Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums _ Valuable References _ Mining claims location or patented

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 28 2010, 04:07 PM

Mining claims are real property and can be sold, traded, or leased as with any real property.
There are several types of claims which should be discussed to teach the differences in not only ownership, but also how research varies because of status and what that means to you in the field as a prospector.

First there are patented (private land with deed) or location claims.
Again these are both real property but differ in the fact that a patented claim (filed as location originally), has since been perfected and patented giving the owner actual permanent deed with 100% ownership in the land.

Location claims are also private property in every sense, but the claim owner owns (has claimed) the minerals within that claim and has not perfected the claim to patent for a deed yet.

Within either of those catagories, there would have been originally for patented, or would be now for location claims, one of three different types of claims possibly filed originally. Lode, Placer or Mill site.

Lode claim - For hard rock mining ore bodies drifting or shaft type mining. Orientated with the deposit or dyke formation's direction and centered upon it. 600' x 1500' size (20 acres) and were in depths of 2000' each for some areas historically.

Placer claim - For aluvial glacial till areas and their related drainages/deposits where "placer" material (not in host postition) would have been re-deposited in favorable conditions by water, erosion, gravity, and or other geologic evolution. 20 acre limit each. Normal operations would be benches or pit operations in addition to water processes where locations favor.

Mill site claim - For use with either lode or placer claims to process material from that mine and or store equipment and supplies. Mill sites claims do not claim minerals under them but do contain mineral rights when patented.
5 acre limit each and can be non-adjacent to the claim being mined.

All three (Lode, Placer, or Mill site) could have been patented and are now deeded private land, or could currently be location claims within NF or BLM lands.

Research varies between patented/private land and location claims within national lands.
For private patented lands you'll need to check the county assesors office as each private land owner pays property tax each year and those records are kept there.
For location claims though, you'll need to check the clerk and recorders office as this will be where those records are filed.

You can also find claim information from the BLM's LR2000 database, but with time guideline laws written as they are for new claim filings, you'll find the most upto date information through the county offices on location claims. When you're finalizing your research for your own claim to stake and file, this timeline could make a difference if someone else had recently staked/filed in that area.

We thought this might make a good read/topic for those interested. There are many many more details involved with properly researching, staking, filing, and then working your own mining claim which we all can add in for the future discussion as time goes.

Having a good understanding of what to do in the field starts with the proper knowledge base, which reflects on your field operations and success. DIG IN!!

For those interested in learning more about the mining laws and regulations that uphold them, check out our http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showforum=22 section of the forum too.

Posted by: Mrs.CP Apr 25 2011, 07:05 AM

Great info to know Dan, thanks! happy088.gif
I thought I would bump this thread back up for those looking for this kind of information about claims.

Knowledge is power!

Posted by: kmontoya911 Apr 25 2011, 04:56 PM

Please excuse my ignorance. I have not read much about claims yet, since I don't have any intention, yet, of persuing one. But, I have a question about something in the orriginal post. It states that location claims are private property in every sense.

Does that mean that a piece of national forrest or BLM land, that is calimed, is now off limits to everyone for other activities? No fishing, hunting or hiking on a claimed piece of NF land or BLM?

Thank you.

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Apr 25 2011, 08:44 PM

Good question to pose, many folks wonder the same thing.

Actually no it does not mean the claimant can restrict all access just because the claim has been staked and filed. It does mean however that if there are mining activities taking place that you may not use the claim or area being worked. Other activities could/would interfere with the miners work and create unsafe conditions for the recreationalist.

When there are claims filed but no mining operation work is being or has been done, then other folks may still use the claimed area for camping, fishing, hiking etc. (mining operations being larger digs, pits, tunnels, equipment, buildings etc-not hand carried equipment type digs)
Other folks however may not collect any minerals or samples (including surface finds) from the ground what so ever because the minerals have been claimed by the claimant.

Hopefully that helps clear things up for you a bit but post up more questions if needed.

CP

Posted by: kmontoya911 Apr 26 2011, 03:24 PM

Thank you for the reply. That is more in line with how I had originally thought claims worked, for those who don't have the claim. Recreation=ok, picking up rocks etc.=not ok.

I actually saw a posted claim for the first time two years ago while elk hunting, I was looking at a huge hill of broken quartz and wondering. Then I went arouund the other side and saw a sign stating the mineral rights were under claim, do not remove any rocks, minerals, etc.

