Log in

View Full Version : Federal claims in State claim areas



fineswme
03-06-2013, 09:57 AM
Would it be safe to say the federal claims existing on state lands are a "product" of lands claimed prior to Alaska becoming a state ??? Take for instance the 40 mile area , there are many federal claims intermixed with many state claims ...

Were all claims made prior to Alaska becoming a state made under the federal jurisdiction and guidelines ???

When Alaska became a state were the claim owners given a "choice" to run under either state or federal on state picked lands ???

chickenminer
03-06-2013, 02:10 PM
Would it be safe to say the federal claims existing on state lands are a "product" of lands claimed prior to Alaska becoming a state ??? Take for instance the 40 mile area , there are many federal claims intermixed with many state claims ...

No it would not. There are no Federal claims "existing on State land". It is Federal land until relinquished by the Federal Gov't. You can still stake a Federal claim on Federal land that is not under some kind of withdrawl.



Were all claims made prior to Alaska becoming a state made under the federal jurisdiction and guidelines ???

Since it was all Federal land, one would assume so unless there was some special provision. It would of been hard to stake a State mining claim when there was no
State land!



When Alaska became a state were the claim owners given a "choice" to run under either state or federal on state picked lands ???

Alaska is STILL selecting their land under the Statehood Act. If the State selects an area that has valid perfected Federal mining claims, those claims remain Federal.
No, we were not given any kind of option at State selection time. As a Federal claim holder you can always choose to restake as State. Just be very careful your ground is not under some kind of withdrawn status.

fineswme
03-06-2013, 02:39 PM
Dick thanks for your reply ...

The reason for wanting clarification on those claims prior to Statehood was I thought there may be a different governing body or agency other than the U.S Federal Govt. (BLM) in control of U.S. territories lands such as Guam , Puerto Rico , Virgin Islands , America Samoa , etc ....

Another question I have then would be as follows :
Could it then be assumed that all Federal mining claims in State selected lands would have been the original Discoveries "Proven" by the old-timers in those areas that are now owned/selected by the State of Alaska ???

shaftsinkerawc
03-06-2013, 03:48 PM
Transferring Federal Claims to State Claims can be tricky! Make sure you are not overstaked by State Claims before considering this as the overstaker has precedence over you if you let your Fed. Claims lapse even if you stake the state claims prior to lapse.

Brian Berkhahn
03-06-2013, 04:29 PM
Allan,
Thats actually an old wives tale.. if a person who own's a federal is actually able to transfer it to state they would stay as the senior claimant. HOWEVER, the ground does have to be state selected in order for this to happen.. the state no longer lets people just change their claims from Federal to State without it being selected by the state first, they used to a long time ago. I was looking at purchasing a Federal mining claim only if I could change it to state.. the DNR told me exactly what I stated above so I just let the claim go.

Still waiting on the email from you about the F&G

chickenminer
03-06-2013, 08:05 PM
Another question I have then would be as follows :
Could it then be assumed that all Federal mining claims in State selected lands would have been the original Discoveries "Proven" by the old-timers in those areas that are now owned/selected by the State of Alaska ???

Well, I think the only thing you could assume is that the claims were staked prior to State selection. Certainly you can't assume they were the original discoveries.
Take the Fortymile for example. There has been federal claims staked, dropped and restaked many times between the original discovery back in 1889 and the start of the State selection areas.

I think what you are getting at though is if you see patches of Federal claims in a predominately State owned area, this might be an indicator of known "old" workings? Now there could be some legitimacy to that. Just realize a lot of old Federal claims could have been dropped/lost and or the owners willingly converted to State claims.

fineswme
03-06-2013, 08:38 PM
Dick , I was looking around the forty mile area (mapper) ; playing with the overlays last night when I began to notice how many Federal claims remain in you neck of the woods ... I was surprised to see how much of that area seems to be blanketed with state claims (since statehood ?)... Is there hard rock mining in that area today or do you for see any in the future given the amount of claims staked outside the river basins ??? Would it be high-bench mining going on that would explain the claims outside the basins ???

Steve Herschbach
03-06-2013, 11:09 PM
The big companies are staking virtually all open state land in historic areas like the Fortymile for hard rock exploration.

micropedes1
03-07-2013, 07:17 AM
The 40 Mile has quite a bit of oversight from the involved agencies. So, it pays to stay as current on regulations as possible. DNR will tell you that anything within the wetted boundary of the river (up to the normal high-water mark) belongs to the state. BLM will tell you something similar. The only discrepancy, or room for interpretation, is where that normal high-water mark is located.

During at least 2 of the last 3 years, high water has chased me and my equipment out of the river and well up into the timber, sometimes as much as several hundred yards from the channel. Would I consider dredging up there?? Not hardly. Even digging a decent latrine away from the river warrants an inspection from the BLM "real estate and campground approval" squad. That being said, I have a question of my own...

