Just a hint
Scott Freshwaters treated me to a tour of the Spruce Goose while I was making a presentation at the Oregon conference last year. You are right, Keith. It's absolutely and overwhelmingly awesome! Did you make arrangements to visit the cockpit? Just incredible to imagine what it would have been like to fly that beast.
Glad you were able to enjoy it too.
JBS
Just a hint
Yes incredible!
They were doing construction in the cockpit,so was not letting anybody in it, but we did go into the cargo area!
Fabulous!
Keith
Just a hint
I agree with all you said. However, surveyors do have to make their professional judgements. I might consider a set of circumstance to state that a section corner is "lost" and you might decide that it is merely obliterated. Do I say that, because there is an old fence, or because there are neighboring boundaries to that land corner, then it is not lost where another surveyor might say that because they don't see a section monument or any of the calls on the original survey it is indeed lost.
There are many problems even though you can summarize your criteria quite simply (the above being an example). I have heard it said that is why you are a "professional" because you make determinations where there are no definitive answers. (or something like that.)
Tom
I see that nobody wants to come forward and defend this bogus THEORY?
The theory that separates a section corner from a property corner is well defined in chap 6 of the '73 manual and deals with tract segregation and docuument reformation procedures used to protect bona fide rights of the entrymen.
This 'theory' is supported by a 1988 Nevada federal district court review of a 1939 resurvey that protected bona fide rights estabished by 6 parcels of land originally patented with aliquot part descriptions that, as a result of the resurvey, had their descriptions changed to metes and bounds with tract number designators from 37 to 42.
Had Mr. K Williams heeded da w's post of a few years ago citing the above court case, he would have understood the concept and reaized that his 'expertise' actually rests primarily on his knowledge of how a dysfunctional BLM office operated.
Remember, the BLM's obligation to obey 43 USC 772 applys whether the resurvey is an independent or dependent resurvey, as proven by my quoted sections of Chap 6 in the past.
Richard Schaut
Hey Mr. K Williams!
You got your answer!
Tract segregation occurs when the Government decides to drop back and punt by doing a new Survey (Independent Resurvey) creating new lines and corners which are not the same as the originals (maybe because they can't be found or some other reason). Nonetheless when the Government does this they must protect the bona fide rights of entrymen which entered on the older Survey which is no longer to be used. To do this they do a metes and bounds survey of the entryman's aliquot and they tie it to the new survey. The purpose of doing this is to identify the old aliquot part in relation to the new survey; it is not used when the old survey is retraced adequately. This is the key; there are two surveys.
The Government is free to resurvey lands as long as they are still in the public domain but they must protect the rights of landowners of lands already patented out. In fact any property owner can reconfigure their remaining lands (such as by re-platting) but they can't change the boundaries of parcels already granted out unilaterally.
The first question in any survey is are we doing a new survey or retracing an old survey? If we are retracing an old survey which subdivided the section then the aliquot part descriptions are sufficient to identify the various parcels and the task is to find the original corners of those parcels.
Hey Mr. K Williams!
Dave,
You are absolutely right and every time Richard posts his comprehension of the Indepndent Resuvey, he displays his misunderstanding of the PLSS.
He takes key words from the Manual and twists the meaning to fit his bogus theories.
His post above does nothing for the discussion!
On to Grants Pass, OR today!
Keith
K Willams & D Karoly
From Chap 6-27, page 150 of the ’73 manual, the last line in 6-27 referring to dependent resurveys says: “…its use would be limited to the making of a tract segregation where the claimant has given confidence to the so-called field notes.”. Tract segregation is an appropriate remedy in either dependent or independent resurveys as I have already pointed out in previous posts over the years.
You have consistently proven that you do not know enough about Chap 6 or, for that matter any part of the ’73 manual to qualify as any kind of ‘expert’ except as I have said, that you are an ‘expert’ in the functioning of a dysfunctional BLM office.
Richard Schaut
Richard
Whatever!
Just got into Grants Pass, OR
Nice country!
Keith
Just got into Grants Pass, OR
Yeah that part of I-5 is much nicer than our part down in Fresno, Kern and Kings Counties.
