Independent Resurveys
The only possible Independent Resurvey I remember seeing was done in the 1880s a few years after the original. It wasn't labeled as such. There were big differences from the original so they lotted almost every section in the township.
Independent Resurveys
That was before then concept of independent Resurveys and probably was a resurvey where the GLO simply reserved the township and for the most part did not protect the entered land.......and brought about the 1909 resurvey act and the proviso of protecting Bona Fide rights.
Keith
JBS et al
If you go back to my post above, I referenced a 1988 Nevada federal court decision dealing with bona fide rights originally posted on the old rpls.com board by D. A. Whalstrom, (da w), that directly contradicts your post.
It concerned the shift from an aliqout part description to tract #42 as a result of a resurvey which the judge ruled was a legal description for the subject property.
Study 6-12 dealing with bona fide rights and 6-18 that refers to amended entry, (the law cited in the '73 manual has been modified but the procedure is still valid).
Remember, according to 43 USC 772, it is the BLM, not the entryman, that is responsible for correcting the description so future surveyors wouold not be misled.
Richard Schaut
Dave Karoly
What are the hatched parcels?
Those represent "areas in conflict". The independent resurvey "found" that two neighbors were in conflict and "overlapped" their patents during the resurvey. As you might be able to tell; Tract 51 overlaps HE 08389 and HE 08592. The GLO did these surveys then left it up to the landowners to resolve the overlaps.
As to Keith's point this thread was started with here are two examples of where I accepted and rejected C1/4's not at the mathematical intersection.
Accepted: the C1/4 as shown on an 1890 Subdivision Plat 5' from the math intersection. The north and east 1/4's are original stones, the west and south are positions from subdivision plats.
Rejected: A t-post of unknown history and a fence corner for the C1/4 of Section 29.
This Section is one of the very few I have retraced where all 8 original stones were recovered.
To Keith I would say that it would be very rare to see the BLM in these parts use an interior corner that wasn't a math or very close to a math solution.
Richard
The next time you do an independent Resuvey, you should pay close attention to what the judge stated.
Keith
Richard-Keith
The quality of the image isn't great.
But these were some of a number of Tracts that were located and monumented as the part of a Dependent Resurvey approved in 1984.
It should be noted that the surrounding sections were not necessarily surveyed out. They were retraced, but the corners around the exterior could not be located. It's pretty rough country.
The note reads in part " The tract segregations shown hereon represent the position and form of said tracts under the original description as referred to the original survy, located as such units and marked on the ground according to the best available evidence of the legal boundaries."
The field notes for Tract 53 in SW corner state "The boundaries of this tract survey were established latitudinally from the south boundary of Tract 52, and longitudinally from the 1/4 sec. cor. of secs. 16 and 17. This method was utilized as th most effective way, within the constraints imposed by the Manual of Survey Instructions, to encompass the greatest posssible number of improvements within the tract. These improvements are described in the following field notes; and those located in the tract include an older home and two of the three homesbuilt subsquent to the several mesne conveyances of lands lying easterly of Ishi Pishi Road."
In other words the lines don't follow an "perfect sectional breakdown", and not all of the improvements were included in protecting the "bona fide rights" of the entryman,
It is also clear from the field notes that some locally established corners were accepted and some were rejected as having been established using improer procedures.
Sorry for the hijack, just thought you might find this one interesting.
All surveys are different.
DJJ
Keith
Keith:
For anyone so inclined, they can go to the BLM web site for Wyoming, Plats & Records, click on Sheridan County, T55N, R78W and you can see all the plats, supplementals (10) and download the field notes for their own reading if they so wish. One of the supplementals is the tabulated listing cross refrerence of the Tracts vs the Aliquot Part.
Independent Resurveys
It seems to me that multiple-section corners have been brought up for most of the thread. Of course it isn't the norm; so if you are saying that the special circumstances that create multiple-aliquot corners don't count, then I guess you are right that it doesn't happen (except when it does which doesn't count).
Tom
Mr. Williams
If you read 6-18 you will find it states that: "... This is a process of adjudication rather than one of resurvey. ..." and you must know that 6-11 specifically prohibits the surveyor from making judicial decisions; the relevant part is: "...but it is a judicial question beyond the function of the surveyor to determine whether or not specified lands have been duly earned under a certain entry. .."
Therefore, if you are stating that your decision is controlling, you were working for a dysfunctional BLM office and making decisions that were specifically prohibited to one in your position as a contract surveyor. You also have no authority to determine when a process of adjudication was proper for either a dependent or independent resurvey when the manual clearly states in 6-18, (part of Chap 6 that defines dependent resurveys), that tract segregation is an accepted procedure for that type of resurvey.
As long as you had no authority to determine if tract segregation and document reformation was an appropriate procedure in a specific resurvey, you also had no authority to decide if any one above you did or did not properly discharge their duty.
