.......since I or anyone else do not know for certain who owns the "property" laying around thier house/land, then it should be completely acceptable in their world for anyone passing by to take stuff off their property since "we don't know who owns it"........SAME EXACT THING!
Personally I would not suggest anyone do anything of that nature myself......you might end up in jail, shot and or dead! That's stealing!! You don't know who owns it, then you do know for a fact that you DO NOT OWN IT! So where did the "okey dokey" come in?

Lack of knowledge is no excuse! Especially when they're getting paid to in fact know.

Yep it'd be interesting know who does actually own the mineral rights and if they are aware of the current county stance, there could be a clause in the donation of the private lands to be used for open space that the county in fact reserve those minerals for the land owner as part of the agreement. IF that were to be the case, then the county could be in breach of contract and potentially lose the park lands use by the owner.......over panning, wouldn't that be a sad message to put forth?!

I can see more to this in the future.....just skip over the actual facts for what's wanted? Yea, probably not over yet unfortunately and could get even crazier?!