Keith ...
> I would think that it would be obvious that I am not looking for a black and white answer to all situations as that would be as naive as some that believe the ROW line or a senior line never bends. (Or any surveyed line) I believe you have it backwards in fact, i. e., some here will not accept ANY evidence of the line if it is not exactly on the line between senior corners. I will accept corner monuments in some or maybe most instances that was described in the example here with the monument off by 0.14 feet.
>
> I am saying, that is not how it is in real life and remember we are arguing from the example of a pin cushion corner monument that was set 0.14 feet away from that exact line in the 50's. That is where I am coming from and that argument is ludicrous.
These arguments more often than not devolve into straw man arguments where each side over simplifies the other's argument to make it easier to knock them down. For example if I say that senior lines govern junior lines, someone will create a straw man argument that I am saying that monuments mean nothing. If I say monuments hold great weight in making a boundary decision, someone will create a straw man argument that I am saying hold any piece of metal I happen to stumble upon.
Having followed this argument in a perfunctory fashion, I think you would have done better had you thoroughly read the Clement v. Packer decision Kent presented and argued it on the merits. If the facts in Clement v. Packer did not match up with the situation Carl presented then you could have argued on the facts. Instead you seemed to summarily dismiss the importance of the decision. Even I was disappointed.
Regards,
Peter Lazio
The Casebook...
also says "... may be restored from the best available evidence..."
How can the found iron pipe NOT be the "best available evidence"?
BLM Public Land Surveying Casebook
Too bad... you might learn something. I read them at night too.
for TC
You will note that I said "GENERALLY". I am fully aware some states have made the manual part of their state law with respect to LANDS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY SUBDIVIDED UNDER FEDERAL RULES. Road right of way usually are not surveyed und federal rules.
Well go right ahead and do that
While you are at it can you show us the section that states all surveys are subject to FEDERAL RULES? Show us the section that prohibits subdivision of PRIVATE LAND by any other method except that laid out in the manual. The manual of instruction is a guide for the conduct of surveys on federal interest lands. To the extent that it casts a useful light on the duties and activities of private surveyors in the conduct of surveys on private lands, that maybe a fine thing in and of itself,BUT the manual is not CONTROLING in the matter of privates surveys except as indicated by state authority.
Maybe a personal biased opinion
All of this seems to point toward the use of common sense and the natural hierarchy. While the Manual is a good manual, I can't see trying to apply everything in it with reality check applied for every single application. I have seen people out in the field trying to set a corner go through several definitions listed in the manual and all of that. But the bottom line is really that the corner needs to be put back into the orginal place the most logically it can be done, while giving consideration to the natural hierarchy. Why is a fight over what the manual says really that important? Is it a semantics battle or something?
It seems that professionalism, experience, knowledge of the natural hierarchy ususally adopted in state law, and common sense ought to rule here. If someone wants to say that the Manual says something, that is fine, but I am not going to break open the Manual to seek answers unless I run into something well outside the norm where the Manual might be appropriate (which is RARE); instead I am going to use what I know and as much common and practical sense as I can muster to resolve and survey boundaries.
Peter
As usual, a fantastic synopsis and very well thought out.
You're a good man Charlie Brown.
plazio
I am guessing that we will be hearing more about the Clement case!
Stay tuned.
Keith
Maybe a personal biased opinion
Obviously, the BLM Manual is intended for the advice and guidance to BLM land surveyors, and of course it is a general guideline to the Public Land States land surveyors as well. It is referenced or in statute law in most of the 30 Public Land States and is relevant to private land surveying too.
As a reminder, I was an expert witness in a State court case in New Mexico involving private lands and I was there to testify as an expert on Manual procedures. I was not a licensed New Mexico land surveyor, I did not live in New Mexico and the opposing attorneys tried to get me thrown off the case because of that, but the Judge did not go along with them.
Well our side blew them out of the water as the survey was not in accordance with the Manual, as I testified, and they lost their case.
And that is how it works.
Keith
and of course, some surveyors
believe the Manual is a cookbook with answers to all questions and it is not intended to be that.
There are no answers to every question that those who read and understand the Manual know that.
As they say, and as Frank says above, that common sense is critical to the judgement of a land surveyor who practices boundary surveys and not control surveys.
Keith
BLM 2009 Manual, sec. 7-30
Can't do it?