If anyone finds it hard to believe that a gov't office could be dysfunctional, I strongly suggest that you stop smoking whatever you are smoking.
Richard Schaut
Doug,
Looks to me like a dependent Resuvey of the private land boundaries against the Public Land and does not include the independent Resuvey of the Public Land?
Apparently no need for a new survey of the Public Land.
Thanks for posting the plat.
.............nobody posting about double bogus corners?.....
Keith
Richard
Do you have any useful comments on the subject that is the point of this thread?
Keith
Richard
> Do you have any useful comments on the subject that is the point of this thread?
>
> Keith
Section corners and property corners are separate when the aliqout part description retracement process using the manual as a guide will not result in recovering the legal property corner. In a retracement survey, (either dependent or independent), whenever the property corner will not be recovered by the usual procedures that are described in the manual for placing the particular corner, the M&B with tract # designators is used to replace the erroneous aliquot part descriptor and the plat of survey is 'filed' in the BLM records, thus preserving the boundaries of the parcel where bona fide rights have been established.
In compliance with the 1988 Nevada federal district court's ruling to which I refered above, the tract # designator then replaces the original aliquot part description.
This concept was valid in 1988, in early 2000 when da w posted the information and every time I have reposted it since, which has been frequently.
The fact that you have consistently refused to understand the concept, and the sections of the manual that support the process, proves that you are not the 'expert' that you think you are. I have also frequently made that valid point.
Richard Schaut
Richard
The more you post, the more you show everybody your lack of knowledge of the PLSS.
Home at last and sitting at my own desk.
Keith
Richard
Start your own thread if you continue to want to post about Independent Resurveys; this thread is about the bogus theory of aliquot part corners and property corners.
Keith
Richard
"> Section corners and property corners are separate when the aliqout part description retracement process using the manual as a guide will not result in recovering the legal property corner."
Huh?
"In a retracement survey, (either dependent or independent), whenever the property corner will not be recovered by the usual procedures that are described in the manual for placing the particular corner..."
Just what, out of idle curiosity, are these "usual procedures" that you are referring to, and just how do these "procedures" pertain to a private surveyor surveying private property?
Richard
> Start your own thread if you continue to want to post about Independent Resurveys; this thread is about the bogus theory of aliquot part corners and property corners.
>
> Keith
Your opening post for this thread says nothing about 'Independent Resurveys' so you prove again that you don't know what you are talking about.
Richard Schaut
Mr. Allen
For an example of 'usual procedures' say that when you are looking for the C1/4 of a section you would look around a point at the intersection of straight lines connecting opposite 1/4 corners.
As in the Dykes v Arnold, Oregon appelate court case. However, the county surveyor's field notes said that he went 1/2 mile east of the W1/4 corner and set a post. Because that resurveyor was looking for the C1/4, he noted that there was a significant difference between the 'theoretical' point where he looked and the legal monument that the county surveyor set, the court case came into being.
The county surveyor did not set the C1/4, he set either the NE cor of the W1/2 mile of the S1/2 of the section or the SE cor of the W1/2 mile of the N1/2 of the section. Therefore the section was never subdivided into 1/4's in accordance with the manual's instructions and any deed calling for a 1/4 section had to be wrong.
The problem was most probably caused by an attorney in the county seat who made out the deeds using the wrong description, a typical 'lawyer's deed'.
Mr. Williams seems to be hung up on the judges use of 'C1/4 corner' as some kind of proof that the monument set by the county surveyor was 'stubbed out' but the terminology used by the judge was the terminology used by the lawyer pleading the case and the judges response using the lawyer terminology could not make the corner a 'C1/4'.
You need to review the '73 manual to better understand what retracing surveyors need to do to retrace descriptions using aliquot part designators.
Richard Schaut
Richard
As I recall, the County Surveyor in Dykes set the C 1/4 before there was a ubiquituous Manual, and at or shortly after a time when there had been several different "official" methods which had been regionally promulgated. He set it according to the standard procedure in use in the region at the time. Even though it was not the procedure that the GLO had officially blessed, it was followed with the intention of setting the C 1/4.
Having set it under proper authority (see §3-76 of the 73 Manual for discussion of that), and it having been accepted and recognized as the C 1/4 in the establishment of lines of aliquot parcels, it became the C 1/4 of the same dignity as any of the Section Corners or exterior 1/4 corners set by the GLO. It is, legally, without error. The court did not declare it to be a property corner which was not the C 1/4 as I recall. (I'll have to dig it out and read it again to be certain that they didn't leave it as some ambiguously labeled point which nonetheless controls the locations of aliquot lines as if it were the C 1/4)
Richard
I was going to post here.......but decided not to!
Sometimes you just do not make sense?
Keith
Mr. Page
Read it again, carefully.
Richard Schaut