thebionicman, post: 406281, member: 8136 wrote: Back in the 60s land in my hometown was 200 to 400 an acre. Mom sold the last few acres in the early 90s for 95k an acre. She got ripped off.
The PLSS was developed to create a defensible fabric for the disposal of lands. It has a well built legal foundation. Replacing it with a purely measurement based system is shortsighted at best. The fact that it is being considered validates the rantings of the falling skies of expert measurers being licensed as actual Surveyors..
So, are you thinking that mining claims in the PLSS are indefensible since the same critique would apply? In a coordinate-based system, the coordinate-based boundaries of the tracts would be proven by the reference markers that demonstrate the coordinate system, quite like mining claims tied to the same location monument(s).
The PLSS is at its root a convenient means of describing land by reference to a common checkboard or crude coordinate system. If the original government surveys of the PLSS townships to which patents refer had been free of any significant error in measurement and had been documented and perpetuated in a way that there was absolutely no question as to the locations of corners, what you would have would be indistinguishable from a coordinate-based system, unless your real concern is dealing with defective surveys that mistakenly locate corners within the essentially perfect framework.
The system proposed is self-perfecting in that there would seem to be nothing to prevent the State of Alaska from passing laws that make monuments subsequently placed to mark coordinate-defined corners as correct representations of those coordinate positions when certain preconditions are met.
As a general rule, I'd think it is self-evident that the best cadastral system is the most efficient, i.e. accomplishes the usual purposes associated with land ownership and use at the lowest cost over some significant period of time and is sustainable into the indefinite future.
Given that there is now fundamentally different positioning and measurement technology available to land surveyors and in use by them, it seems indefensible not to consider the large economies that are now possible, and essentially for the reason that "we never did things that way when the technology didn't exist."
Kent McMillan, post: 406296, member: 3 wrote: So, are you thinking that mining claims in the PLSS are indefensible since the same critique would apply? In a coordinate-based system, the coordinate-based boundaries of the tracts would be proven by the reference markers that demonstrate the coordinate system, quite like mining claims tied to the same location monument(s).
The PLSS is at its root a convenient means of describing land by reference to a common checkboard or crude coordinate system. If the original government surveys of the PLSS townships to which patents refer had been free of any significant error in measurement and had been documented and perpetuated in a way that there was absolutely no question as to the locations of corners, what you would have would be indistinguishable from a coordinate-based system, unless your real concern is dealing with defective surveys that mistakenly locate corners within the essentially perfect framework.
The system proposed is self-perfecting in that there would seem to be nothing to prevent the State of Alaska from passing laws that make monuments subsequently placed to mark coordinate-defined corners as correct representations of those coordinate positions when certain preconditions are met.
Either you haven't read the Manual with understanding, or you are conveniently forgetting 95 percent of it. Either way there is no having a serious policy discussion with you on the subject. The myriad issues with this plan have been described sixteen ways from Sunday and you refuse to hear the objections.
thebionicman, post: 406301, member: 8136 wrote: Either you haven't read the Manual with understanding, or you are conveniently forgetting 95 percent of it. Either way there is no having a serious policy discussion with you on the subject. The myriad issues with this plan have been described sixteen ways from Sunday and you refuse to hear the objections.
Actually, none of the posters who are fixated on the Manual of Instructions have considered the history of the rectangular survey as a theoretical scheme for the subdivision of unsurveyed lands and what the implications of having modern positioning technology would have been for the realization of the theoretical scheme. When I called the PLSS essentially a coordinate system, that is exactly how the description of lands by Section, Township, and Range operates. It isn't a coordinate system in the modern, geodetic sense, but it is a system for ordering vast amounts of space in a way that even realtors and farmers can understand. The difference, of course, is that within the technology of the 18th and 19th centuries and most of the 20th century, it was unthinkable to consider the location of remote tracts defined only in relation to some monument hundreds of miles away and so you necessarily have to speak of a "fabric" of surveys that define any tract in that earlier context.
This isn't the case now obviously and it is possible to subdivide land by describing the latitudes and longitudes of points with respect to a known datum and by reference to those remote monuments that are the realizations of the datum. The checkerboard of land descriptions by Section, Township, and Range used in the rectangular survey is well known, so there's no particular reason not to continue to use it even if surveyors will not be able to entertain themselves by endless speculation as to the correct location of the center of any particular section in a coordinate-based township that is otherwise defined by a known and reproducible coordinate system.
"Either you haven't read the Manual with understanding, or you are conveniently forgetting 95 percent of it. Either way there is no having a serious policy discussion with you on the subject. The myriad issues with this plan have been described sixteen ways from Sunday and you refuse to hear the objections."
I assume you mean the only acceptable policy is based on a manual written almost 200 years ago. BTW, since that first manual the US Constitution has been amended at least a dozen times.
