On 6/23/20 4:45 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:

> Interesting.  I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim
> covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government, but that the
> claim holder had the right to extract minerals and hopefully an
> obligation to pay the Federal Government some royalties if they were
> successful.  

  What happened is some mining claims were mostly exploratory, and often
didn't find anything worth extracting. There was a process to convert
public land to private land. My documents are from 1903, and signed by
President William Harrison. I also have to pay annual rent for my access
road from the Forest Service, and do all the road maintainance. This is
very common around here in the Rockies.

  I totally agree about camping issue, but I make personal data files
from the USFS landowner data, or County parcel data. I've been climbing
in Wyoming, where people greet you with guns if you're in the wrong place...

> I know exactly what you are talking about, but apparently it is some
> international standard that national forest like areas are called
> protected areas and assigned a certain level of protection, even if in
> reality they are less protected than if they were privately owned.

  Something I learned many years ago when I was caretaker of a very
large cattle ranch is that unless your no trespassing signs are every
430ft, you can't enforce anything. A jeep club once had a rally in our
summer pasture, and destroyed a wetland at 10,000ft in the process, and
there was nothing we could do about it. It was on land leased from the
Forest Service for grazing. The only protected areas around here are the
wilderness areas.

        - rob -

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to