Post Number: 19
|Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:21 am: ||
If you go
you'll find the data.
Perhaps Curly can superimpose the cut on
the claim map.
Incidentally, I believe it's the only claim
in the area. Most Geologists would laugh at
you if you filed in there.
Post Number: 56
|Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 2:38 pm: ||
How's this? The three irregular polygons are the clearcuts in this year's AWS, and the rectangle is the claim, I believe. BTW, the Claim Maps webpage is http://www.claimaps.mndm.gov.on.ca. The link you posted doesn't work.
Post Number: 24
|Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 5:46 am: ||
Thank you very much, and sorry about my link error.
If you get a chance could you zap that to my
direct email? This hole thing has a bee in
my bonnet, and maybe it's true that this can't
be stopped, but it oughta be stopped, and I'm
going to try to paddle that extra mile.
If you look in the southwest corner of your
image you will see the devastation done to
Crane Lake. As a kid, this whole area was
pristine. It's looking less and less pristine
Post Number: 14
|Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:37 pm: ||
OK guys; as some of you know, I've had my share of experience with this stuff.
A couple corrections;
1. tenure on a mining claim only lasts for 2 years, then it must be re-staked. If a patent is taken out on the claim, it then lasts for 21 years. If the claim in question is only a claim, then it must be re-staked every two years if no development work has been preformed on it.
2. Also, a mining claim only gives the owner "Mining Rights" - not "Surface Rights"... there is a big differrence.
I don't believe anyone who owns mining rights to a property can have any say on the logging activity that may occur on said property.
I think the most likely explanation for what's going on here is this guy just wants a camp out there and is playing the "prospector routine" as often occurs up here. With a new logging road going right past his claim, this gives him nice easy (lazy) access.
Post Number: 26
|Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 1:43 pm: ||
Thanks Mic Mac
Yes... I DO stand corrected... I misread, and as
the culprit, will apologize. I will also thank you for having more cajones than me to express more clearly my precise points.
I misread my printout, tenure is 2 years, not
three. (If its any help, I usually need to ask
my fiance how old I am... not good with any
numbers in conjunction with dates... an honest
and lifelong liability... and likely til dust.
I have the Claim Printout right in front of me
and I still had to mess it up!!!)
So, folks, tenure is 2 years, not three.
If patented, is not 16 years, as I said,
(Sorry ed...) but 21 years. I stand corrected
and thank Micmac, with whom I will consult
on futures queries: mineral. (appreciatively)
If he welcomes the opportunity.
Now, as regards surface rights, I'm pretty sure
I didn't refer to that at all? And, though I
expect an argument to that statement, let me
just say that if you were to read other
"experiential references" I made, and then put
them in context with what you "misinterpreted"
the real message is readily apparent, and I'm
pretty certain we agree with eachother.
I did 'suggest" that surface rights can be
influenced by "many other rights... mining,
cultural, habitat, etc... " and that point
is precisely proven by those various rights
dictating that the claimholders claim will
not be razed.
My disgust, is only with the fact that the
East end of Canyon Lake is inordinately more
"honourable" of those distictions. (Read twice)
Your 4th paragraph confirms to me, that my
previous paragraph is unnecessary. To you.
So please, no offense intended there. But, it
behooves me to explain to the general audience that some of these folks out there, with logging interest, can take "the back door in" to "the front door" and getting anything that they
choose, unto themselves, along the way, including Mother Natures cookie Jar.
If you do not find it massively fortuitous or coincidental that the biggest logging interest within 5 miles of this cut, may be scheduled to cut everything around the VP's firstclaim, I hear you.
Your 4th paragraph, hey, bobsyeruncle.
Micmac, not sure if you're the guy to ask but
have you any idea which logging interest built
the road in to this claim? I'm curious. if you know, please let me know. I know that most
logging interests in that area received "huge" Government (ie.. Taxpayer) funding last summer to upgrade degrading access roads, as a consequence of the NAFTA Softwood Lumber dispute.
Do you know which logging interest upgraded the
road to the area/claim we're discussing? If you do, let us know, ok?
There's lazy, as you say too rightly, then
there's a higher element.
And, I know you know that... you say it happens
"often"... I'm just not ready to be complacent
yet. That's all. And, yet, I grew up in Elk lake.
I do know "often", believe me. What hasn't faded
is my disgust with it.
Post Number: 15
|Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:15 am: ||
My reference to the "surface rights" issue was in response to you statement:
"When is cut scheduled to occur?
I'm thinking of getting my Prospectors License.
Maybe I can save the rest of Canyon Lake? "
I was explaining that the owner of a mining lease has limited control over how the surface rights, or forest, could be managed.
Also, I think Curly would be the best informed to answer your question re: which logging interest built the road in question. I believe he sits on the LCC for that district. I can only comment on the Sudbury District.
Post Number: 31
|Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:52 am: ||
Yeah, hear you, and Curly has been in touch.
Both questions were rhetorical.
I'm a very eyes-wide-open-typa-guy. What I was
indicating was the "getting thru the backdoor
to get to the frontdoor thing". Canyon's probably
lost. I should have said, "maybe I can save the
NEXT Canyon Lake".
But, most paddlers are stubborn, and I'm a
paddler, so stay tuned. Your comment confirmed
to me (ie... "often") that it behooves us all
to think ahead for what we can't bear to lose.
Post Number: 129
|Posted on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 11:14 am: ||
The Endangered Canoe Routes 2007 shows the Mining Claim as now being scheduled to be Clearcut...
Is this correct, and if so, when did the change occur?