Prospecting near Yellowstone park.
Last Post 24 Sep 2018 10:56 AM by WALTER EASON. 13 Replies.
Printer Friendly
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Ken CastilloUser is Offline
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Posts:18



--
12 Sep 2018 06:58 AM
    Last weekend I went up to Cooke City to do some prospecting. Went into town for lunch and was told it was made illegal to do any prospecting in the NF for several miles outside of Yellowstone park and couldn't go to the GPAA claim there.  I have sence found out that the locals don't like protecting because of the government's allowance to that Canadian company to prospect there and will not tell the truth. 

     

    Nevertheless I will be there again Saturday.  Has anyone prospected that area. Turns out that the GPAA claims are the only active ones amongst the hundreds of closed claims. 

    Joseph LoydUser is Offline
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:542



    --
    12 Sep 2018 10:30 AM
    if the other claims are closed and no one owns them they are open to prospecting.good luck.
    Member LDMA and several other clubs in CA.
    Ken CastilloUser is Offline
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:18



    --
    12 Sep 2018 11:21 AM
    I realize that now. The problem is with the locals. Most all the claims were at one time patented. However the US government bought back most all of the land.  You can see the info with the USGS topo overly on Google maps. Then use cadastral and you can see who owns each property. 

     

    WALTER EASONUser is Offline
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:580



    --
    12 Sep 2018 01:30 PM
    most of the time they are reopened to mineral entry, this can be checked in the General Land Office web site. You will see where the area is put back into mineral entry on the historical index and and the plats should have indicators that show that.
    Ken CastilloUser is Offline
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:18



    --
    17 Sep 2018 12:44 PM
    Talked to the area geologist and found out that the entire Cooke city area is permanently closed to prospecting by an act of Congress.
    Not allowed on the GPAA claim as it requires a validity check to be completed.
    WILLIAM HALLUser is Offline
    Lost Dutchman
    Lost Dutchman
    Posts:447



    --
    17 Sep 2018 03:23 PM
    Dont believe everything you are told, even by forest circus peoples
    Research and verify with your own two eyeballs
    The USgov bought back most of the land....why ?
    Area 51A ?
    Closed by an act of congress ? Why ?
    Something dont smell right. Could be legit, see above, research and verify
    Just an opinion

    Bill
    So much river....So little time....Get out there
    ARTHUR WAUGHUser is Offline
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:686



    --
    17 Sep 2018 03:38 PM

    Try calling the state BLM office and talk to the mining/minerals folks. If you give them township, range, and section, they can tell you who owns the mineral rights, if either open or closed to mineral entry/location. Also LR200 will give you any claims, either open closed or pending down to the 1/4 section, and the office can break it down further.

    Since BLM handles all mining claims and minerals those are the people to go to for answers. I'll go along with Bill here, you usually get conflicting information from anyone at USFS and it can vary from Ranger District to Ranger District, even on the same National Forest.  They either don't have a clue, or personnel will take either the easy way out and say "no", or are furthering their own agenda.

    OHV/Recreation Representative, John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council, BLM--- President, Wolfpack 4x4's, Region 5, Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel Drive Association--- Member- Mid Valley Prospectors, Brownsville, OR chapter GPAA, Willamette Valley Miners, Bohemia Mine Owners Association
    Benjamin CrainUser is Offline
    Lost Dutchman
    Lost Dutchman
    Posts:345



    --
    17 Sep 2018 03:45 PM
    There are some military ICBM sights in that area as well as Montana and the 4 Corners, we see test flight from our back door almost weekly, plus some other really bizarre stuff. if it is fenced and says DO NOT TRESSPASS I recommend you do so. I have a picture of me standing on a few cubic miles of Uranium ore behind me just waiting to be processed, and the sign warning of radioactive materials is behind me.
    ARTHUR WAUGHUser is Offline
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:686



