Underway in The Salem Convention Center. The seminars are being offered both online and in person this year. I??d say that the in person crowd is better than half of the usual mob.
I am not there, so a little calmer crowd 🙂
For some reason I can't get anything to work real time, but was too busy with work to mess with it much, I will watch some of the recordings later.
SHG
I'm attending remotely and today I watched the two classes @jbstahl presented. Not only was John's presentation excellent, but the on-line experience was great - very professional.
They had a camera tripoded in the back of the room with someone operating it - zooming in, following John, panning out to show whoever in the crowd was arguing pointedly discussing a topic with him. This wasn't your drunk brother-in-law with a videocam shakily filming your kids 4th grade Christmas play at the school, it was really good camera work. When he began discussing a slide on the overhead, the slide itself (and not a zoom-in from the fixed camera) was either shown full on your screen, or they'd do a split screen... about 3/4 of the screen being the slide and 1/4 the speaker. In the second session they had a hand mic for audience members to use so those of us at home on the couch in our boxer shorts and egg-stained tank tops could hear the questions. I've seen the future of conferences and this is it.?ÿ
@patrick-mcgranaghan hmm... interesting question. The conference is partly a fundraiser for a non-profit organization with the recorded videos available for later viewing by those who have paid the fee. PLSO would own the rights to those videos. (I think so, right??)
Should a non-profit make these available for free? I don't know... interesting question though...
I'm thinking, edited clips on youtube, 10 mins?ÿ +/- in length, with "If you want to see the full length version, check out our Patreon page."
They probably will be, but I have Johns handouts from this same presentations (although I'm sure he's updated since then) from the AK conference quite a few years ago if you would like.
I??m sure they won??t be. The online conference runs on a platform called ??Whova?. When you signup and pay for the conference you get a login for the PLSO conference on Whova. For a livestream class you click the link to it at the appointed time and Whova shells you out to a Zoom session like I attended yesterday. This is also recorded and will remain for a couple months on the Whova app for paying customers to watch again.
Other classes are being recorded but not live-streamed and they will get published on Whova the within the next week. So I have a couple months to watch these ones at my leisure. And, bonus, I can watch all the sessions that are recorded (many of the sessions being presented at the "live" portion of this hybrid lve/remote conference are not being recorded). If a full conference gives you, say, 16 professional development hours, you can conceivably gain at lot more hours if you can watch classed that were running simultaneously with the one you chose to watch.
As far as YouTube, the national speakers would never agree to such an arrangement if the PLSO put these recordings on a public platform. If I were such a bird I wouldn??t either?? your speaking career would be through. ??Hey! Jeff Lucas is slated for our fall conference! You going??. ??Naw, the Oregon surveyors put 24 hours worth of recordings of his 3 day seminar on YouTube?. Also, the folks attending the conference pay big $$$ and to then have the premiere speakers put on YouTube would likely result in a huge decline in membership.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I was sitting in on J.B. Stahl on Wednesday and there was quite a lot of talk about boundary line establishment - ie/ honoring fence lines as boundaries. Not that J.B was saying that they should always be, to be clear.?ÿ Including one person who talked about a circumstance where a fence line was 30 feet from his surveyed line. The whole discussion put the?ÿ Oregon case of Gibbons v. Lettow to mind.
Gibbons v. Lettow (Or.App, 2002)
The case is quite well argued and written. A fence existed by 1940 but nobody knew who had built it or how it came to be where it was. The properties on both side passed through many people over the years, several of which testified. Around 2000 a survey was done that found that the fence wasn't on the described line by 40+ feet.?ÿ
While the various people in the chain of title were all aware of the fence, and assumed that it was the boundary, there was never any discussion amongst them about it. And the disputed strip was never exclusively used for anything over any continuous period.?ÿ Most of the time it was just overgrown with blackberries.
The court ruled that since there had never been any disagreement about the boundary, there could not have been an agreement to settle an unknown boundary. Further, it ruled that there had been no continuous exclusive use for the statutory period, there could be no AP.?ÿ So the deed/survey line held. Fences, the court states, may be intended to mark boundaries, or may be simply there?ÿ to restrain livestock without regard to any boundary.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ
The whole discussion put the?ÿ Oregon case of Gibbons v. Lettow to mind. ...The case is quite well argued and written.
But perhaps not surveyed as well as it could have been? IDK, but Lettow might have prevailed if they had had another surveyor have a crack at the boundary. The recorded survey relies entirely on a turned angle off a Donation Land Claim Line (DLC Lines are a form of PLSS line in this state, and in Washington State). Another surveyor may have used the fence as a monument.?ÿ But that is not how it was argued.
