Talk:Placer claim

Sorry about any breaches in etiquette or procedure, brand new at putting in info, also don't want to take away from someone taking initiative to post article, but see some factual issues with definition as it currently exists, as someone who has gone through school of hard knocks w/ claims and mining in California's Mother Lode country over the last few years. If I read all of this right, as soon as I edit an article, it shows up. Would rather coordinate/get permission from author before proceeding.

A couple of examples:

1. Claims must be filed BOTH with local (county) govt AND federal (if federally owned) agency(BLM) for a valid Claim. State laws can vary and even county to county laws and enforcment can vary (is the claim taxed, how stringently are various environmental concerns enforced, etc.), but the federal laws are fairly consistent.

2. The sequence of events is SUPPOSED to be as follows: 1. Discovery(identification of Mineral) 2. Posting of Discovery Marker (typically a post with official notification of Claim) 3. Filing of claim w/local govt (County Seat in California) 4. Marking of Corners as discussed in current posting 5. Within 90 (not 45, as in article), filing of claim at both local govt AND with BLM. 6. Annually, submitting paperwork and a fee (currently 125 dollars) with BLM and submitting a copy of this to the local govt, OR substituting the fee w/the submissio of a Small Miner's (Maintenance) Waiver (if you have less than 10 claims) and proof of equivalent labor to prove work to substitute for the maintenance fee for each claim.

3. Possession of a Claim DOES consitute a property right, similar to mineral rights on other land, although this right is only valid as long as 2 above has been maintained. This right is saleable, transferable, inheritable. Further, the right DOES include ALL extractable minerals; tecchnically, if you file a claim and are prospecting for gold, a squatter would be violating the law even picking up a cool stone on your claim.

4. Under the 1872 Mining Law (Gospel for mining and should be included as a key reference, although continuous efforts are at play to dilute or modify this law) it is possible to convert a claim (unpatented) to full ownership (patented). An unpatented claim is quite restrictive, entitling the claim owner only to modification/work necessary to maintain the claim/mine. In fact, Since I believe the mid-1970's, patenting of minting claims has been suspended.

5. PLACER CLAIMS: A federal claim is limited to 20 acres PER CLAIM PER CLAIMANT. There is nothing preventing multiple people from filing a claim together, and including even minor children in households as co-claimants. The net result is that a federal claim can be as much as 160 acres (8 co-claimants). There is no real limit on how many claims a person could have, except that if they are over 10 claims, they must pay the annual maintenance fee. At the risk of "self promotion" as mentioned by another poster, will say I know this for a fact, as I currently possess valid claims ranging from 40 to 160 acres.

6. Three are multiple types of claims on federal property: Basically, they are tunnel claims, Lode Claims and Placer Claims. A tunnel claim basically follows a vein, with a certain distance from the actual vein included. A Lode Claim is geographical frm the surface, extending out a certain distance from a line on a map. Finally, there is a Placer claim that is measured by portions of Section/Towhship/Range. For example, a 20 acre claim might be the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 2N, Range 14E,, Meridian 22.

If you all want some input, will get more specific and succinct with some real edits/input. All of the above is on the fly. Please let me know. Would put my email address as a reference, but gut feel is this is against posting regs. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatagua (talk • contribs) 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too US-centric

Before I start removing some of the US-centric parts, does anyone have some non-destructive ideas on making this less so? --Kickstart70-T-C 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article, and before I wrote this, there was very little information about this subject.

Can you not simply add to it? Why remove some parts that you feel are "Too US-centric?"

Many countries, and even most of the U.S., do not permit ownership of mining claims or mining rights.

AlaskaMining 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really rather not remove parts of the article, but perhaps it should be split into those parts that are generic at the top, then go into specifics on the US and other countries in sections below. As it currently stands, it's far from an encyclopedial ideal. Now, I don't know huge amounts about gold placer mining, but I do live in the centre of the historic Cariboo Gold Rush, and this area still has plenty of claims ongoing. Perhaps even more the article should have a whole separate section for the history of this practice? --Kickstart70-T-C 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to ask...are you Dennis R. Garrett? If so, we need to have a side discussion on using Wikipedia for self promotion. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

330' x 660' is closer to 5 acres, not 20. Unsigned comment by User:71.94.84.142 moved from article.

I have no idea which is correct, but you're correct that 217800 sq ft is 5 acres not 20. --TeaDrinker 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]