    --
    17 Sep 2018 03:48 PM
    Yeah, they don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to a fenced Minuteman site (from an old USAF guy).
    OHV/Recreation Representative, John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council, BLM--- President, Wolfpack 4x4's, Region 5, Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel Drive Association--- Member- Mid Valley Prospectors, Brownsville, OR chapter GPAA, Willamette Valley Miners, Bohemia Mine Owners Association
    Ken CastilloUser is Offline
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:18



    --
    18 Sep 2018 09:40 AM
    In August 1997, the area was withdrawn from mineral exploration. See 62FR 44136 public land order No. 7282.
    It expired in 2017. However it was renewed and allowed to expire because legislation was to be slipped into the spending bill. The best I can find out is that Steve Daines did not put it into the bill. However the BLS thinks that it found a way into a different bill, but is unsure, and are trying to find out what is correct.
    WILLIAM HALLUser is Offline
    Lost Dutchman
    Lost Dutchman
    Posts:447



    --
    18 Sep 2018 03:20 PM
    Ken,

    It may be a long process to gather the info, be patient but diligent
    Thanks for going down that "road"

    Uranium/missile sites would be a good reason for the gov to buy back land
    of which I would gladly sell it to em

    Bill
    So much river....So little time....Get out there
    Ken CastilloUser is Offline
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:18



    --
    19 Sep 2018 06:07 AM
    Here it is

    This also means that NO PANNING or Sluice Box are allowed at the OLE MINER & SEVEN-DEE Claims.

    Public Law 106-113 from Nov 29, 1999

    [[Page 113 STAT. 1501A-174]]

    and the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate: Provided, That subject to valid existing rights, all federally-owned lands and interests in lands within the New World Mining District comprising approximately 26,223 acres, more or less, which are described in a Federal Register notice dated August 19, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 44136-44137), are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws, and from location, entry and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
    WILLIAM HALLUser is Offline
    Lost Dutchman
    Lost Dutchman
    Posts:447



    --
    19 Sep 2018 03:29 PM
    What the heck is a validity check ?
    Kevin Hogland offered that info today and as Ken mentioned BLM is/will conducted a validity test
    The way I read the info, that claim as well as others will be withdrawn for any entry
    Chances are one of the hoops required will have been missed....claim closed

    Thanks Ken for diggin up that information

    Bill
    So much river....So little time....Get out there
    WALTER EASONUser is Offline
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:580



    --
    24 Sep 2018 10:56 AM
    Depending on use of VALIDITY it can be real different;

    Validly filed claim: A claim which has been located and filed properly both locally and with BLM
    Valid claim: Claim which is accepted as what a prudent man would continue to use and is commercially marketable for profit.

    Making a claim valid through a validity test is what is being referred to. This entails a legal process with persons licensed specifically for this. They need to test for results through samples that have to maintain a chain of custody to determine the following:

            Prudent man test (rule): "A person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine… Castle v. Womble, 19 L.D. 455, 457 (1894)
            Marketability test (rule): Addition to the “Prudent Man Test” originally for the common varieties of minerals is at times used in locatable minerals. Purpose is for evidence that a mineral deposit is not of economic value and cannot in all likelihood be operated at a profit may well suggest that a claimant seeks the land for other purposes. United States v. Coleman 390 U. S. 599 (1968) & Foster v. Seaton, 106 U.S.App. D.C. 253 was explained as “such a `mineral locator or applicant, to justify his possession, must show that by reason of accessibility, bona fides in development, proximity to market, existence of present demand, and other factors, the deposit is of such value that it can be mined, removed and disposed of at a profit.'”

    In some cases usually with non-precious locatable minerals the following standard could be added:

              Excess Reserve or Too Much Test: A little know test that could be used for non-precious locatable minerals but more often for mineral leases; this is where the amount held under claim is more than what would be profitable to market. Clear Gravel Enterprises v. Keil, 505 F.2d 180 (9th Cir. 1974), cert.

    The area of problems that can cause this to be invalidated would be if at any time the chain of custody of mineral samples is broken or if the testing authorities are found not to be licensed properly for the agency and test being done. Testing us usually done on every 10 acres with exceptions allowed in some instances.





    You are not authorized to post a reply.