Legislation & Regulation
Suction Dredging Battle Escalates
December 2014 by Scott Harn
• State attorneys claim the Court of Appeals wrongly relied on South Dakota Mining Association v. Lawrence County regarding federal preemption...Additional articles that might interest you...
Legislative and Regulatory Update
January 2016
• More roadblocks in southern California
• Greater Sage-grouse withdrawals
• More roadblocks in southern California
• Greater Sage-grouse withdrawals
Legislative and Regulatory Update
December 2010
• The good, the bad, and the ugly
• California and Oregon dredge permits
• The good, the bad, and the ugly
• California and Oregon dredge permits
Oregon Anti-Dredging Bill
March 2011
SB 765...would tax suction gold dredgers by charging a $50 annual fee for in-state dredgers and a whopping $2,500 fee for out-of-state dredgers for each county where the miner intends to dredge.
SB 765...would tax suction gold dredgers by charging a $50 annual fee for in-state dredgers and a whopping $2,500 fee for out-of-state dredgers for each county where the miner intends to dredge.
Legislative and Regulatory Update
January 2019
- Zinke leaving office
- Property rights triumph over critical habitat says Supreme Court
- Water of the United States
Our Readers Say
April 2015
Then I had one of my worst experiences as a prospector when I visited the US Forest Service office for this area.
Small Miner Beats Forest Service in Court
January 2013
Thomas Tierney has been a long-time subscriber to ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal and has read about the many battles between miners and overzealous regulators. Then he faced his own battle.
Thomas Tierney has been a long-time subscriber to ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal and has read about the many battles between miners and overzealous regulators. Then he faced his own battle.
Forest Service v. Michael & Linda Backlund
December 2010
On Tuesday morning, August 26, 2010, my clients Michael and Linda Backlund were forced to plead guilty to a charge of violating 36 CFR §261.10(b), which criminalizes maintaining a residence on Forest Service land without authorization “when such authorization is required.” This is a new regulation pursuant to which virtually anything, even a tent, is an unlawful “residence” unless authorized in advance.
On Tuesday morning, August 26, 2010, my clients Michael and Linda Backlund were forced to plead guilty to a charge of violating 36 CFR §261.10(b), which criminalizes maintaining a residence on Forest Service land without authorization “when such authorization is required.” This is a new regulation pursuant to which virtually anything, even a tent, is an unlawful “residence” unless authorized in advance.
Subscription Required:
The Bawl Mill
• Legislative and Regulatory Update
• Ask The Experts
• Ask The Experts
• Ask The Experts
• Uncovering the Find of a Lifetime
• Guinea Africa: Gold, Ebola, and a Monkey Barbecue
• Finding Gold in Tailing Piles
• Small-Scale Processing of Hard Rock Ores
• 2014 Index - Annual Tables of Content
• Why Did This Silver Mine Close? - Pt III
• Get The Lead Out!
• Melman on Gold & Silver
• Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices
Free:
Hundreds Rally in Support of PLP Octoberfest Fundraiser
