Dave I am talking about something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. A monument set subsequent to the ORIGINAL SURVEY conducted under federal rules IS NOT AN ORIGINAL MONUMENT OF THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY.
This is an entirely different matter.
A monument set for the center 1/4 set subsequent to the ORIGINAL SURVEY aND referred to and made part of a conveyance is a CALLED FOR ORIGINAL MONUMENT.
"This is not the typical case I encounter. The typical case I encounter is a boundary which, although not perfect, has been in use and undisputed for a long time. I see no good reason to disturb that just because my mathematical sensibilities have been offended."
Dave I never suggested any such thing. I was asking for a clarification of terms and you provided that. Thanks
"Free at Last!"
I think that has been the attitude here in Ohio since 1849 when the GLO determined that their work here, in the original iterations of the PLSS, were completed.
We got some sheepskin bound volumes and better yet, the right to resolve previously patented land boundaries by our own surveyors and courts.
I'm still not sure about the twenty acre tract which was the original subject in this thread. Was it federal property never, ever, patented out to private or state ownership?
I'm not clear on that. If it was already patented out in such a fashion, and is now being reacquired by the federal government from private ownership for, say, a post office or army reserve facility, the BLM has no business in surveying it.
> Dave I am talking about something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. A monument set subsequent to the ORIGINAL SURVEY conducted under federal rules IS NOT AN ORIGINAL MONUMENT OF THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY.
>
> This is an entirely different matter.
>
> A monument set for the center 1/4 set subsequent to the ORIGINAL SURVEY aND referred to and made part of a conveyance is a CALLED FOR ORIGINAL MONUMENT.
Dane,
I like to call the first monument set that is not part of the original section staking as the "first" monument. If I can establish which was the first monument set by acceptable standards (whatever that means), I tend to accept hearing it called the "original center-of-section". One could argue that the original center of section was established when the original opposing 1/4 corners were established. We are into a bit of semantics when we do that....but in general, I prefer to treat a "first" section corner in the same way I treat an original section corner if I can find no reason to dispute it. In terminology, I would agree with you that a monument not in the original survey is not technically called an "original" monument. But there are more definitions of "original" than the blm's definition, and when I hear another surveyor use the term for a first Center-of-Section set, I don't tighten my jaw quite as much as you, I think.
> ...but things get hairy when the BLM breaks down the section to set interior corners. Once the exterior corners are established, the BLM seems to only believe in a mathematically perfect, and by the book, section break down.
Wouldn't it be nice if they actually read their own Manuals?
If the 1990 surveyor utilized all the proper existing evidence and correct methodology, then it sounds like the BLM surveyor on the site needed a little more direct supervision.
If the surveyor missed some evidence or used an incorrect monument, then it becomes more a matter of professional judgment based on the particulars.
If his basis was simply that his calculated coordinates disagreed with what he found, maybe he needs to be sent to CFedS. Like any other large organization, there is a wide spectrum of competence among its employees.
Problem exacerbated by there being no Minimum Standards in 1990 in Louisiana. That adds another kink and reason that BLM shouldn't be touching the center of section monument when it is only mismatching their theoretical work by couple feet.
> Problem exacerbated by there being no Minimum Standards in 1990 in Louisiana. That adds another kink and reason that BLM shouldn't be touching the center of section monument when it is only mismatching their theoretical work by couple feet.
:good:
We are simply witnessing the results of the bogus PLSS subdivision of sections procedures that are being promoted by Robillard and Bouman.
It is not hard to understand and I would request that land surveyors make their opinions known!
Or ignore it?
Keith
Keith
I'm pretty sure that you know MY OPINION on the subject...
I truly believe that the Center ¼ (or any other “corner”) is where you FIND it! Subject of course to a professional and in depth analysis of the history, conditions, and potential ramifications unique to EACH situation (corner).
In most cases, there will be reasons to HOLD, AND reasons to fold. In my personal experience over the last 44 years, far too many Land Surveyors fail to do ENOUGH research and analysis to make a GOOD (informed) decision about such things.
Not all CORNERS are marked by a "shiny" monument, but many ARE marked by a MONUMENT none the less.
