ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
BLM seeks comment on Cache Creek, recreational placer activities
CP
post Dec 18 2014, 09:04 PM
Post #1


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,136
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Another round for Cache creek this year, guess things haven't been improving much yet. Sounds like a re-run. greensmilies-025.gif

"BLM seeks comment on preliminary environmental assessment for recreational placer activities at Cache Creek
This comment period will run to Jan. 9, 2015."


QUOTE
BLM seeks comment on preliminary environmental assessment for recreational placer activities at Cache Creek

CANON CITY, Colo. – The Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office is seeking public comments on a preliminary environmental assessment and business plan for recreational placer activities at Cache Creek.

The preliminary EA identifies an overall strategy for managing recreational placer activities at Cache Creek. The proposed alternative seeks to reduce impacts to sensitive resources and address health and human safety concerns through a permit system that would allow for a wider variety of placer activities while putting protection measures in place. The BLM is also considering a fee to aid in managing this resource. The preliminary environmental assessment can be found here: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/rgfo/minera...ache_creek.html.

Over the past several years, recreational placer activities at Cache Creek have increased dramatically. Greater visitation has led to user conflicts and damage to the area’s natural resources, prompting the BLM and stakeholders to take a look at recreation use on the parcel and develop a strategy for moving forward.

This comment period will run from Dec. 5, 2014, to Jan. 9, 2015. Comments concerning the proposed action, alternatives and identification of environmental issues are most helpful. For additional information or to submit a comment, please contact Kalem Lenard at 719-269-8538 or email comments to rgfo_comments@blm.gov. Keep up with Royal Gorge Field Office planning efforts at http://blm.gov/3zld.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swizz
post Dec 20 2014, 08:16 AM
Post #2


Moderator
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,436
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983



Yes, seems like they can't get everyone to cooperate, this comes up every year at that recreational area.
Hopefully they get it sorted out and people stop misusing the area. It's private property so it could go away real quick and easy. It is not protected by any mining rights since it is private property. I think people need to understand that and appreciate it for what it is. Respect and obey the owner's rules.
This is a classic scenario where one bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch. The bunch should keep an eye out for bad apples, but they don't. The property owner does.
Questionable future for Cache.


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

/l
,[____],
l---L-OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
BLACK SANDS MATTER!
Very Happy CP Lifetime Member
CP CORE TEAM

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
traddoerr
post Dec 20 2014, 09:21 AM
Post #3


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 17-March 11
From: Thornton, Colorado
Member No.: 13,932



swizz, its actually BLM land-not private, it was donated to BLM by the former owner, land that is donated back to BLM/USFS becomes public land but is not open for mineral claim/logging or anything like the such, these lands fall under different management laws than the original public lands. This is how it was explained to us last year at these proposals for Cache Creek. But people treat it like it is 'their' claim, and many not knowing whats safe and not safe is the biggest problem, to many digging holes 10'+ in VERY unstable ground, and knocking down trees has created a tense conflict. Like the Ark. river it will end up permit use only, with fees. Just bad apples as you mentioned.




QUOTE (swizz @ Dec 20 2014, 08:16 AM) *
Yes, seems like they can't get everyone to cooperate, this comes up every year at that recreational area.
Hopefully they get it sorted out and people stop misusing the area. It's private property so it could go away real quick and easy. It is not protected by any mining rights since it is private property. I think people need to understand that and appreciate it for what it is. Respect and obey the owner's rules.
This is a classic scenario where one bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch. The bunch should keep an eye out for bad apples, but they don't. The property owner does.
Questionable future for Cache.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
traddoerr
post Dec 20 2014, 09:32 AM
Post #4


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 17-March 11
From: Thornton, Colorado
Member No.: 13,932



Forgot, thanks CP for the info, it's great to see a club that helps to inform everyone about these meetings.


QUOTE (traddoerr @ Dec 20 2014, 09:21 AM) *
swizz, its actually BLM land-not private, it was donated to BLM by the former owner, land that is donated back to BLM/USFS becomes public land but is not open for mineral claim/logging or anything like the such, these lands fall under different management laws than the original public lands. This is how it was explained to us last year at these proposals for Cache Creek. But people treat it like it is 'their' claim, and many not knowing whats safe and not safe is the biggest problem, to many digging holes 10'+ in VERY unstable ground, and knocking down trees has created a tense conflict. Like the Ark. river it will end up permit use only, with fees. Just bad apples as you mentioned.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swizz
post Dec 22 2014, 04:26 AM
Post #5


Moderator
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,436
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983



QUOTE (traddoerr @ Dec 20 2014, 09:21 AM) *
land that is donated back to BLM/USFS becomes public

That's news to me.
Technically, land can't be donated "back" to the BLM/USFS.... because the BLM/USFS likely never "owned" the land in the first place. I have seen instances where land has been donated to the USFS by land owners and it was hence designated as National Forest, a condition of the donation agreement. In those instances the land "becomes public" as per National Forest land status default.
Was this land "donated" to a management agency (BLM)? Was the donation conditional (or lease)? Who absolutely "owns" the Cache Creek land currently, the DOI/BLM? The BLM page I visited is vague on this. They say that they "acquired" the land in 2002. They don't state how they "acquired" it nor whom they "acquired" it from.... nor any terms of the 2002 "acquisition". They don't state ownership or lease but I'm assuming ownership since they loosely use the term "acquired". I didn't see the term 'donated' on their page.