Posted by: Hanael May 28 2011, 09:09 AM

Dose anyone know what happens if it is found that a claim is over 20 acres? Also can someone operate a placer claim in the same area as a lode claim.

Posted by: OkieJon May 8 2012, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Apr 25 2011, 09:44 PM) *
Good question to pose, many folks wonder the same thing.

Actually no it does not mean the claimant can restrict all access just because the claim has been staked and filed. It does mean however that if there are mining activities taking place that you may not use the claim or area being worked. Other activities could/would interfere with the miners work and create unsafe conditions for the recreationalist.

When there are claims filed but no mining operation work is being or has been done, then other folks may still use the claimed area for camping, fishing, hiking etc. (mining operations being larger digs, pits, tunnels, equipment, buildings etc-not hand carried equipment type digs)
Other folks however may not collect any minerals or samples (including surface finds) from the ground what so ever because the minerals have been claimed by the claimant.

Hopefully that helps clear things up for you a bit but post up more questions if needed.

CP


Does this go for Patented Claims as well?

Posted by: ASTROBLEME May 11 2012, 06:29 PM

Hello OkieJon,

When a claim goes through the patent process, the land ownership is transferred from the USA to the claimant. The USA may reserve some rights such as the right-of-way for ditches and canals. All minerals and surface ownership becomes private. A person wanting to collect minerals, prospect or mine would certainly need the permission of the surface landowner and if the minerals were segregated from the surface at some point in time, the mineral estate owner would also need to give permission as well.

ASTROBLEME

Posted by: ColoradoProspector May 17 2012, 06:40 AM

Thanks for posting up that answer Astrobleme. I believe the patent passes deed from the "public domain" though not the USA/gov itself as owner since they are not the owners......we the citizens own that land. When claims are filed, the claimant holds the claim from "the united states and citizens" as the law reads. If I'm remembering it correctly.

QUOTE (Hanael @ May 28 2011, 09:09 AM) *
Dose anyone know what happens if it is found that a claim is over 20 acres? Also can someone operate a placer claim in the same area as a lode claim.


For claims over 20 acres I'd imagine it to be an association claim. Each individual claim is limited to 20 acres or less, but associations can equal as much as 160 acres total. (8 claims/20 acres each)

Lode claims and placer claims can occupy the same ground (looking at a map) but the claims are completely different from one another as far as claim filing/type.

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 25 2014, 08:03 AM

Some great information for review in this thread. info_grin.gif
Dig in, discover your independence!

Posted by: Clay Diggins Nov 24 2014, 06:13 PM

There is a fourth type of mining claim not previously mentioned here. The Tunnel site claim. Tunnel site claims are true mineral claims that can be up to 3,000 feet long. You will find the authority for them in Section 4 of the 1872 Mining Act:

QUOTE
Section 4. That where a tunnel is run for the development of a vein or lode, or for the discovery of mines, the owners of such tunnel shall have the right of possession of all veins or lodes within three thousand feet from the face of such tunnel on the line thereof not previously known to exist; discovered in such tunnel, to the same extent as if discovered from the surface; and locations on the line of such tunnel of veins or lodes not appearing on the surface, made by other parties after the commencement of the tunnel, and while the same is being prosecuted with reasonable diligence, shall be invalid; but failure to prosecute the work on the tunnel for six months shall be considered as an abandonment of the right to all undiscovered veins on the line of said tunnel.


There are currently 17 Active Tunnel site claims in Colorado.

Heavy Pans

Posted by: fenixsmom Nov 24 2014, 06:49 PM

Huh. I thought tunnels where filed under lode claims. Good to know!

Posted by: EMac Nov 26 2014, 05:20 PM

I'm not sure I'd call a tunnel site a claim based off what I'm reading, and even the BLM says http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/iac/faqmc.html

Filing is the same as a lode claim, and any discoveries therein require filing a separate lode claim (43 CFR 3832.44(a) and 43 CFR 3832.45).

Sources:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title43-vol2-part3832.pdf

and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1998-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-1998-title43-vol2-part3840-subpart3843.pdf

My takeaway is they're used to gain access to a lode claim or are used for underground prospecting, and are likely beyond the resources of most the folks seeking information on this site. Red herring?