There is NO 'HARD n FAST' (one size fits all) rule...
“How far is too far.” Is not a question that can be answered with a NUMBER!
My 2 bits,
Loyal
Keith
Good Post Loyal, don't express myself as well as you do, but you hit my opinion squarely.
jud
Keith
Absolutely right Loyal,
It would seem to be obvious to all land surveyors that there is a judgement decision to be made when confronted with an existing monument that supposedly marks the same corner that is being established/reestablished.
I am frankly beginning to believe that some land surveyors actually believe that the Robillard-Bouman method of only subdividing sections by the Chapter 3 method for the original subdivision of a section, is the easier way to go, no judgements needed, set the corners at predetermined positions, go home!
I have heard many times, the fallacy of this procedure and it is that these lines are set by statute, are immovable and can only be established at their protracted positions as shown on the original GLO survey plat. This gives cover for those who do their surveys/resurveys by expert measurement only.
The Oregon case is simply wrong in their opinion and the convoluted statements in the Florida Rivers v Lozeau case is being adhered to.
Does it not seem strange that those in BLM who believe this bogus theory, do not come on here and attempt to defend it, or explain their rationale?
And to those land surveyors in BLM who agree with my opinion on this; is it timely for an explanation from BLM to address the internal problem that we all know exists??
My opinion anyway!
Keith
Keith
> I am frankly beginning to believe that some land surveyors actually believe that the Robillard-Bouman method of only subdividing sections by the Chapter 3 method for the original subdivision of a section, is the easier way to go, no judgements needed, set the corners at predetermined positions, go home!
Well, this may be only semantics here, but I say using the appropriate method of subdividing sections by the chapter 3 methods is the best way to go.
I think the heart of the argument is that if a land surveyor comes and subdivides the section using appropriate guidelines, it is a done deal, and a following retracing surveyor should then do his/her best to find the first center of section corner location that was previously set.
One major problem is that we often don't have the notes nor the plat of the first surveyor. Still, I hold the general opinion that if I find a monument that appears to have been set as the center of section, I presume it to be the correct corner unless I can find compelling evidence to disregard it.
However,....well said Loyal, and I don't think I am really in disagreement with you Keith.
adamsurveyor
Obviously, if the PLSS section is being subdivided for the first time, Chapter 3 has the guidelines for accomplishing that.......but that is not the argument!
The argument simply is that Chapter 3 guidelines are to be used in every case when the section subdivision lines are being resurveyed, and all existing monumentation that was already established are ignored.
But you knew that.
Keith
adamsurveyor
Keith,
My only difference in wording is because if Robillard says that the proper center of section is at the intersection of opposing corners, I would agree with him. My argument with him or someone else is; when I come along, whether it is my job to subdivide the section or retrace the first subdivision of the section. That first monument subdividing the section is at the intersection of the opposing quarter-corners. But again I think we agree in principle.
adamsurveyor
My only difference in wording is because if Robillard says that the proper center of section is at the intersection of opposing corners, I would agree with him.
I doubt that anybody disagrees with that statement.......but it ain't the case for the resurveying land surveyor.
And of course the case that is being discussed here Frank's area, shows the fallacy of the results of this bogus theory.
Keith
They could "mysteriously" go missing and no one would care and harmony would be restored.
That is funny. I bet a lot of them have gone missing.
Another perspective:
To me, re-setting a new center of the section and ignoring the old one is exactly the same thing as resetting the northeast corner of a simple tract of land if it doesn't fall exactly per call. I really can't see a difference. Pin Cushion Surveying at its best. The travesty about resetting the center of the section is that it could screw up a multitude of other internal 40's, 20's, pob's, etc. Bottom line is that it violates common sense and is pretty stupid.
Agreed!
The first survey to actually establish a corner or boundary on the ground and then recognized is the original survey for those points and lines.
A private subdivision of a larger parcel is a resurvey of its exterior boundary but an original survey of the interior corners and lines defining the lots and interior rights of way.
The GLO/BLM survey is the original survey for those lines and points established on the ground by that survey. It is merely a plan for lesser subdivisions not actually surveyed by the federal surveyors.
