It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oregon gold mining stand off with BLM….Next bundy ranch

page: 2
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wasn't saying they were, was saying bundy was.




Ah...gotcha.




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This seems to have been going on for a while:

Won't someone please think of the fish...


Friday, February 10, 2012

A Southwest Oregon miner's second conviction for illegal mining has led to a jail sentence. The Oregonian reports that Clifford Tracy was cited for ignoring the BLM's gold mining procedures at a mining claim on Galice Creek. The creek is a direct tributary of the National Wild and Scenic Rogue River. It would be withdrawn from mineral entry, subject to valid existing right, by Senator Ron Wyden's Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion.

U. S. Department of Justice photo of illegal mining operation on Galice Creek
Click here to read the Oregonian's news brief and here to read the U.S. Attorney's press release. See the photo essay below of the mining at Galice Creek and description of Mr. Tracy's unlawful mining operation on Sucker Creek.

Read this guest opinion in the New York Times by two fisheries scientists on the need to change the 1872 Mining Law.

Both Galice and Sucker Creek are critical habitat for Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho Salmon. View the Draft SONCC Coho Recovery Plan here.

Mr. Tracy was convicted on a similar charge in 2009 at his mining claim on Sucker Creek, a tributary of the Illinois River. However, he didn't receive any jail time and because he filed for bankruptcy he wasn't required to pay for reclamation. Instead the taxpayers bore the $30,695 cost required to mitigate the damage to the Riparian Reserve of Sucker Creek.


Mining operations impact coho habitat: The grim reality



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
At this point, it seems like the only information coming through is from people with a vested interest in being seen as victims - not saying they aren't being victimized, but I have a strong sense the entire picture is not yet clear.

When I hear "taking Federal lands back" I see greedy corporations wanting to set a precedent to take land that belongs in our state parks, etc. for their own. They could use a judgement like this to begin further eroding "publicly held land." To "take back land" means to take back something from me and from all of us, for their own personal business use.

Maybe I'm just not seeing clearly, I don't know, I just don't have enough information to pass sweeping judgements at this point. It's like trying to decide a legal case using only the testimony of the plaintiff.

- AB
edit on 13-4-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
At this point, it seems like the only information coming through is from people with a vested interest in being seen as victims - not saying they aren't being victimized, but I have a strong sense the entire picture is not yet clear.

When I hear "taking Federal lands back" I see greedy corporations wanting to set a precedent to take land that belongs in our state parks, etc. for their own. They could use a judgement like this to begin further eroding "publicly held land." To "take back land" means to take back something from me and from all of us, for their own personal business use.

Maybe I'm just not seeing clearly, I don't know, I just don't have enough information to pass sweeping judgements at this point. It's like trying to decide a legal case using only the testimony of the plaintiff.

- AB


Yeah....it also is stated on the Galice website that they are not yet able to divulge any of the fine details on this case due to legal tactics reasons, so it is likely we won't hear a lot about this until MSM picks it up and forces the issue to the point that details have to come out.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Agreed, the sources that are carrying this are not very neutral in the matter.

Think we are only getting one side of the story.

I did a little digging and found this, seems to be about an abandoned mine in almost the same area.
activerain.trulia.com...
And about how it is polluting the water.

Does any one know if there are people even actively mining on this land?

Even the galice miners website doesn't have much on that, unless I missed it.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So are they free loading at the tax payer dime and not paying taxes?

Since we are comparing this to bundy.


Sources seems to be all pretty sensationalized, but still sounds like more of a legit claim then old man bundy.



Mining claims require an annual fees and other stipulations that the BLM and state DFW implemented. There is no freeloading and there has to be work done to maintain the claim. There are rules about the land use and the claims are mostly unpatented. That means the claim is on the mineral rights, but they do not own the land.

The idea is that the minerals (and the land) is the people's. If you were to perform the research, stake the claim and maintain the fees, the minerals would come out and make it to the market anyway...without some corporation just buying it all up and ravaging the land. Small scale mining has limits to the size and type of equipment that can be used and the miners police themselves pretty well for leaving the earth the way it was....rather than the slash and strip mining a hundred years ago.

ETA - Just saw the above posts....yes, there are always some bad apples.
to them.

edit on 13-4-2015 by ronjer because: above


(post by Granite removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I didn't know the Baal Lying Machine was interested in gold. Learn something new everyday.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This is all very one sided at the moment.
I have a feeling attitudes might change when more information comes to light. If it transpires that the BLM is acting because those on the claim/s have repeatedly violated environmental laws, safety laws or even began operating on land they never had authorization to use, everyone here ranting in their favor is going to look a little stupid, no?

I think, before people start waving their flags and the constitution around while firing rifles into the air, they should get the full story.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Too late. BLM already have cross hairs on their backs because of Bundy. I think it's a good thing. If more police departments dealt with that same pressure they wouldn't get away with half the crap they do. It's funny how Measles outbreaks and Lady Gaga is what everyone hears about, never anything real like this.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

"Full story out"?

