Moderator: Moderators
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.
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?
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 :)
l lambert wrote:Congrats Evan, you might actually be "a good old rebel". The two statements were mined from earlier in this thread. The first is pure bull and the second is a bad idea! Leo
wyandottecaver wrote:wow,
the BLM actually reverted management to the Bates? Whos ONLY legal interest in this piece of PUBLIC property was their own previously lapsed (and supposedly now proved invalid) claim. So they deny Shumans claim (rightfully) based on it being invalid, but hand over management of the ACEC to PRIVATE party who previously commercialized the site by accepting fees and did this only because they were a previous holder of THE SAME invalid claim?
Good to know there isn't just 1 crooked side in this debacle. No doubt the local BLM manager and shuman were twins seperated at birth.
wyandottecaver wrote:Then educate me rather than saying I must be crazy to find something wrong.
Other than the bates "being there first". How does the BLM legally justify placing one private group in charge of public property over another? There are apparently no valid or legal mining claims to support such control by any party. I am therefore wondering how ANY private entity can be placed in a position of authority or management over this piece of public property? Obviously they no longer have a mining claim. Do they hold a grazing lease?
Having the Bates resume their personal fiefdom over the area may well be a good outcome for the cave. I'm not so sure its a good outcome for setting precedents of private control over public domain, let alone a good example of policy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users