Just got into Grants Pass, OR
Much better!
Better than Fresno?
BTW does Fresno mean something in Spanish or was there some minor officer in Fremont's army named Fresno?
I'm sorry, nothing but questions tonight and too lazy to look it up myself.
Don
Better than Fresno?
It means Ash Tree.
Dave Karoly
Dave there's actually another legal twist involved with the independent resurveys: the land owners with existing rights are under no obligation to accept the results of the independent resurvey. The federal government has no authority to change their legal description. I ran into that in the early 1990's with a township where the landowners refused to change the legals for their parcels after the resurvey was done. So in this example, instead of reading Tract 50 their legal still reads it SW4SE4 of Section 10.
Title people have a difficult time in that township.
It really threw me until I figured it out.
Dave Karoly
That's a mind bender.
Are the heavier lines the old lines and the new lines are the lighter lines?
What are the hatched parcels?
Mighty Moe
Thanks for posting that portion on the Independent Resurvey plat. You will notice on the plat ( does not show here). There is an index to the segregated tracts and for administrative purposes the GLO labeled the private land as tracts, that was restored by Dependent Resurvey, but the original aliquot part description is still valid and the landowners did not hav to modify their legal and valid deacription.
I know that this procedure was debated in detail back in the 19 teens and has satisfied the requirements of protecting the private land and also completing the independent resurvey of the Public Land. Remember that the 1909 resurvey act was being implemented and adhered to.
All of this was brought up to help Richard with his misinterpretation of the Manual and has nothing to do with the theory being discussed.
Keith
Dave Karoly
> Dave there's actually another legal twist involved with the independent resurveys: the land owners with existing rights are under no obligation to accept the results of the independent resurvey. The federal government has no authority to change their legal description. I ran into that in the early 1990's with a township where the landowners refused to change the legals for their parcels after the resurvey was done. So in this example, instead of reading Tract 50 their legal still reads it SW4SE4 of Section 10.
>
That's right Mighty. The owners, not only have no "obligation" to "change their description," there is no mechanism in the law that I'm aware of for them to do it if they wanted. They'll never get a patent for "Tract 50." Their patent, and their entire chain of title will reference the original survey and the original aliquot description.
I've seen this happen before. The federal surveyors seem to think that, because they still have jurisdiction over the federal land, they can do anything they want, then use tracting as a fall-back to resolve the mess that's created. They don't seem to realize the potential title issues that are created when they designate an existing patent with a new tract number. Seems like a simple resolution on their end, but really raises havoc in the private sector.
JBS
Dave Karoly
The heavy lines are tracts more or less conforming to existing private property at the time of the resurvey. The lighter lines are new "section lines". However as you might be able to tell; Section 15 doesn't really exist and Section 14 is only 1.49 (Lot 1) acres in size. One might call them "phantom" sections. In some of the earlier resurveys I've worked in the Section and 1/4 corners inside tracts weren't set, but by the 1910 era ones like this one they did start to set the section and 1/4's in the phantom sections-I think it was to control the lot lines created by the independent resurvey.
If you look at the drawing you can see how the old section lines were laid out (SW cor. of tract 50 being the S1/4, Section 10). These people hired a surveyor to lay out the section lines before the resurvey and many of the tract corners are existing Section corner brass caps with a GLO brass cap marking a tract corner next to it-accepting the Section corner. Since they are accepting the Section corner monument that's what I'm using, not the tract corner monument.
Independent Resurveys
Remember that the only times that the Independent Resurveys were conducted was when there were very few if any original survey monuments and the land owners had a very difficult time in locating their land on the ground. The GLO restored their land boundaries by DEPENDENT RESURVEY procedures, whereas no private land surveyor could resurvey the entire township.
Consequently all land owners, including the Feds, could find their boundaries.
It is a safe assumption that the private land owners were in close contact with GLO surveyors on the ground and were satisfied with the results.
But this discussion is not about Independent Resurveys. As far as I know, there has been no Independent Resurveys in my survey lifetime!
Back to the regular premise of the bogus theory of subdividing sections with double set of corners.
Speak up!
Keith