The BLM is IGNORING FOIA requests...ILLEGALLY!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This is the same BLM office that refuses to prosecute tree huggers that set in trees and block logging operations after the government approved the logging leases.

Many high ranking BLM and forest service office people are card carrying Sierra Club and ELF/EF members.

And many of these people want to ban metal detecting and even panning along with dredging.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

Says one side of the issue...
Do we just need to take the miners words as fact at this point?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Granite

Says one side of the issue...
Do we just need to take the miners words as fact at this point?


Well...I guess I could put in an FOIA request on the info and see if denied. I do a lot of them for a couple other areas of research so should be pretty straight forward...

Will see if I can get it done tomorrow....likely I wouldn't hear back for a while as they tend to take a couple months for the ones I've done before.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
In 1992, the United States General Accounting Office estimated that under the patenting provision of the 1872 Mining Law 3.2 million acres of federal land was transferred from public ownership to private ownership. For these 3.2 million acres of land belonging to the public, the United States Treasury received either $5.00 or $2.50 per acre. In 1989, the GAO estimated that for the 20 patents it reviewed, the federal government had received less than $4,500 since 1970 for lands valued between $13.8 million and $47.9 million.

The longevity, injustice and strength of the 1872 Mining Law is hard to comprehend at the beginning of the 21st century. To this day, its central tenets remains in effect requiring that the federal government giveaway, for free, all valuable (hardrock) mineral deposits on publicly owned land—usually National Forests or Bureau of Land Management lands—that remain open to operation the antiquated statute. It also requires that these priceless heritage lands be given away for as little as $2.50 per acre if an individual or corporation can demonstrate that the area contains a valuable mineral deposit.

mininginsworegon.blogspot.com...

K~



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
In 1992, the United States General Accounting Office estimated that under the patenting provision of the 1872 Mining Law 3.2 million acres of federal land was transferred from public ownership to private ownership. For these 3.2 million acres of land belonging to the public, the United States Treasury received either $5.00 or $2.50 per acre. In 1989, the GAO estimated that for the 20 patents it reviewed, the federal government had received less than $4,500 since 1970 for lands valued between $13.8 million and $47.9 million.

The longevity, injustice and strength of the 1872 Mining Law is hard to comprehend at the beginning of the 21st century. To this day, its central tenets remains in effect requiring that the federal government giveaway, for free, all valuable (hardrock) mineral deposits on publicly owned land—usually National Forests or Bureau of Land Management lands—that remain open to operation the antiquated statute. It also requires that these priceless heritage lands be given away for as little as $2.50 per acre if an individual or corporation can demonstrate that the area contains a valuable mineral deposit.

mininginsworegon.blogspot.com...

K~


Well....that is pretty interesting. Is Oregon the only area with these laws?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


How does it work if what you are requesting is part of a current legal battle though?


But ya would be interesting on what the response is.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Granite
Says one side of the issue...
Do we just need to take the miners words as fact at this point?

Yes, fact until proven otherwise.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Would need to do more research, but as far as Oregon is concerned they take their rivers & creeks seriously.

There are many restrictions on any type of construction or modifications within so many feet of any stream or river.
The big logging companies aren't even allowed to cut trees within 100 feet of any water way for fear of contamination or soil damage.

More than likely when this all shakes out the miners were probably found violating these restrictions.
K~



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Question -

What is "coordination authorization"?


Also - BLM's side of the story:
BLM - Oregon/Washington Abandoned Mine Land Program

Secondly -
The State / County / Local government and the Federal government are separate sovereigns and in general don't require approval while exercising their respective authority.

If the area in question falls under BLM guidance / authority a court order would not be needed. Also here is the 1955 law being cited and from what I am seeing they either failed to read the entire law (7 pages) or did not understand what they read or simply ignored the parts that did not support their legal argument.

ACT OF JULY 23, 1955-(SURFACE RESOURCES ACT OF 1955)


* - OregonGold.net - Permits and Legal info
* - Federal land ownership and administration in Oregon.
* - Josephine County Oregon


Economy

Most of the commercial activity during the territorial period centered on gold mining and the supply of provisions to miners. Miners had been active in the Rogue and Illinois valleys since 1851. By the late 1850s, however, gold mining was beginning to decline and population dwindled as well. In 1859, gold was discovered along the Fraser River in British Columbia and numerous people left Josephine County to search for valuable claims there.

Josephine County shares the Rogue Valley and Applegate Valley wine appellations with Jackson County. The U.S. government owns the majority of the land within the county boundaries, with the Bureau of Land Management owning 28% of the lands within the county boundaries, most of which are Oregon and California Railroad lands, and the Forest Service owning 39%.

Grants Pass is now the departure point for most Rogue River scenic waterway guided fishing and boat trips, one of the destinations being Hellgate canyon. The Illinois River, one of the Rogue's tributaries, has also been designated a scenic waterway.


edit on 13-4-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join