I reckon if yer the paranoid type (like me? maybe). Seems like this would be a pretty dern good way to monitor one's claim to see who's parking there and what they might be up to.. also could provide imagery evidence if ever needed, especially with multiple cameras. Motion-sensor activation would have to be a key feature.
I haven't staked claim yet but parking is very limited in all of my potential areas.
Good idea or little big brother? Do any of you already do this? I wonder if miners in the old days would have used this technology if it were available.
hmmmmm
This is one of many on the market used primarily by hunters:
Wildlife Cam

I'm not thinking of monitoring 'live'... more like, checking the memory card occasionally if I were ever to do it.
what ye think?

I've seen these before and they can have some great uses for sure.
Prospectors paranoid? NO WAY! In fact I can think of several claim owners in different states that I know of already using them.

Thanks for posting up the link for everyone.

Just thinking like a poacher/claim jumper for a sec...if I'm trespassing on somebody's land and I hear a click coming from something with a lens that's mounted on a tree, I'm probably going to soon own something with a lens that USED to be mounted on a tree. I don't think I could bring that home with me if I was a deer or elk because I don't have opposable thumbs.

I think it could be a questionable issue in court. Unless they are patented claims, monitoring the lawful use of public lands by surreptitious means could be a criminal act. IIRC CA, NV, OR and possibly UT would have a problem with it. You can video a public setting in CO, but in those other states I don't think they specified the methods used, but I do recall in CA and NV it can be criminal.

Sure, maybe I'm not breaking the law while there, but then what if I'm taking a whiz or ......? You get the idea.

swizz,

I like the way you think!

Law enforcement has been using remote cameras for many, many years. The newer technology and reasonable pricing makes it easier for public and private interests to utilize as well.

Many prosecutions for growing pot, cutting firewood in closed areas, poaching etc. have been the result of well placed cameras and video devices.

Hey claimjumper(s)...SMILE you're already on camera... Its just a matter of time until someone puts a funny clip on a TV reality show or posts it to the www

ASTROBLEME

RichDColorado:

Perhaps they might "hear a click" from a low-budget/low-tech surveillance system put into place on valuable claims, but there are several extremely high value claims right here in Colorado that are protected by cutting edge, remote digital technology, that is controlled by cellular phone communications. A claim jumper won't “hear a click” while stealing from those unless they have ears like a leprechaun.

In high profile theft instances, the first indication a claim jumper(s) is caught is by contact from a process server. Mining companies don't rely on local law enforcement very often to protect their interests through criminal charges. Most of their actions are civil and swift! As an example…you seldom hear about anyone “claim jumping DeBeers?”

ASTROBLEME

Hi Astrobleme - I'm just thinking like a bad guy, but not acting like one. I would imagine there are some fairly elaborate security systems in place on the higher dollar commercial operations. With my luck I'd wander into some high tech security field and get zapped in a crossfire of lasers.

Yup.
Klingons on your left, Cylons on your right.....

Rich, you'd be toast.

There has been some news about the increasing problem of pot growers using explosives and posting armed guards in sniper locations to protect their crops in remote locations on public lands. Some of the more sophisticated operations use remote cameras to check up on possible thieves or law enforcement efforts. Be careful out there when you are prospecting, especially near mountain streams as the growers are starting to developing elaborate irrigation systems in areas that have water and soil types suitable for cultivation.

Here's a recent story you must read...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...atiJVgD9E64ET00

I'm going to start with this posting as another topic since it is such an important safety issue for prospectors.

ASTROBLEME

I think they are all digital so no click.

Pretty sure an infrared camera or scope would show any hidden cameras or surveillance gear.

If someone is hell-bent enough to use infrared just to claim jump... then sure, I guess.
If their infrared "scope" is attached to a rifle (and it's not hunting season) and they're carrying prospecting equipment - they could well be subject to mineral trespass, 'make my day' law, and greeted with a Glock .40 cal if it's on MY claim.
Best not to claim jump, there's plenty of other places out there.

I guess post #4 is too stupid to consider.
Man, makes sure you guys know what the laws are, because if you screw up and break one, the person videoed, if done so unlawfully (intent i irrelevant) you can lose those claims AND your equipment.

You have to consider the legal status of the claims. Patented or unpatented?
You have to consider the state laws, as well as federal and local.

