Mining Case Law

Karuk Tribe vs. US Forest Service   July 2005

This case is very similar to our current SREP vs. USFS except that it was in Northern California and the Klamath Forest. The Tribe attempted to force the Forest Service to enforce a "Standard and Guide Line MM-1" regarding plans of operation from the Clinton "Owl Plan" when it is clearly contrary to current law, the mining regulations at 36 CFR Part 228. The illegally listed Coho Salmon was also used to attempt to force the FS to disregard the mining regulations

Judge Saundra Armstrong denied the Karuk suit for summary judgment against the USFS.

USFS Opposition to Summary Judgment (Karuk) June 2005

The above link is the Forest Service brief filed in opposition to the Karuk lawsuit.

Dave McCracken of the New 49'ers wrote:

This is probably the best look you can get anywhere at what the USFS presently believes its legal position to be regarding the management of mining activity on the National Forest.   If I had to sum it up, it would be something on the order of:

"The general mining law freely allows Americans the unhindered right to pursue minerals on the public lands; and if they are not creating a significant disturbance, the USFS has no authority to do anything about it..."
 

USA vs. Lex & Waggoner May 2003

The appeal judge determined that: "As the regulations are currently structured, so long as NO earthmoving or tree-cutting is involved, a miner can camp on his claim indefinitely"

USA vs. Shumway

Dec 1999 The appeal judge wrote: "The Shumways were not guests at their millsite, but property owners. Failure to file an approved operating plan cannot, ipso facto, cause a forfeiture of the bona fide claim owner's equitable title and possessory right."  The opinion traces the very interesting historical context of the development and origins of the 1872 mining law.