Posted by: Clay Diggins Nov 26 2014, 06:41 PM

QUOTE (EMac @ Nov 26 2014, 04:20 PM) *
I'm not sure I'd call a tunnel site a claim based off what I'm reading, and even the BLM says http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/iac/faqmc.html

Filing is the same as a lode claim, and any discoveries therein require filing a separate lode claim (43 CFR 3832.44(a) and 43 CFR 3832.45).

Sources:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title43-vol2-part3832.pdf

and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1998-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-1998-title43-vol2-part3840-subpart3843.pdf

My takeaway is they're used to gain access to a lode claim or are used for underground prospecting, and are likely beyond the resources of most the folks seeking information on this site. Red herring?


You may be right about being beyond the resources of most here, you would know better than I. After all there are only 17 Tunnel Site claims in Colorado. The reason I know there are 17 in Colorado is because the BLM puts them in the Tunnel Site claim designation rather than as a lode, placer or millsite claim.

Then again that limited number of Tunnel Site claims may be due to other similar misunderstandings of the 1872 Tunnel Site grant. Tunnels are useful for much more than a waste adit or drainage. The law specifically calls out mineral exploration as one of the valid uses for Tunnel Sites. It's not all about servicing an existing lode claim. The same law addresses the mineral rights attendant to the Tunnel Site claim - as they do with the other three types of claims in the law.

Certainly this is not open to any personal opinions about the validity of Tunnel Claims. It's an established fact.

I've already given you the Congressional Act enabling the making of Tunnel Site claims. It does grant "right of possession of all veins or lodes within three thousand feet from the face of such tunnel on the line thereof not previously known to exist; discovered in such tunnel, to the same extent as if discovered from the surface". The 3,000 feet granted clearly exceeds the 1,500 foot maximum allotted to lode claims so there shouldn't be any confusion leading one to believe they are lode claims.

If you had any doubt about your interpretation of the wording in that Act you need look no further than the Supreme Court's overuling of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision about the nature of Tunnel Site claims. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/127/127.US.471.html 1888.

I've got lots more Supreme Court opinions through the years supporting the Tunnel Sites enabled in the 1872 Mining Act but I think one Supreme Court opinion is enough for an internet forum. biggrin.gif

Then again there are the Colorado State Revised Statutes that specifically recognize Tunnel Site claims.

QUOTE
Tunnel Sites 34-43-113, CRS 1973
If any person locates a tunnel claim for the purpose of discovery, he shall record
the same, specifying the place of commencement and termination thereof, with the
names of the parties interested therein.
A tunnel site gives the owner of a tunnel which is run in good faith the possessory
right to fifteen hundred (1500) feet of any blind lodes cut, discovered, or intersected by
such tunnel, which were not previously known to exist within three thousand (3000)
feet from the face or point of commencement of such tunnel. Face of tunnel is construed
to mean the point at which the tunnel actually enters cover.


The Congressional Act, the Supreme Court, the State of Colorado and the CFR all consider the location of a Tunnel Site to be valid possessory right to the minerals discovered. The procedure specified to make such a location is clearly separate and distinct from the location requirements of the three other types of claims - both in Federal and State law. The Supreme Court has consistently referred to Tunnel Site locations to be mineral claims with equal rights to other types of mineral locations.

You are entitled to your take but it is clearly in opposition to long established law and rights.

Trivial - perhaps - unless you wish to cut a tunnel.

Red Herring - really?

Heavy Pans and a happy Thanksgiving to all of you. thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

Posted by: EMac Nov 26 2014, 07:51 PM

Seems you've missed my point, so I'll be explicit with it: My take, and the red herring comment is this isn't practical information for the folks here. I'm not sure how long established laws might change this take, but I am curious since you mention it.

Most discussions I'm reading (which is what drew me here) are around filing our first claims (me included), recognizing minerals, and light duty equipment. People cutting 3000' tunnels into rock I would hope would come here to help neophytes such as myself since they know and live this stuff already. While I'm sure there's probably one or two here, everyone I've met is a long ways from cutting 3000' tunnels.

If you're reading that I don't believe you, I encourage you to click the links below which will take you to the GPO's published laws on the matter. These are codified under Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations. You are correct that tunnel sites grant you rights, but not exactly as you quote.

