GENERAL33431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page Five Taken into consideration is the fact that there may be a presumption that a particular location is valid when challenged by later locators. However, that presumption does not extend to the point where an invalid location will exclude the general public from making a valid lo- cation on the same mineral deposit. The purpose of the mining law is to further the speedy and orderly development of the resources of the public land and that purpose is not met by acknowledging that invalid mining claims are valid. The evidence introduced by plaintiff by 3 lay persons was entirely insufficient to convince this finder of fact that plaintiff and the other locators were justified in relying on the lode locations where there were no lodes. The opinions of the 3 lay witnesses was not at all convincing. They testified there were veins in place, but there was nothing to support those opinions. The more sati:afactory and convincing evidence was that of the geologists Diyers and Johnson. The conclusion here is that the geologists were correct in stating there were no veins or lodes on the claims, Pilot #1, Mukunda, and l4ukunda #2 and i:hat the conclusions of the "rockhounds" was in error. This toaster is aware that there are mineral deposits where: it is difficult to determine whether thL deposits should be properly located as a lode or a placer and that there are eases which so hold. In this case, that is not the situeition. Neither the locator, the lay r.+itnesses, or the yeoloyists described any lode within Pilot '!l, *".ukunda, or J~tukunda #2. There was no reference to any footwalls, hanyi.ng walls, or other geological or mining criteria which would indicate to this Master that there was a body o.f minex'al bearing rock within walls of neighboring rock. Plair~i:iffs strongest witness, Blair Roberts, was unable to pinpoint any veins of ore on any of those claims unless the blocks of granite that he found could be considered such, and he acknowledged those had been moved, and were not "in Flace". Plaintiff enjoys the aesthetic value of the claims, and the environment would probably be better protected if she were to prevail. However, that does not seem to be the purpose of the Federal and State statutes concerning location of mining claims. This 'caster was not convinced by Plaintiff's testimony that veins were found by her and the other locators. Plaintiffs evidence by way of letter from the Forest Service and payment of some taxes to the Park County Treasurer. does not create lodes which otherwise do not exist.