(psst- disclaimer for Coalbunny, I don't currently have a claim. My post was intended to entertain the fantasy that "Persisence" presented suggesting that claimjumpers carry "infrared cameras and scopes" as a means to avoid detection from tree mounted surveillance cameras. Be assured that this make-believe scenario will not play out as suggested.)
WHEN I file my claim ALL pertinent laws (state, local, and federal) will be closely followed as I'm a stickler for detail.

Ok, I merely stated that an infrared camera or scope would pick out such devices. I don't recall advocating claim jumping.

This is fun though, I'll continue to play devil's advocate on the possible scenario.

I personally have no interest in claim jumping. However if I was hiking along and discovered a surveillance camera, it would make me curious as to why someone would go through the trouble of putting one up. Privacy concerns aside, it just might attract more attention than it's worth.

Furthermore, I highly doubt the "make my day law" would apply at all in your case. It might if it was an older patented claim. So in theory, I would be legally justified to use my .45 in self defense if someone threatened me with say, a .40 Glock.

As far as I know, an un-patented claim doesn't legally prevent anyone from hiking, hunting, fishing, etc. on said claim. It merely bestows the mineral rights to the claimant.

So in theory, I could hike across your claim with a full pack of prospecting gear, take some pictures and move on. Nothing could be done about it unless I actually tried to work your claim.

that is correct
Some systems can also send live feed to an off-site CPU and record license plate information, etc.

A monitoring camera might be illegal on an un-patented claim in that it really isn't "your" property. Any "evidence" collected by the camera just might get tossed out in court. Maybe you would need some sort of permission to put one up.

Although, it appears the Forest Service has been known to deploy unmarked hidden cameras on public lands also.

perhaps

Good day, everyone. In this thread I see a perfect example of how small miners will go overboard trying to "do it right" when they are not even sure what doing it right actually is. I understand some of the previous comments in this thread, though in error, were submitted in an effort to keep people from getting themselves into trouble, a commendable purpose. And I understand some of those erroneous comments are based on something the authors were told personally by government employees, but keep in mind that government employees seem to be wrong at least as much of the time as they are right when they tell you their interpretation of the law. Just like most of us, they are not lawyers and either do not care, or do not have the time, to delve deep enough into the law to find the truth. But, unlike us, many such government employees would rather the law was interpreted in such a way as to restrict or eliminate small miners completely. And if you start from the top, the Constitution, and work your way down through the statutes and the regulations, you will be able to present a strong defense of your rights. If we start with the regulations, or policy, or the word of some employee, we will be clueless. I am very frustrated with the fact that very few small miners are willing to stand up for themselves, much less for others of their kind who need help. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, right?

That said , I would like to make a couple of points related to the subject of cameras on one's claim.

Of course one can place security cameras on their claim. A claim is private property. One has every right to monitor their own property. One thing I might suggest, though is that such cameras are always trained directly on your property, be it equipment, structures, or the digs themselves. Then you are just monitoring your property, and cannot possibly be infringing upon someone elses' rights. I personally know of several small miners who have used such cameras on their claims for years with no trouble over it. And there is no possibility whatsoever that someone could lose their claim over placing a camera to monitor the safety of their property. It is this very mindset that has got us all in a box right now. The only way someone can lose their claim is if a rival successfully takes it due to imperfection in the discovery and location process, failure to conduct proper assessment work, flat out abandonment, or failure to pass a validity determination in a withdrawn area. To say that someone risks losing their claim for placing video monitoring equipment on it seems to be a sort of fear-mongering. The last thing we need is for people to be afraid to exercise their rights to protect their property. Caution, is of course, advised when conducting your activities, but the government installs plenty of fear into us without misleading comments from those within the mining community who claim to know but don't.

Someone mentioned above that anyone can hike, picnic, or camp on your claim. In many cases this may be true, but not on the "active" area of your claim. It is true that the 1955 Common Varieties Act says that a mining claim staked after 1955 is subject to the right of the United States, its' permittees and licensees to enter the surface for the purpose of managing and disposing of surface resources (except mineral deposits located under the 1872 mining law), but only if such management or disposal is not an endangerment or material interference with the mineral activities. It is commonly accepted that such management or disposal within the active, or "affected" area without prior arrangements between the parties constitutes an endangerment or material interference. The Forest Service recognizes a claimants' right to maintain a fence up to 200 feet from active or proposed dig-sites. Please keep in mind that an unpatented mining claim is property in every sense of the word, and carries with it all the protections that go with such classification as property.