Actual http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title43-vol2/CFR-2011-title43-vol2-part3832 (hyperlinked so you can verify; emphasis is mine):

QUOTE
§ 3832.44 What rights do I have to minerals within my tunnel site?
(a) If you located your tunnel site in good faith, you may acquire the right to any blind veins, ledges, or lodes cut, discovered, or intersected by your tunnel, by locating a lode claim, if they—
(1) Are located within a radius of 1,500 feet from the tunnel axis; and
(2) Were not previously known to exist on the surface and within the limits of your tunnel.
(b) Your site is protected from other parties making locations of lodes within the sidelines of the tunnel and with-in the 3,000-foot length of the tunnel, unless such lodes appear upon the surface or were previously known to exist.
© You must diligently work on the tunnel site. If you cease working on it for more than 6 consecutive months, you will lose your right to possess all unknown, undiscovered veins, lodes, or ledges that your tunnel may intersect.
§ 3832.45 How do I obtain any minerals that I discover within my tunnel site?
(a) Even if you have located the tunnel site, you must separately locate a lode claim to acquire the possessory right to a blind vein, lode, or ledge you have discovered within the boundaries of the tunnel site sidelines.
(b) The date of location of your lode claim is retroactive to the date of location of your tunnel site.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Nov 26 2014, 08:19 PM

QUOTE (EMac @ Nov 26 2014, 06:51 PM) *
Seems you've missed my point, so I'll be explicit with it: My take, and the red herring comment is this isn't practical information for the folks here. I'm not sure how long established laws might change this take, but I am curious since you mention it.

Most discussions I'm reading (which is what drew me here) are around filing our first claims (me included), recognizing minerals, and light duty equipment. People cutting 3000' tunnels into rock I would hope would come here to help neophytes such as myself since they know and live this stuff already. While I'm sure there's probably one or two here, everyone I've met is a long ways from cutting 3000' tunnels.

If you're reading that I don't believe you, I encourage you to click the links below which will take you to the GPO's published laws on the matter. These are codified under Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations. You are correct that tunnel sites grant you rights, but not exactly as you quote.

Actual http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title43-vol2/CFR-2011-title43-vol2-part3832 (hyperlinked so you can verify; emphasis is mine):


Thanks for sharing your opinion. I was unaware too much information on "mining claims location or patented" might offend some here. I hope those who share your opinion will forgive my transgression.

I think I should head you off from a blatant and dangerous misconception in your post above. The CFR contain only self promulgated agency regulations. They are not a source of law nor are they "codified".

Laws are passed by elected representatives in the United States.

QUOTE
Article. I. Section. 1. United States Constitution All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


We are entitled to a Republican form of government.

QUOTE
Article IV. Section. 4. United States Constitution The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government


Agency fiat is not law and does not have the effect of law. The agency regulations in the CFR are not voted on by elected representatives nor are they law.

CFRs do not override or contravene positive law as enacted by Congress nor does it override or contravene Supreme Court decisions.

QUOTE
Article III Section. 2. United States Constitution The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


The executive agencies, their agents and their regulations can not instruct you on law because those agencies are not legally responsible for any advice they may give you.

Heavy Pans

Posted by: swizz Nov 26 2014, 09:50 PM

You shore know how to make friends...
Happy Thanksgiving Mr Diggins.

Posted by: fenixsmom Nov 26 2014, 11:32 PM

I may stand alone on this, but I like him and I appreciate his attempts. Speak ill of me for standing up for hum if you wish, I don't care. At least he's embraced what we are supposed to be supporting. The knowledge of prospecting. Teaching others what we know.

So what if his information is slightly off? Is it too hard to say "Hey, thank you for that. You're a little off, here's where you are wrong?" You folks do that all of the time with me? Why am I special? I'm as smart as the rocks we wash and as bubbly as the river. I don't have proof of the supposed emails sent and I'll draw my own conclusions on what I've seen. Thank you.

Posted by: EMac Nov 27 2014, 12:08 AM

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Nov 26 2014, 07:19 PM) *
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I was unaware too much information on "mining claims location or patented" might offend some here. I hope those who share your opinion will forgive my transgression.