My guess is that you do not understand that for the US, within Alaska, the best option may be a new Manual that recognizes that a monument can be a point fixed in time and space and not just a rock or burnt stick.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 406311, member: 236 wrote: "Either you haven't read the Manual with understanding, or you are conveniently forgetting 95 percent of it. Either way there is no having a serious policy discussion with you on the subject. The myriad issues with this plan have been described sixteen ways from Sunday and you refuse to hear the objections."
I assume you mean the only acceptable policy is based on a manual written almost 200 years ago. BTW, since that first manual the US Constitution has been amended at least a dozen times.
My guess is that you do not understand that for the US, within Alaska, the best option may be a new Manual that recognizes that a monument can be a point fixed in time and space and not just a rock or burnt stick.
Paul in PA
Just as the Constitution has been amended, the Manual has been updated. A very large stack of law has been added as well.
I take issue with discarding the established plan and passing on costs to the State, followed by the inevitable burden being passed on to unwitting patentees.
If the PLSS is to be abandoned, then don't defraud the public by attempting to hide that fact by keeping like terms. Name them tracts and go full on metes and bounds.
thebionicman, post: 406317, member: 8136 wrote: I take issue with discarding the established plan and passing on costs to the State, followed by the inevitable burden being passed on to unwitting patentees.
If the PLSS is to be abandoned, then don't defraud the public by attempting to hide that fact by keeping like terms. Name them tracts and go full on metes and bounds.
It sounds as if according to your views GNSS cannot be used in surveying tracts within the PLSS. That deserves a separate thread since I would suspect that it is the dominant surveying technology in use throughout the Western US. If that isn't the case, then you appear to insist that the only true PLSS is one that is full of surveying errors that prevent the accurate prediction of the positions of protracted corners until the actual positions of the controlling PLSS corners are known and don't want to see any system in which the actual positions of those controlling corners are known ab initio.
Kent McMillan, post: 406250, member: 3 wrote: So, if the land isn't to be sold in section-sized units.
There is really no saying what size parcels will be utilized by non-State entities. Currently, it could be 10 acres for a hunting/wilderness adventure lodge or 1,000 acres for mineral extraction or ?? The topic of the value of the land, parcel size, and how itÛªs being used is valid today but is highly speculative for the future ÛÒ remember, every city in the US was once wilderness. Changing a foundational element of the system of land tenure based on the current value/use of a property is shortsighted.
Can we agree that current land use/value isn't a clear indicator of future land use/value?
Can we agree that it's shortsighted to change and tenure systems based on current land use/value?
Can we agree that the density of monumenation directly correlates with the cost of survey for future users.
Nobody is asking the Feds to foot the bill for surveys to transfer land rights out of State ownership. Alaska is simply entitled to the agreed level of monumentation (hence survey control) that the Feds repeatedly agreed to (as was every other state). And the State has already agreed to a MUCH lower density of monumentation than in ANY other State. Equality between States is what the Equal Footing doctrine guarantees. This is a legal OBLIGATION.
JKinAK, post: 406326, member: 7219 wrote: Nobody is asking the Feds to foot the bill for surveys to transfer land rights out of State ownership. Alaska is simply entitled to the agreed level of monumentation (hence survey control) that the Feds repeatedly agreed to (as was every other state).
Except only Alaska is subject to the Alaska Statehood Act by which it is entitled to certain lands, right? So how the public lands were surveyed in New Mexico or California wouldn't seem as relevant as the terms under which Alaska became a state qualified to exercise the rights to transfer of lands that is at issue.
I'm curious about the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and the State of Alaska that supposedly describes the proposed monumentation practices and so far haven't found it. Can anyone provide a link?
Kent McMillan, post: 406330, member: 3 wrote: Except only Alaska is subject to the Alaska Statehood Act by which it is entitled to certain lands, right? ...
I'm curious about the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and the State of Alaska that supposedly describes the proposed monumentation practices and so far haven't found it. Can anyone provide a link?
"right?" Nope... EVERY PLSS state received significant lands from the Federal Gov't (I don't know about the colonies) - they use this land to operate and to generate income. It's my understanding that some of the other western states also have outstanding land transfers - I'm not sure which ones or how much land - anyone know this?
The MOUs are available at http://www.nsps.us.com/page/BLMDPPSAlaska
You really should read all of the documents on the NSPS page above they "supposedly describe" much about the issue - it's good perspective and you'll have better understanding of the issue.
JKinAK, post: 406334, member: 7219 wrote: "right?" Nope... EVERY PLSS state received significant lands from the Federal Gov't (I don't know about the colonies) - they use this land to operate and to generate income. It's my understanding that some of the other western states also have outstanding land transfers - I'm not sure which ones or how much land - anyone know this?