Part of the reason that we're in such a fix right now is because government officials and others have been giving the miners their interpretation of the law, and the miners have believed them. Remember, the only legal interpretations that are going to matter in the long run are your own, and that of a judge hearing your case. Interpretations by lower level government employees (who are often intent on restricting or even prohibiting your rights) are just not reliable. As small miners and prospectors, we must become familiar with the laws and regulations that pertain. The laws make it quite plain that the owner of an unpatented mining claim holds "possessory" title to the minerals and the surface (30 USC). Though the 1955 Common Varieties Act does restrict such exclusive possession to only so much of the surface necessary for prospecting or mining activities, a claimant plainly holds "possessory" title to whatever surface is necessary for their prospecting or mining purposes. As I pointed out in my last post (Under Fight For Your Rights, Assert Yourself), the only way the government has pushed the small miners into the corner we are in, is due to the fact that the majority of those small miners have willingly participated in government schemes to limit or prohibit their lawful activities.

Remember, the regulations are not law! The regulations only carry the force of law with the willing participation of the majority of prospectors and miners. Read the law. When the government confronts you in relation to your mineral related activities, tell them about the law. "According to the 1872 mining law, a claimant holds "possessory" title to the land, and has exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of the subsurface and surface of the claim." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, statutes are created according to constitutional provision, regulations are created to administer said statutes, and policy is a way of describing to government personnel how to conduct their activities in accordance with law. If regulations or policy are not in line with statutes or the constitution, they do not hold power. Therefor, any regulation or policy which does not recognize a claimant's possessory title and right to exclusive possession and enjoyment is much like a feather on the breeze, with no foundation, or basis, in law. Happy digging!

[quote name='Ghost Miner' date='Jun 1 2010, 10:13 AM' post='19454']

Dear Ghost Miner:

You have provided well written information that will help many folks understand many of the issues of owning mining claims. Thanks for your contribution.

JT

Thanks Ghost Miner, well spoken - I actually printed that.

Very well said Ghostminer, thank you for taking the time to write this explanation up.

I agree guys, there will be many folks who can reference this information as it applies to so many facets of what folks are currently dealing with on their private claims.

CP

Perhaps I am mistaken, then. I have been with the understanding that an un-patented claim is still public, you only have the right to the minerals, trees and water, and the unhindered use of the surface.

Hello, all. I apologize if I come off a little caustic. I do get excited. It is my opinion that, if the small miners cannot hold out against the government and environmentalists, and are actually driven to extinction, America, Home of the Brave, shall be no more. We small miners are some of the last holdouts, some of the last people who remember and desire the American dream. Property ownership. Autonomy. Freedom!

According to the 1872 mining law, the owner of an unpatented mining claim has exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of all surface, and all veins or lodes which apex within the bounds of the claim. It is plainly stated that a claimant has "possessory title" to the claim, including the surface. This situation is, in strictly lawful terms, only very sightly changed by the 1955 Common Varieties Act, which says that mining claims staked after 1955 are "subject" to the right of the United States, its' permittees and licensees, to manage and dispose of surface resources (other than mineral deposits located under the mining laws), but only insofar as such use does not endanger or materially interfere with mineral related activities. This Act did not eliminate the "possessory title" nor the right to "exclusive possession and enjoyment". It merely says that such title and rights are "subject" to the right of the United States, its' permittees and licensees to manage and use other surface resources, but only if such use will not endanger or materially interfere with mineral activities. Full title and rights remain intact, so far as the claimant is using the land for mining purposes. This is plainly evidenced by the fact that the wording of the original 1872 mining law has not been amended, even though the Common Varieties Act was passed in 1955, plenty of time to get around to amending the text.