On this piece, I stand corrected. You are correct sir that I'm in no position to really comment on what knowledge others may or may not find useful here. Reviewing the CP charter, I'm clearly in the wrong:

QUOTE
Whether you've just started learning about prospecting and mining, or if you have prospected for years, the Colorado Prospector clubs website has something for you.


As for the legal semantics, I'll leave you to your views since I've derailed this thread enough already. You can ignore CFRs at your own peril.

Posted by: swizz Nov 27 2014, 05:22 AM

QUOTE (fenixsmom @ Nov 26 2014, 10:32 PM) *
Why am I special?

You are special in many ways. arms.gif
In this case you are special because you are not a vendor barging in with the intent of advertising/selling mining goods, legitimate goods or not. He's been asked not to advertise at the discretion of D & D. Now he's having fun playing Devil's Advocate by nit-picking old reference threads, not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly can be fun for research nerds like us. It opens up discussion of the laws and we like that. If there are discrepancies or variations of law interpretation they should be addressed and this is a great place to do it! We've had spiteful vendors hang around and linger before, nothing new really if that's the case. I don't know if he's actually being spiteful... or this is his way of making friends. I try to give everyone the benefit of a doubt, he's probably just trying to make friends. Some of us miners can be socially awkward as I personally demonstrate frequently. blush.gif
He is knowledgeable and seems to be good at research.... could really be a good fit here and maybe will be in time.
Cheers, heavy pans and all that! cheers.gif

Posted by: fenixsmom Nov 27 2014, 06:05 AM

Daww Swizzle stick! arms.gif

Posted by: swizz Nov 27 2014, 06:31 AM

biggrin.gif swizzle of the day

Posted by: Clay Diggins Nov 27 2014, 10:44 AM

QUOTE (swizz @ Nov 26 2014, 08:50 PM) *
You shore know how to make friends...
Happy Thanksgiving Mr Diggins.

Thanks swizz! thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

You are a likeable rascal yourself.

Happy Thanksgiving. cheers.gif

Posted by: swizz Nov 27 2014, 11:03 AM

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Nov 27 2014, 09:44 AM) *
You are a likeable rascal yourself.

Happy Thanksgiving. cheers.gif


Rascal? Why yes, I'm also quite the crooner....


Happy Thanksgiving to you and your kin! cheers.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Nov 27 2014, 04:50 PM

Thanks for your contribution Clay diggings, I was fully aware of tunnel claim sites when I started this thread back in Jan. of 2010. As noted by Emac, it didn’t seem applicable to 99% of this community’s forum members.

Good job Jessie and Emac, you’re both on the ball here. Tunnel sites are associated with lode claims by nature and take on a much larger venture in capital, man power etc etc. Not what most of us have been discussing but none the less it is a fourth type of claim. Even though the tunnel may not have been blasted for mineral discovery to begin with, like a RR/mining company tunnel project I could see this come into play. Their option to stake on discoveries would already be “claimed” via tunnel claim and their capital expenditure reaching said discovery, which then would have lode claims filed upon them as required after discovery.

Emac, those CFR’s are very much worth learning about in my opinion, although they are in fact not the law, that much is correct. The CFR’s are part of the bigger picture, can be used by you for your benefit, and is part of what we are continually working to educate folks about because the officials use them against us. Knowing what they are suppose to use and do for their job gives us more power/knowledge to make the best decisions for our own situations as they arise, including backing down officials outside their authority in the field as our club members have shown time and time again successfully!

Jessie, you may very well stand alone on that I do not know, but I don’t think we are the type around here to judge you because of it….it’s your choice.
All we wish for you is more knowledge for your own success, no matter the source. Accuracy however can become an issue as you’ve seen. Again it’s each individuals choice to use knowledge the gain as they see fit if it is in fact accurate, this can empower you independently.

We’ve embraced the individuals having knowledge for 11+ years here at Colorado Prospector club, it’s our whole concept which you choose to join. smiley-cool14.gif
Clay however is not interested in this community’s view point, look at his posts thus far. Not once has he complimented your efforts personally, or anyone else’s, nor the website itself. Only has been posting in a corrective (helpful?) manner without acknowledgement of the threads content for the most part other than to “correct”. I find that odd.

