‘Dysfunctional’ surveying system in Idaho

Let's hope this isn't one of those 300' "off" compared to the GIS.

There is a lot of spin in that story, so far. The Author using terms like "what had always been Walker property" and "The original corner" seem to imply the Author has already decided the case for the judge. What the Walkers thought was their "original corner" could have been a goat stake. Those conclusions will be disputed as part of this case, I assume.

I'm also troubled that the Walkers fired their own surveyor. The author said the surveyor deviated from normal surveying practice? Is that code for he didn't agree with the Walker's claim?

I look forward to the follow up stories.

Some people have far more dollars than sense. The more dollars they commit, the less sense they have.

It is quite clear the media is out to make all the money they can off of this issue. Meanwhile the entire survey profession gets a black eye for no good reason.

When its all said and done there should be some surveyors bringing suit against landowners.

It sounds like the surveyor they hired agreed with the corner that was 300' "off". Then the surveyor is called into question cause the client didn't like the answer. Then he is called out for not using acceptable practices,,,,,,,or something

"What the Walkers thought was their "original corner" could have been a goat stake."

It doesn't matter if it was a goat stake or a jet engine turbine if they believed it marked their original corner...

Here is the internet story thathe above linked appears to be based upon.

http://www.usobserver.com/archive/june-14/walker-property.html

Something does not smell right here, so it sounds like one of those "don't believe everything your read on the internet" situations.

I don't see any big or small media here trying to make money. Is that your projection?
It does sound like the internet writers are trying to make a political points plus serious charges against some land surveyors.

"Newly discovered original corner pin", clearly stamped 2014, somebody labeling pictures doesn't have a clue what an original GLO corner is.

This has been brewing a long time. I'm not surprised to see the spin on it. In the end it should become evident for what it is. Let folks talk long enough and they can't help show thier true colors...

One owner a Corner does not make. The adjoiners must act also, even if simply by acquiescence.
In the end I think you will find this is less about boundary location than anything else...

It looks like an old stone pile with a new 3" AC. It doesn't look like a new pile, but it's difficult to tell from that photo

Checking out the GLO notes for that corner. Clearly this was no ordinary corner in 1869. The easterly 2 miles of that township, plus Section 34, was left incomplete in 1869.

When completed in 1873 the corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25,& 26 (the subject corner) was stubbed out from [22, 23, 26, 27]. They attempted to continue on to the township line but stopped 20ch short because it was "too steep". There were 1/4 corners set between [23, 26], [24, 25], & [23,24]. None was set to the south. All set were basaltic stones.

In Oklahoma actual measure between corners was commonly with 10' or so of GLO record. In Oregon and Washington we count it lucky if it's less than 200' off. It is easy to imagine an original corner that differs from GLO measure by 300' in these sorts of conditions.

based on the (Un)observer's self description- I think they've picked their "Victim" and are busy crafting their article(s) to promote a favorable outcome / additional victimhood/oppression for that party- truth, reality, facts, proof be dammmmned...:-/

> I'm also troubled that the Walkers fired their own surveyor.

I agree. The fact that they fired a surveyor and an attorney throws up a red flag for me. It sounds like they may be upset because they're not getting he answer they want.

RTK will fix it!;-)