The reason the congress created the 1955 act was to eliminate, or at least minimize, what was considered an abuse of the mining laws; living on, using, and selling the claims for non-mineral purposes. Prior to the 1955 act, many claimants would restrict access, build homes, build saloons, gas stations, and engage in many other non-mineral related endeavors, often times relying on a discovery of relatively non-valuable gravel, cinder, or other such extremely common types of stone. The 1955 act was meant to eliminate, or minimize, such abuses of the mining law, but it was never meant to have any adverse affect on those who were legitimately engaged in locatable mineral related activities. Hence, the requirement that such use may not endanger or materially interfere with bona fide mineral activities. Simply put, the possessory rights, including that of exclusive possession and enjoyment for locatable mineral purposes, remain in full effect, and therefor the government (in trust for the public) does not "own" unpatented mining claims. The very act of discovery and location, so long as it is conducted peaceably and in good faith, transfers "ownership" from the public domain to the claimant.

We, as small-scale prospectors and miners, must get a grasp of these laws, because no one else is going to do it for us. The majority of the population could care less. The government has a tendency to skew everything in such a way as to increase their authority, so we cannot count on them to defend us. Big mining companies can afford to jump through the myriad of hoops that the government throws up, and due to this, many restrictions are beneficial to them because it ensures that it is very hard, if not impossible, for a small miner to become a "big" miner and become competitive with the big companies. If we small scale prospectors and miners wish to have a continuing place in this world, we must stand up for ourselves. For many years, it may have been in the big companies' interest to encourage small miners and prospectors, because they did the work of exploration and prospecting, and when something valuable came to the attention of those big companies, they could buy the claims for a very reasonable price. Now, a good deal of the country has been mapped, and much prospecting can be done from aircraft and satellite. Us small scale prospectors are just not that useful to the big powers anymore. So, now we must stand on our own. We cannot rely on the big companies to lobby in order to protect our rights any longer. If we do, we will find that we don't have any options but to join their ranks, not as fellow claim owners but as their employees. We must learn to defend ourselves and our fellow small scale prospectors and miners, or perish. I, for one, am determined to make a stand and preserve our way of life. Will you join me?

Now ya got me all fired up.

Wow, thanks for the posts Ghost Miner. Cleared up some misconceptions I had.

Sorry swizz, I thought I knew what I was taking about.

I'll join with you.

Please let me know how I can help.

JT

Certainly no need to apologize, our discussion was a hypothetical scenario which raised some great questions.

Awesome thread folks and thank you all for your input here, this will be a great reference in the future for anyone reading. No appologies needed I agree.

I'm with you Ghostminer, anywhere anytime , and great information you added to the thread! Absolutely spot on the mark.
Please let us know at anytime if we can be of assistance. Our main goal is to keep this website/forum open to everyone for discussions just such as this where we can all discuss/reflect on one anothers interpretations.
The only way any bonafide prospectors can hope to become miners in the end is to "get a grasp of these laws", in the field it is on our sholders as to what choices are made while prospecting, exploring, staking, and working your mining claims. And it is (Y)OUR right!

Keep on diggin' everyone!! Both in the field and the laws!

CP

Thought I'd resurrect this thread and give a quick update.
I now own a nice mining claim (thanks to the helpful members of this site) and am in my 3rd season working it. The BLM knows my situation there and has never questioned my surveillance prerogative. Almost all commercial mining operations utilize surveillance equipment, it is not uncommon at all.
Mining claim owners also have first-use timber rights, first-use water rights, and first-use surface rights in addition to "possessory" title of minerals (thanks for the info Dan and Ghost Miner). After speaking to the BLM Timber Specialist (from my regional office) it is known that they will contact me prior any timber clearing, mitigation, prescribed burns, or other BLM land management activity that may disrupt or damage any surveillance equipment, signage, work in progress, or whatever. Technically... they could potentially be held liable for damages otherwise. In signage alone... there are more than 40 signs on my claim, that alone can add up. I have surveillance warning signs right next to BLM signs. There is no law that prohibits surveillance on an active mining claim. You sacrifice your privacy by entering any active mining claim... I'm just bein nice enough to warn folk at mine.
Heck, from some of the crap I've read on the other (crazy gold-grubbin, you know who you are) forums... some people prefer to use a rifle scope for surveillance, I'm pretty tame by those standards.

Sweet Chris, great info. We do what we need to keep things right. Good decision.

Chris, you did well! That is exactly the best way to keep anyone from messing with your stuff, have it posted. It works well even if you don't have a camera present, but if there is....

My concern is if I stop to take a whiz. Gee, now it's destined for the PlayGirl front cover!