Throwing topics off track after appearing helpful doesn’t seem constructive to the thread.
Another tactic I’ve notice is Clay would like to have his name showing as posted most recently in all the laws and regs sections of the forums…… deliberately spamming out forums/sections and stirring up the normal community members, again while appearing to be sooo polite and “helpful”, but completely void of sincerity or other user acknowledgement. Seems pretty obvious to me that he’s not looking to “make friends” as Swizz pointed out. Case in point…..this thread is so far off its topic title….WOW! Why? Because someone had another opinion, then the sarcasm comes in again… how this can be taken as sincere or helpful towards anyone I do not know. confused0082[1].gif You’d think the person posting such sarcasm would realize that.

I will also point out that we are here at the Colorado Prospector website and this person with no interest in Colorado or the site (by their own words) seems to really be interested in stirring the pots around here. Unfortunately for them this is not their website, it is ours, the clubs, which I pay for with you the club members support. So as this person keeps coming in to be helpful with such tactics, I will continue to come in and stick up for our ground here! I’m not at anyone else’s websites boasting or stirring up members in another community. That ain’t cool!

I would sure hope there aren’t any club members that hold anything against me for standing our ground in such situations.
CP_Member.gif

Posted by: lostnewb Dec 1 2014, 08:05 PM

QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Nov 27 2014, 03:50 PM) *
Thanks for your contribution Clay diggings, I was fully aware of tunnel claim sites when I started this thread back in Jan. of 2010. As noted by Emac, it didn't seem applicable to 99% of this community's forum members.

Good job Jessie and Emac, you're both on the ball here. Tunnel sites are associated with lode claims by nature and take on a much larger venture in capital, man power etc etc. Not what most of us have been discussing but none the less it is a fourth type of claim. Even though the tunnel may not have been blasted for mineral discovery to begin with, like a RR/mining company tunnel project I could see this come into play. Their option to stake on discoveries would already be "claimed" via tunnel claim and their capital expenditure reaching said discovery, which then would have lode claims filed upon them as required after discovery.

Emac, those CFR's are very much worth learning about in my opinion, although they are in fact not the law, that much is correct. The CFR's are part of the bigger picture, can be used by you for your benefit, and is part of what we are continually working to educate folks about because the officials use them against us. Knowing what they are suppose to use and do for their job gives us more power/knowledge to make the best decisions for our own situations as they arise, including backing down officials outside their authority in the field as our club members have shown time and time again successfully!

Jessie, you may very well stand alone on that I do not know, but I don't think we are the type around here to judge you because of it….it's your choice.
All we wish for you is more knowledge for your own success, no matter the source. Accuracy however can become an issue as you've seen. Again it's each individuals choice to use knowledge the gain as they see fit if it is in fact accurate, this can empower you independently.

We've embraced the individuals having knowledge for 11+ years here at Colorado Prospector club, it's our whole concept which you choose to join. smiley-cool14.gif
Clay however is not interested in this community's view point, look at his posts thus far. Not once has he complimented your efforts personally, or anyone else's, nor the website itself. Only has been posting in a corrective (helpful?) manner without acknowledgement of the threads content for the most part other than to "correct". I find that odd.

Throwing topics off track after appearing helpful doesn't seem constructive to the thread.
Another tactic I've notice is Clay would like to have his name showing as posted most recently in all the laws and regs sections of the forums…… deliberately spamming out forums/sections and stirring up the normal community members, again while appearing to be sooo polite and "helpful", but completely void of sincerity or other user acknowledgement. Seems pretty obvious to me that he's not looking to "make friends" as Swizz pointed out. Case in point…..this thread is so far off its topic title….WOW! Why? Because someone had another opinion, then the sarcasm comes in again… how this can be taken as sincere or helpful towards anyone I do not know. confused0082[1].gif You'd think the person posting such sarcasm would realize that.

I will also point out that we are here at the Colorado Prospector website and this person with no interest in Colorado or the site (by their own words) seems to really be interested in stirring the pots around here. Unfortunately for them this is not their website, it is ours, the clubs, which I pay for with you the club members support. So as this person keeps coming in to be helpful with such tactics, I will continue to come in and stick up for our ground here! I'm not at anyone else's websites boasting or stirring up members in another community. That ain't cool!

I would sure hope there aren't any club members that hold anything against me for standing our ground in such situations.
CP_Member.gif



Well its about time somebody said it thumbsupsmileyanim.gif . Thanks for always keeping everything on the up and up.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)