In a recent thread on the CP club's facebook group page it was stated that the BLM holds "public mining claims"......
I don't think this to be true but I thought we could use more input from our very informative CP forum users to offer on the question.
So I thought we'd pose this question here......Has anyone heard of any "public mining claims" (actual claims/names or #'s) held directly by the BLM?
What are your thoughts on this at the CP forum folks?

I believe the person is simply misunderstanding/using the word "claim" with what should be "area" instead.

Mr. & Mrs. CP,

I have a little time later this week, think I'll pop into the local BLM office and see if they have anything IN WRITING.

Will post what I find...

Cheers!

RhodoRose

I have seen this happen with the USFS when claim holders would surrender their mining claims to the USFS. Those in particular were patented claims, however.

He did state there was a sign that stated this was the case... but as we all know, gubment employees aren't always the smartest at what they do, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone made a sign misrepresenting the actual land status.

I don't believe that the BLM nor USFS "stakes" claims. They do not have a roster of mine workers that I know of. They each employ a limited number of "Mining Specialists". I don't believe that "mining for exploration or profit" or "holding of active mining claims" is a function of those management agencies. "Recreational designated areas" may have some exceptions in regard to "ownership", but not likely active mining claims by legal definition. Would they 'pay themselves' annual maint fees? That would be like the Fox watching the henhouse... in MANY ways. Can't be a legal function.
I understand where "some" of the confusion can come from.
Here is a picture of me the day I staked one of my claims. I am leaning on my Certificate Of Location/Location Notice in this image. This is an historic Placer Mine which I took over from the mine owner. Notice the large wooden sign next to me. I blurred out the historic mine name in this image for privacy reasons but it is printed on that sign. The SIGN belongs to the BLM and clearly has THEIR logo on it. One would immediately believe that THEY own this historic mine at first glance of the sign. They do not, and never did. They put up that sign because the State declared it as an "historic mine site" and it appears as such on topo maps too.... (with the old mine name).
The sign is property of the BLM, nothing else is. I cannot tamper with that "historic designation" sign, it is Federal property.
I can instruct the BLM to remove or relocate their sign if I choose to dig there or use that particular BLM sign location for mining purposes.
You can see how this could be easily misconstrued by a passer by with little or no mining law knowledge. First thought would be that the BLM owns XXXXXXXXXX Placer Mine judging by that sign alone.
They don't own squat up there.

Staked by ghostcreekmine, on Flickr

According to the post in Facebook, the signs state, "PUBLIC MINING CLAIM. Courtesy of BLM"

Then it would have to be on a Public Recreational Use Area such as Cache Creek or similar which has been removed from mineral entry. Without further location information other than "a post on facebook said" it's difficult to give a specific answer to this particular area-specific question.
If the sign says: "PUBLIC MINING CLAIM. Courtesy of BLM" as stated.... the location obviously isn't a big secret, it's "public".
Give us more details. I'm not a face-tweeter. Send the facebook poster here to the forums maybe?

The State declared it to be an historic site...BLM put up a sign, with their logo, which belongs to them...and it's a private claim?

Tell me this isn't a government operation....

If you are referring to my claim pictured above, you're off base.
They indeed declared it to be an historic site. That was prior to my ownership AND WHILE THE CLAIM WAS ACTIVE AND OWNED (by the previous mine owner). The land ownership status and mineral rights did not change at all when they did their little "designation". The BLM pounded a sign into the ground... THAT is the only thing they "own" on my claim besides a BLM Road Closed Gate on one of my roads which I own a lock to as per my mining rights. Neither "historic" designation (nor their informative sign) make it a recreational area. Those actions do NOT make it open to mineral removal by the public. As a claim owner I own exclusive mineral rights and all that go along with it, period. Historic designation or not.
Mining claims CAN still be staked on public held lands with "historic" designation. No "government operation" involved, just a cute little "designation" and sign pounded in the ground by them.
The sign I am leaning on carries far more weight than their tourist attraction sign.

No issue, Swizz, I was just pondering - and agreeing with you - regarding the confusion the BLM sign could create. Your claim signs, of course, make the current land status crystal clear : )

Exactly!
Their sign used to bug me and I 'mentioned it' to them once at my regional BLM office when addressing my gate issue a while back.
Now I'm ok with it. I have over 30 of my own metal signs posted throughout that mine, extremely well marked.... and I added another gate of my own. If anything, their ornate sign adds potential value to my site as a cute little patina if I ever decide to part with it (right, when I die... lol).

I found it guys, and D&D, you guys are right - it is a "Recreational Prospecting Area", not a claim. I have not found out whether or not it closed to mineral entry, but I suspect that it is. Location is "Rattlesnake Gulch", and I found it by researching "BLM Public Prospecting Areas Delta, Colorado". One of the results was "Gunnison River Recreation: Advisory Council Briefing". Here's the addy:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm...y%20council.pdf

That gentleman who brought this up hasn't a clue. He needs to get on this site to learn how to do it properly.

Excellent work Scott!

Took less than 5 minutes... once I got around to lookin' that is. Saw the posting on facebook, then read this topic, then read the comments on facebook and got kind of irked with the disrespect shown to Mrs CP, and our club. If it is a "Public" recreation area, then there was no need to keep it "secret". I knew that if it was administered to by the BLM, there'd be something online about it. Simple basic search, and voila! Take that, you @$$&0!3. Sorry, but I was really miffed!

The BLM does not qualify under its own rules to have a claim. It is not a citizen or a corporation.
Sometimes the answer is in plain sight.

Yes, there was that, too. Thanks, Mike!

Awesome input everyone That's why I started a thread here to provide a better source of info on the question. And as always, you've all done excellent thank you!

Yep Caveman as soon as the word "secret" came up when asking a simple question about the "public BLM mining claim" he brought up
Rattle Snake Gulch instantly popped into my head. Big secret

Even without having a confusing recreational area present as Swizz demonstrated, just one lone sign can be rather misleading if you don't have the proper basic knowledge on hand for yourself in the field.

Actually Dan rattlesnake Gulch IS a big secret. The way the newbies reacted in the past when I told them I never heard of it and asked for more info. OMG! NOW it's suuuuper secret. I never knew it as Rattlesnake Gulch, I knew it as Dominguez Flats.
Oh well!