Re: invalidating all land claims?
Posted by Jerry K. on August 12, 2004 at 15:12:29:
In Reply to: invalidating all land claims? posted by johnc on August 07, 2004 at 22:10:43:
It seems to me that the only reason there was a claim on this property now known as the White Swan was for mining purposes, in accordance with the 1872 law. Since the mining was not being performed at this and many other claims, the BLM enforced the "put up or shut up", or "mine it or leave it" aspect of that law, as amended. The mining law was not meant to provide claim-owners with cheap land they could use for recreation.
I don't like to see anyone lose money on an investment, but without active mining....seems to me the BLM wants their land back. The BLM is the assigned manager for the landowner, the USA.
The history of the Adopt-A-Cabin volunteers involvement out there was chatted around a few campfires I enjoyed. The house and garage had been trashed by locals & others, and was going downhill fast. From what I was told, a lot of labor went into making the house a place one could visit and perhaps make an overnight stay. Once the war of words began and the volunteers left, the place went right back down to its former status as an attractive nuisance.
Many attractive nuisances have lead to accidental deaths, sometimes by children & teens. Many times the absentee landowner is charged for the demolition and reclamation of such sites.