Lets say that the bucketlines dredged a split section of the river and their tailings were sufficient to alter the flow. Is the now-occluded section state or federal? (it was federal when the bucketline went thru) The occluded section still becomes active, but only during high-water events.

geowizard
03-07-2013, 08:04 AM
ok. ok. ok! :)

There's a lot of confusion. There are still misunderstandings. The questions are confusing and show the lack of understanding of property transfer in Alaska.

If a question is "general" then at best an answer can only be general.

Bucket dredging and occlusion or non-occlusion, diversion, damming, etc. do not cause a change in ownership.

For questions of ownership of a "specific" piece of land in Alaska, goto to the Alaska DNR website. THEN go to the DNR recorder's webpage and goto "search records" and then select search by "MTRSC". Enter the meridian, township, range, and section.

A status sheet will pop up. It provides the "recorded history" of the property in question.

Another option from the DNR webpage select case files/status - a page opens and on the right side, you can do the same as above; enter meridian, township, range, section. The results page will provide links to recorded documents related the property in question.

A third option if you are already in mapper, use the query pointer. Make dot on the property of interest. Then, select get query results or similar and select from the list of query options what you need to know.

- Geowizard

chickenminer
03-07-2013, 10:32 AM
Is there hard rock mining in that area today or do you for see any in the future given the amount of claims staked outside the river basins ??? Would it be high-bench mining going on that would explain the claims outside the basins ???

There is no operating lode mine in the Fortymile. Several prospects have been identified, but nothing of significant quantity to attract a large outfit has been delineated. Keep in mind these guys are NOT just looking for gold. It is my opinion that when (only a mater of time) a large mine opens up in the Fortymile it will be for a base metal and gold/silver will be a byproducts.

The high bench areas most definitely have potential in the Fortymile for old placers!
That is not why large blocks are being staked though, these guys are not really interested in placer deposits.

geowizard
03-07-2013, 11:04 AM
That's true, Dick. It is amazing that so much placer gold has been recovered, yet the lode deposits remain undiscovered!

fineswme:

With reference to the question:


" Federal claims in State claim areas
Would it be safe to say the federal claims existing on state lands are a "product" of lands claimed prior to Alaska becoming a state ??? Take for instance the 40 mile area , there are many federal claims intermixed with many state claims ... "

1. Federal mining claims are presently and always have been "located" on the "Federal doman" persuant to the Mining act of 1872. i.e. those claims located after 1872.

Alaska was purchased from the Russian Empire on October 18, 1867. If mining claims were "located" between that time and 1872, it was under the Land Grant Act (circa 1866) and those claims were probably recorded in a "Department of Alaska" land office.

On May 17th, 1884, Alaska became a "Judicial District" and was referred to as the District of Alaska. Mining claims were located on Federal Domain as before.

In 1912, Alaska became a territory and was referred to as the "Territory of Alaska". Again, nothing changed.

On July 7, 1958, The Alaska statehood act was signed and Alaska became a "state".

Since then Alaska has received "patents" from the Federal Government. Lands adminstered by the Department of Interior are still being conveyed through the patent process to the state of Alaska.

The State of Alaska DNR is the authority responsible for SOA lands.

What happens when a township is conveyed from DOI to the SOA?

1. The SOA selects lands to be conveyed. An interim patent is issued. Then, later, a final patent is issued. State selected lands are also selected by native corporations and given final patent to them under ANSCA. Usually with "split domain".

2. Mining claims located on Federal domain prior to selection have prior existing rights to remain located under the terms of the mining law of 1872. The SOA allows those mining claims to remain under control of the BLM.

3. A mining claimant with a mining claim located originally on federal domain has the option to loacate a SOA mining claim over the federal mining claim and drop the federal mining claim and "convert" the mining claim to a state of Alaska mining claim. (check the rules on this for certain)

4. Mining claims located on SOA selected lands (not yet given final patent) may be located but NOT mined until final patent is issued.
They are referred to as "select only" mining claims.

All of these conditions can be resolved and understood when the recorded documents at the DNR recorders office are viewed.

Federal mining claim status is found through the Alaska BLM website.

- Geowizard

fineswme
03-07-2013, 01:47 PM
Can anyone give example areas that would fit under this "select only" heading ???

Where can you find these "select only" designated areas as they come about, in the State system ???

Based on what criteria is the state selecting these areas ???

Who is actually involved/controlling with the state selective process ???

How much land is still up for grabs for the state in the selective process ???

Is it true the Alaskan Native organizations have not completed their selections of lands ???

Do the Alaska Natives take priority in land selections over the state ???

fineswme
03-07-2013, 03:15 PM
Started new thread ....

geowizard
03-08-2013, 06:45 AM
fineswme,

Here's a link to a fact sheet: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/mine_fs/stselect.pdf

DNR has a search window. DNR is the best source of answers to all of the above questions.

- Geowizard

fineswme
03-08-2013, 11:23 AM
Thanks Geo for that Heads-up bit of information, as that could be helpful in the future ....