If it was indeed donated to the Federal BLM Agency then they are the "owners" and it is private property "acquired" and "owned" by that branch of the DOI. It only "becomes public" if they decide to 100% donate it in turn to "We The People" making it public in the form of National Forest or other public ownership format. They certainly didn't do that (if they are the current owners). They can keep it private or make it public as they see fit. They can close it altogether and make it a sanctuary if they want. They could put up gates and build USFS bunkhouses for employee pillow fights. It's only public "use" if the owner allows it to be. Not public "owned" by We The People.
They (whomever owns it) are allowing public "privilege" usage of it, for now. All need to understand that there are no "rights" to public usage there. All privileges of usage could be yanked at any time.

Please enlighten me.... you or anyone else who frequents that area. Who "owns" it? anyone.gif eating-popcorn-03.gif


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

/l
,[____],
l---L-OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
BLACK SANDS MATTER!
Very Happy CP Lifetime Member
CP CORE TEAM

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 28 2014, 01:26 PM
Post #6


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,136
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Well Swizz, I don't frequent the area but I'll see ifin' I can help figure it out.
If it was privately owned at one time and then ended up back as "BLM" land then I would assume it would have been a trade rather than donation? Maybe wrong word used?
Traded for other plots does occur with both BLM and FS lands at times but I've never heard that about the Cache creek area. Could be fact I don't know.

Or if that isn't the history but more of rumor, then it could confusion caused by point bar being an actual state owned parcel that is managed (via agreement with depts.) by the BLM district and is for prospecting purposes. IE...point bar is privately owned and still lies also within the Arkansas headwater recreational (special rules) area. State owns point bar yet BLM manages it for prospecting.

Cache creek now at this time is BLM land (yours and mine) and also lies within the Ark headwater (special rules) area, and even carries it's own special rules for just Cache creek. Since it's in the Ark headwater rec area, the district ranger can and does add extra rules as he/she sees fit for the activity or needs as a recreational spot..... oh and very important to note, no claiming possible, withdrawn from mineral entry. Just a fun family spot.

Ownership is not private at cache creek though as traddoerr said....not sure on the historical ownership but it's now BLM land.
Hope that helps explain it a little.


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fenixsmom
post Dec 28 2014, 02:00 PM
Post #7


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 13-January 14
From: Lakewood, Colorado
Member No.: 116,305



I noticed the term "shareholders" in the original text. Does USFS or BLM have shareholders?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 28 2014, 02:09 PM
Post #8


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,136
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



No they do not. They actually used the word "stakeholders" which just meant...
a person with an interest or concern in the Cache creek rec area goings on.


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fenixsmom
post Dec 28 2014, 02:52 PM
Post #9


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 13-January 14
From: Lakewood, Colorado
Member No.: 116,305



Oh! You're right as always! smiley-laughing021.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
traddoerr
post Jan 16 2015, 09:28 PM
Post #10


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 17-March 11
From: Thornton, Colorado
Member No.: 13,932



QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Dec 28 2014, 01:26 PM) *
Well Swizz, I don't frequent the area but I'll see ifin' I can help figure it out.
If it was privately owned at one time and then ended up back as "BLM" land then I would assume it would have been a trade rather than donation? Maybe wrong word used?
Traded for other plots does occur with both BLM and FS lands at times but I've never heard that about the Cache creek area. Could be fact I don't know.

Or if that isn't the history but more of rumor, then it could confusion caused by point bar being an actual state owned parcel that is managed (via agreement with depts.) by the BLM district and is for prospecting purposes. IE...point bar is privately owned and still lies also within the Arkansas headwater recreational (special rules) area. State owns point bar yet BLM manages it for prospecting.

Cache creek now at this time is BLM land (yours and mine) and also lies within the Ark headwater (special rules) area, and even carries it's own special rules for just Cache creek. Since it's in the Ark headwater rec area, the district ranger can and does add extra rules as he/she sees fit for the activity or needs as a recreational spot..... oh and very important to note, no claiming possible, withdrawn from mineral entry. Just a fun family spot.

Ownership is not private at cache creek though as traddoerr said....not sure on the historical ownership but it's now BLM land.
Hope that helps explain it a little.


Thanks CP, you pretty much nailed it. We were told that the family that owned Cache Creek area 'gave it' to BLM, my last statement of "donating back" was miss spoken, sorry for the confusion swizz. By doing so it becomes public lands, and is open to public use, it just is with drawn from mineral claim status, but the BLM wanted to open it up for rec. gold panning/sluicing just in the designated areas to satisfy the interests of some stake holders (general public).

My own family donated 200+ acres in the late 70's to the White River NF up near Rifle, Colorado that they ran cattle on since the early 1900's, I believe it gave them a big tax break, or something like that. I looked up the legality's to such a land deal, it states that the Gov. when acquiring such land has to inventory it into public lands-open to public use (we the people become the new owners), but that because it is not part of the 'original public land holdings' (BLM/USFS) it is not granted with the 1872 mining laws, meaning "with drawn" from mineral/oil gas rights, and in some cases not lease-able for live stock grazing.
Either way because of people not respecting others and rules of use on these lands more regulations are likely to happen. I hope all those of CP had a great x-mas and new year, and hope you all have a better year in 2015 for prospecting!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Coalbunny
post Jan 17 2015, 11:48 PM
Post #11


Master Mucker
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,432
Joined: 22-February 04
Member No.: 98



Sometimes people give land away not understanding the legal status. When I was a member of a club a few years back they gave away over 40 acres of patented ground just NW of Fairplay. Long story, but it was some rich ground.


--------------------
Today's socio-political climate is rock solid proof that Adam and Eve weren't prospectors.
If they were they'd have eaten the snake instead of the apple and we'd still be in heaven....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th November 2017 - 12:54 AM