[Rockhounds] Abandoned mines: Who owns them?

[Tim Fisher]

At 11:11 AM 10/28/2007, you wrote:

>On Oct 27, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Tim Fisher wrote:
>
>Actually the quoted definition is correct. The facilities in this 
>definition does not just mean any mine buildings, it also means mine 
>workings (shafts, adits, etc.); and these workings belong to any 
>claim owner, so "no owners or operators for the facilities" 
>automatically means no mining claimant. ("Ownership" is not the 
>right term to be used for minerals on unpatented mining claims. The 
>government owns the minerals until the land is patented. A claimant 
>has rights to exploit the minerals, but until that is done, the 
>minerals are still owned by the government.)
I agree totally :)

>I don't believe this is quite so clear cut. Generally the government 
>only takes control of structures if it has specifically stated it 
>has control. Typically this is done when it wants to remove the 
>buildings, if they are old buildings and they want to preserve them 
>as historic artifacts (such as in a ghost town) or if they are 
>trying to use the buildings for leverage/control in an environmental 
>issue. It would be rather ridiculous for the a mine to be abandoned, 
>then relocated and the government to tell the new claimant that he 
>cannot use the headframe, it's government property.
Makes sense to me!

>>A patented property is just that: a private property, aka an 
>>"inholding". The person who owns the mineral rights also owns the 
>>land. They are not however free from the environmental permitting 
>>process that unpatented claims must go through. They still have to 
>>file a yearly mining plan that has to be approved by the entity 
>>that patented the property in their name. I have seen veiled 
>>threats by the gummint to take back patented properties, but AFAIK 
>>it has never been done (and would entail one heck of a court battle 
>>under the current outdated mining laws). They also still have to 
>>let the patenting agency access the property anytime they feel like 
>>it. This latter has been a bone of contention among certain 
>>to-remain-unnamed miners and the USFS here in Oregon.
>Mostly wrong; patented mining claims are fee simple: the federal 
>government gives up all rights, just like it does with most private 
>property. A patented mining claim is just like any other piece of 
>property in a county, it is now subject to the county laws and 
>ordinances and the state laws and ordinances and only those federal 
>laws that apply to any private property.
Tell that to the Ochoco National Forest, Lanny. As you once said, the 
gummint interprets the 1872 Mining Law as it sees fit, and these 
interpretations can vary over a wide spectrum between agencies and 
even forests or BLM districts. They have been using the environmental 
consequences of mining as an excuse to access patented properties on 
the forest for quite a few years (at least 20 years in one case). 
Consequences to the Canadian lynx, no less, which no one doubts has 
been extirpated from Oregon since at least the 1950s.

>The owner of an unpanted mining claim has to deal with the federal 
>government first for mining operations, then the state or county. 
>The owner of a patented mining claim only has to deal with the state 
>and county governments or the federal environmental laws as they 
>apply to all private land. The owners of patented mining claims do 
>not have to deal with mining plans with the federal government like 
>holders of unpatented claims. In fact, that is the main reason that 
>mining companies like to patent mining claims--get the federal 
>government off their backs and just deal with the state.
Yep, until they pull an extirpated species out of their orifices.

>Veiled threats to take back patented properties are just that: 
>veiled threats. A mining claim is patented as fee simple land, all 
>federal government rights are given up. The patenting process does 
>not require that the land be used for mining, there are no 
>requirements. The federal government has no more rights to enter a 
>patented mining claim than it has to enter any private property. The 
>federal government is not going to take back patented mining claims 
>anymore than it is going to take back homesteads, timber patents, 
>railroad patents, etc. I'm sure all those rich people sitting in 
>multimillion dollar homes on patented mining claims in Aspen, Park 
>City, Sun Valley, etc. are going to be giving up their land to the feds.
Like I said, they will use threats when it suits their purpose. I 
happen to think they are empty threats, as do you.

>Regards,
>
>Lanny

Tim Fisher
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
Owner, Fisher Fisheries, Ltd.
Email address at http://OreRockOn.com