wyandottecaver wrote:Dale,
thanx for the replies. Actually for #1 I was referring to claims in general with respect to FCRPA. i.e. FCRPA may not supercede mining claims existing when the law was passed but might (likely) or maybe not supercede claims made since.
We had a case in Utah where a cave was declared significant in 1993 that existed in a mineral claim filed before the law was passed in 1988. About 5 years ago, the claimant filed an intention to open pit the claim, which would have totally destroyed the cave. We were told there was nothing that we could do because of the following clause in the act:
"(d) Existing rights
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect the full operation of the mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States, or otherwise affect valid existing rights."
So, the FRCPA did not supercede existing mining rights. The open pit didn't happen. The claimant spent many, many thousands of dollars to drill out his prospect and found nothing. Even without the act, you cannot gain possession of a cave by filing a mineral claim on it unless you can demonstrate the cave contains enough precious metal ore that a reasonable person can mine for a profit. But, if a claim is filed on property that contains a cave and also has demonstrable valuable mineral deposits, the claim can be valid, but it does not include the cave, even with out the Act. You may have a case to go to court to stop mining to protect the cave. How the Act would also help would be up to the courts, I guess. There have been hundreds and hundreds of cases by environmentalists to prevent mining because of endangered species, etc., and they have won many cases. One would hope a cave could be saved by the Act and the fact that the entire mountain is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
wyandottecaver wrote:More questions...though more rhetorical in nature
Unless the BLM has a rabbit up their hat they seem to be in a pickle. If the old claim was not valid then why let private individuals control a public resource for personal profit for decades? Why not officially declare it invalid and assume control? If the old claim was invalid why issue a new one? If you allowed the holder of the previous claim to operate the cave how can you discriminate against the new holder from doing the same?
This situation has been described several times, but it is just hitting me that others don't have any idea of the physical situation concerning Crystal Ball Cave. When I drive to the cave, gas is usually obtained in Delta, Utah, a town of about 3,200 souls. Another 8 miles is Hinkley, population 755. From there to the Utah/Nevada border is 80 miles of NOTHING. There are no lights until Snake Valley is entered, about 15 miles from the border. I have driven this road dozens of time without seeing another car, coming or going. A half mile from the border is a gravel road leading north to the cave. For the next 30 miles there are 3 houses, but only 1 may be occupied. At the 30 mile mark a road leads east for a mile to a house labeled Gandy on the map. A mile to the right is another house, where the Bates family lives, the cave's protectors. Another 2.5 miles leads to the cave. Most of this is barren except for the usual sagebrush community of plants and trees around the houses. From the above description, it is hoped the readers can get the true impression of desolation and isolation of the cave.
From the BLM office in Fillmore it is 40 miles to Delta. Add this together gives the BLM a 155 mile drive to the cave, one way. The BLM had seriously considered controlling the cave, but lacked the finances and motivation, since their plan, illegal as it was, worked just fine. For decades. They let private individuals control it and knowingly make an illegal profit because it was the easy way. It is that simple. So, let's sue the BLM. (Everyone connected with this is long retired.) The office issuing the claim doesn't check the area or previous claims, only what is on the filing form and let's the chips fall where they may. Why did the BLM not invalidate the new claims when they allowed the old one to stand? Because the office is entirely staffed with new personnel who go by the book, not a handshake.
If you declare the new claim invalid do you owe compensation to the new holder since the BLM own policies with respect to that area implied a valid claim for decades. etc. I'm sure the courts will answer them for you dale :)
No, no, you are misreading what I have previously said. The BLM NEVER, NEVER, implied a valid claim for decades. The BLM admitted orally to everyone that asked that the claims were invalid. They just looked the other way and hoped for the best. Now they're in a mess. And don't get me started on details of what happened in between some of this. "Stuff" happens.
Posted: Aug 27, 2009 3:40 pm
The two statements were mined from earlier in this thread. The first is pure bull and the second is a bad idea! Leo