Basejumper.com - archive

I am not a BASE jumper, but I know enough to know that some of the very best legal BASE exit points lay on BLM land. A provision in the house budget reconcilation bill recently passed by two votes allows for the private purchase of federal lands for mining purposes. Don't be fooled though, once the land has been purchased for "mining" the new landowner can do whatever they want to with the land....build houses, condos, or whatever they want. How would you like to see your favorite legal exit point closed because it was bought from the government for $1000/acre and used to build a million-dollar vacation home?

The bill is now in the hands of the house-senate confrence commitee. It can be stopped there. If you feel this is important please take a moment to write your senators and representative to voice your opposition to the provisions.

http://actionnetwork.org/...n/publiclands_senate

If they're selling them for a thousand bucks an acre, I know a couple acres I'll buy personally.

If the jumpers own them, the government could never shut them down. If the government owns them, the government can shut them down whenever they want.

I'm not so sure this is a bad thing.

You better stake your "mining claim" as soon as the bill clears the confrence commitee then.

I can't fathom what it would be like to go to some of my favorite places on BLM and national forest land and find them now private property and closed to the public

You sure that's land purchase and not just the geology rights? There's all kinds of shit being thrown in the San Juan basin because the land has two owners (1 rancher and 1 gas masher).

BLM likes to sell Geo and withhold the ability to erect property.

I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time. The first time was when I assumed that no harm could be done in a skeet / eye incident.

That's almost exactly what she looked like.

This isn't exactly my area, but my understanding is that having mineral rights to the land is not the same as owning the land.

The purchasers should own the right to mine the land only. I expect that they will have to restore the area to some semblance of its former condition once the area is fully mined, and then they will go on their way.

From the link you posted, there was no way to know how the bill actually reads, but if the bill was written in the usual way, there will be no "buy and switch" going on.

rl

Edited to add: Skin beat me to it. That's what I get for walking away in the middle of composing a post.

I am getting all of my information on the subject from the mining law professor at the University of Colorado. The bill IS written in such a way that land patented for mining becomes private property - the stakeholder in the mining claim will own the land and be able to do whatever they want with it. This is not. solely mineral rights. BIG difference here. By staking a claim and paying for it, the land becomes the property of the miner...and they don't even have to prove mineral worth.

Here's an LA times article:
http://www.latimes.com/...y?coll=la-home-local

Or like like most mining companies, they take what they want, then declare bankcrupcy and leave taxpayers with the bill.

Davedlg,

Thanks for bringing this up here. The BASE community often talks about teaming up with other back-country interests to help fight for fair access. This is an opportunity where we & various groups can act in that spirit.

It would be a dark day if some mining conglomerate ever "claimed" the LZ under the potato bridge. Not saying it could/would happen, but... I agree the possibilities are frightening.

And call me cynical, but I doubt an individual jumper, without any political connections, could compete for a deed sale against any sort of corporate entity.

I'll write a letter too.