The MOUs are available at http://www.nsps.us.com/page/BLMDPPSAlaska
You really should read all of the documents on the NSPS page above they "supposedly describe" much about the issue - it's good perspective and you'll have better understanding of the issue.
The issue then is time, right? It will take decades to survey every township boundary within the state selection lands, even with only placing monuments at intervals of two miles on the township exteriors. Is Alaska content to wait that long?
Kent McMillan, post: 406335, member: 3 wrote: The issue then is time, right? It will take decades to survey every township boundary within the state selection lands, even with only placing monuments at intervals of two miles on the township exteriors. Is Alaska content to wait that long?
I'm not sure what the wait would be for - if adequately funded BLM has the ability to complete all of the required work (internally and with contractors) in a relatively short period of time. I don't know what that time is but I'd guess that it could be done in the 5 to 10 year range. Mike S. - care to chime in on just how long it would take if you had appropriate funding?
I can't speak for the State but personally, I'd rather wait than deal with the known and unknown challenges that DPPS will generate.
Stake the four township corners, the extra 7 for sec 36 and the 8 for sec 16, sounds like a better idea than what they show.
MightyMoe, post: 406339, member: 700 wrote: Stake the four township corners, the extra 7 for sec 36 and the 8 for sec 16, sounds like a better idea than what they show.
The US is only obligated to mark 12 corners, all on the township boundaries, though. Given the nature of the terrain upon which some of the state selection tracts lands are situated, I'll bet there will be surveyors wishing that the coordinate-based township plats had been the basis of transfer. Just from looking at the small tracts that the State of Alaska advertises for sale, it appears that most of them are simply irregular metes and bounds tracts, anyway, no PLSS needed aside from the large-scale coordinate system of township and range within which the tracts fall.
And, actually that would be an average of closer to six corners per township in cases where the townships within which the state selection tracts fall.
Kent McMillan, post: 406356, member: 3 wrote: ... that the State of Alaska advertises for sale, it appears that most of them are simply irregular metes and bounds tracts...
There have been a variety of State land disposal programs over the years You are seeing the most common method in recent times - remote recreational land subdivisions creating lots/blocks/rights-of-ways with monumentation at the corners.
There have been agricultural subdivisions, "open to entry" disposals where individuals stake their corners (which were then surveyed), lands conveyed to municipalities, Mental Health Trust (that's another story), and ?? Municipal and MHT lands are typically described by MTRS - going down to aliquot parts.
All of these are tied to the PLSS.
It looks to me as if an
JKinAK, post: 406367, member: 7219 wrote: There have been a variety of State land disposal programs over the years You are seeing the most common method in recent times - remote recreational land subdivisions creating lots/blocks/rights-of-ways with monumentation at the corners.
There have been agricultural subdivisions, "open to entry" disposals where individuals stake their corners (which were then surveyed), lands conveyed to municipalities, Mental Health Trust (that's another story), and ?? Municipal and MHT lands are typically described by MTRS - going down to aliquot parts.
All of these are tied to the PLSS.
Yes, and all of them could be easily tied to the PLSS corners shown on a coordinated township plat, right? For a surveying operation that will take a couple of days on the ground, it should be possible to get very good ties to the NSRS and to tie the various corners of the irregular tracts to the same coordinate system within which the section corners would be shown on the township plat to which patents refer. Where the tracts are laid out with a merely coincidental relationship to the regular aliqot parts in the surrounding sections, it would be a much more efficient way of surveying the tracts.
I'm done posting to this thread for the foreseeable future. Thanks for taking some of your valuable time to consider the issues in a meaningful way.
I think I've said what I need to say about DPPS in this format - there are a number of specious comments that could be responded too but I don't have that kind of time - it's kind of like whack-a-mole.
There is also lots of good discussion here - try not to go down too many rabbit holes related to technology or location precision or value of land - those really aren't relevant.
If anyone has work that they can sub out - Kent seems like a smart guy and seems to have available time - give him something profitable to do - Kent are you willing to travel?
JKinAK, post: 406376, member: 7219 wrote: There is also lots of good discussion here - try not to go down too many rabbit holes related to technology or location precision or value of land - those really aren't relevant.
Well, I do understand how folks who have always done things a certain way that was perfected in the 19th century are wary of modern technology, but unless GNSS just doesn't work up in Alaska, the problem is most likely user-related. The cure for that is simply education and training. I decline to believe that neither the BLM nor the State of Alaska has competent surveyors to lay out the basic framework of the coordinated townships and document their work for posterity, so it may well be that the difficulty is with the private sector.
Sounds like they need a middle man to buy up large numbers of sections, have them surveyed, markup the price to cover costs and then some, subdivide and sell off as smaller tracts. Another way for the 1% who already have more money than they know what to do with to make even more money off the rest of us. Isn't that the American way? Bend over and take it? Beats paying taxes doesn't it?
