Accept or RejectPosted by MightyMoe on July 22, 2022 at 7:33 pm
Starting an accept or reject thread with real examples. I’m not going to go into too much detail, just the simple facts.
A GLO survey original in 1903, established the west line of S.25
An original GLO survey in 1921 that surveyed Sections 26 and 35 resurveying the west line of S.25 and set the N1/16 and S1/16 between S.26 and S.25.
All originals are found in good condition and in original positions.
Accept or Reject the 1921 brass caps?
No real occupation in the section except a broken down fence line that doesn’t even pass over the corners, mostly to the east of line but it wanders and much of it is simply wires on the ground at this point.
- 22 Replies
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 7:55 pm
Assuming that both the 1903 and 1921 surveys were done in accordance with instructions and/or the standard of practice at the time, I see no reason to reject the 1921 monuments.
For curiosity’s sake, what’s the terrain like? I might feel differently if it’s open country with line-of-sight all the way across.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 7:56 pm
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 8:01 pm
Barring any other evidence, accept. They’re original GLO monuments and “deviation” from the line is well within tolerance for 1921 equipment and procedures. For all intents and purposes, they are on line, so document record vs measured and hold the mons.“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 8:27 pm
three are original, two are not, they are resurvey monuments.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 8:28 pm
south 1/4 is flat, the north 3/4 is rough.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 8:56 pm
I’d show them just as you have, label the stones having providence from the GLO survey of 1903 and the brass caps from the GLO resurvey of 1921. I’d double check the accuracy standards in the instructions at the time, then add a note, “positional accuracy within tolerances specified in the Manual of Instructions (insert title and date here)”. If you have knowledge of subsequent conveyances relying on the brass caps, you might make mention of it in your notes.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 9:07 pm
What would be your argument to reject?Willy
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 9:14 pm
The N1/6th between S.31&32:
1974 dependent resurvey, not federal surface in either section, the Fed interest is minerals.
The NE of 31 is placed at a fence corner, the E1/4 is also monumented at a fence corner.
The fence between is very straight. All the monuments are 1974 BLM brass caps, no subdivision of land is tied to it since 1974, the section line is a long time property line between large acreage ranches.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 9:28 pm
he asked for an argument, I didn’t say I agree with it ????
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 9:38 pm
What senior line? Unless I misread the OP, they’re all GLO mons based upon approved and accepted GLO surveys.
If this is intended to be a troll/continuation of the “what do to about off-line monuments” thread, before we go any further let’s reiterate (for the umpteenth time) that not all of us are exclusively retracing original GLO surveys and recovering only GLO monuments called for on official federal surveys.“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 10:11 pm
Land south of line has been owned by one land owner and heirs since patent. The land to the north was cut from the original patent so the north parcel is senior.
accept or reject the pins along the senior line?
They were set in the mid 1970’s, have been developed for housing, not fenced.
the land has a slope, but no topography and no trees, pasture grass land.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 10:20 pm
I would not reject official government monuments unless I had a extremely good reason. I don??t even reject monuments set be land surveyors duly licensed by the state unless I have a very good reason.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 10:31 pm
I rarely bother with closure limits or perfect procedure when evaluating an undisturbed monument from an approved GLO survey. Minor issues that make it through approval are no reason to reject. The standard is gross fraud or negligence.
- MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 11:44 pm
When does the music stop?
Musical pin cushions, that is.
So, you have a stake out.
Inst @150, bs 149, fs 502.
Ang rt, 42-05-52 HD 121.21.
You stake it. It falls in a ravine. Full of 2′ stone. You drive a 4′ 3/4″ pipe. You bang it all over. Your final shot misses the top of the pipe by 0.075′.
You and crew walk away. Good nuff.
Year is 2322.
Survey crew in space ship, finds your monument. It’s 0.222′ “off”.
What should they do?
Set new monument, because those idiots in 2022 were sloppy?
It’s the same equation.
Numbers vary, by tools used. And available.
- MemberJuly 23, 2022 at 12:14 am
This one is interesting.
I found the stone just south of a new BLM resurvey monument.
Because of a quirk in state law (regulation) I had to accept the resurvey monument.
The quirk is that the latest official government survey holds. It was better for my client anyway since it kept them further off the line they were trying to creep up to, if it had been the reverse it might have been an issue for them.
- MemberJuly 23, 2022 at 12:48 am
Is this out in/near the Thunder Basin National Grasslands?
Log in to reply.