Keith and Leaders of the Survey World

:good:

This is going to be fun! 😉

I would have to imagine that if you have read half of what I have posted about the bugus theory of subdividing sections, you would understand what I have been posting about.

Anyway, the bugus theory of subdividing sections is being proposed by National book writers and that method is laying out the protracted section lines on the ground without regard to existing monumentation and/or use lines. Simply, those lines are what are shown on the original GLO survey plats and are the only method of subdividing sections in the PLSS.

The BLM survey Manual does not advocate this procedure and in fact has guidelines for original surveys by BLM land surveyors and has guidelines in the resurvey sections on acceptance of boundaries that have been established by other means then exact reproduction of the dashed lines.

Obviously, these guidelines are primarily for BLM land surveyors with Federal survey authority, but we all know that the Manual is guidelines for private surveyors as well. Most of the 30 Public Land States have it in their State laws and/or State requirements.

When I referred to "leaders of the survey world", I was primarily referring to those land surveyors in the Washington Office Cadastral Survey Unit and have been repeatedly requesting an opinion from the BLM Director, who has sole delegated authority from the Statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior.

You can take my term, "survey world" for being unlimited in its boundaries. The United States of America has one "Land Department" and that is BLM and it is therefor incumbent on them to provide the leadership necessary to have stable land boundaries and stable title in these United States.

It is not difficult to understand what I am doing.

Any questions?

Keith

I repeatedly refer to the court case in Florida whereas this bogus theory is in practice and the results are shown very well.

Any serious thought about this case, can be explored in the field notes of the resurvey and also the case itself, of course.

When surveyors are advocating "property lines" that are separate from "aliquot part lines", they are referring to the bogus theory of subdividing sections. Hence double corners which both are supposedly representing the same corner.

Just in case you missed it in my earlier posts, I have nearly 20 years experience with BLM in Washington, D. C.

I understand the concept of headquarters in an agency with sole land survey authority for the Public Lands.

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Tuesday, March 05, 2013, 16:39 (49 minutes ago) @ Ric Moore
“… the bugus theory of subdividing sections is being proposed by National book writers and that method is laying out the protracted section lines on the ground without regard to existing monumentation and/or use lines…”

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Tuesday, March 05, 2013, 16:52 (36 minutes ago) @ Keith
“…When surveyors are advocating "property lines" that are separate from "aliquot part lines", they are referring to the bogus theory of subdividing sections…”

These two post aren’t exactly clear to me. The 16:39 post speaks of protracted lines as being bogus. The 16:52 post speaks of aliquot part lines as being legitimate.

Isn’t the intent of Subdivision by Protraction to get aliquot parts?

He's referring to the difference between plan and practice. The protraction is the plan that some surveyor in the past attempted to put into practice when setting the monuments of the interior aliquot corners.

Now, some time later, a new surveyor comes along, measures the section exterior and calculates the interior aliquot lines based on his own recent measurements. In doing so he finds that the previous monuments for the interior aliquot corners do not land on his calculated points, and without regard to the methodology used by the previous surveyor or whether the previous surveyors measurements were reasonably acceptable for the time and conditions when that survey was performed, whether or not the landowners have long recognized and accepted the older monument, or any other factors, the new surveyor calls it off and declares (and maybe remonuments) the "true" aliquot corner a few feet or a couple of tenths from the monument found.

It's a methodology that ensures that all corners will move some amount, more or less, each time another surveyor works in the section. It is contrary to the policy of boundary stability.

> Isn’t the intent of Subdivision by Protraction to get aliquot parts?

Yes it is, but the debate is about who can do the subdivision of sections and what is acceptable and what is not.

For example, a common theory, repeated with regularity is that any aliquot corner within or on the boundary of a section, not set by the GLO/BLM during the original survey that created the section is open to challenge if the corner position cannot be proven to have been set by a licensed land surveyor using proper methods within an acceptable circle of error.

This theory has even been (and is currently) being advocated by some state BLM offices (hence I suppose is one reason the Washington office is dragging its feet).

The problem is that the BLM Manuals being especially unmistakable in the 2009 Manual) say no such thing, and in fact contradict this "bogus theory".

I always liked this

I like the booklet also.

One section of it that many either do not know exists, or choose to ignore is:
What has been written on the subject of subdivision of sections relates to the procedure contemplated by law, and refers to the methods to be followed in the initial subdivision of the areas, prior to development and improvement. It must be borne in mind that care should be exercised to avoid disturbing, satisfactory conditions as to roads, fences, or other improvements marking subdivision-of-section lines and which may define the extent of property rights. (bold added)

Richard,

Please read again.

I did not say nor intimate that the protracted dashed lines are bogus!

It is only when surveyors advocate that these lines are the only evidence to use in subdividing a section.

The bogus theory is that they are the only evidence to use.

That concept is not difficult to understand!

And it is bogus!

How much clearer can I say it?

I have mentioned before and will mention again, that I retired at a GM-15 level.

For your information, there is only one GM-15 Land Surveyor position in our United States.

Ric Moore

Comments?

Your thread!

Ric Moore

Let me put a little more of this in perspective and for the benefit of anybody that may be interested

Back in 19 hunnert and 63 or so, I was a cadastral plat draftsman and a GS-5 and had the responsibility of drafting the resurvey plats from the material that was provided by the BLM land surveyors in the field.

It was the practice at that time for the BLM land surveyors to retrace and resurvey the section lines of the PLSS and very little subdivision of sections was being done.

So, I drafted the survey plats and drafted the dashed lines within the sections and of course only went from 1/4 to 1/4 corner with those dashed lines. Now, it would seem obvious to most that as I was sitting at my drafting table and inking those lines, I could not, did not know of any interior section line boundaries that were established on the ground. Naturally we knew of and I knew of the private land within the sections as I had the MTPs (Master Title Plat) but, the land surveyors did not enter in the sections to subdivide.

Now comes the bogus part!

There are those that advocate and believe that my dashed lines on the survey plat are the only evidence of the boundaries between the Public Land and the private land in those sections.

As if, I had some sort of divine authority to ink those lines!

This entire discussion gets so preposterous that I am amazed at the rationale expressed by some, who really should know better.

The one fact to keep in mind, is, that my protracted inked center lines were on a RESURVEY PLAT!

And you might imagine that the RESURVEY PLAT contained Public Land and Private Land.

Now, think a little about this entire scenario! Did I have the authority to establish boundaries between Federal Land and Private Land when I drafted those dashed lines on the resurvey plats?

Those that are promoting the concept of those dashed lines as the only evidence of aliquot part subdivision boundaries are claiming exactly that.

I did not realize the authority that I had when I was a GS-5 draftsman.

Think about it.

Well that was a "little" clearer than your first two posts.
🙂

Well then, why didn't you clear up this issue when you had a chance?:-)

Richard,

The preposterous argument of dashed lines being the only controlling evidence within the section, was not being promoted, from anybody at the time when I was in the Washington Office.

Check the dates on the books that are promoting that preposterous argument.

Edit: The argument on dashed lines being the only evidence was being debated, but not in the books at that time. Many arguments were in our office from certain people on why private survey monuments were not accepted.

Keith has done a very good job of stating his premise on the current topic for quite some time. If it has not been followed or searched, it is not his problem to continually restate his premise.

If I were the opposing attorney with Keith presented as an expert witness in BLM surveying matters, and his qualifications were being brought up, I would immediately stipulate as to his qualifications as an expert rather than having the judge and jury actually hear all of his qualifications read into the record. And no, I am not an attorney, but I have seen enough to know how it would roll out.

Anyway, the bugus theory of subdividing sections is being proposed by National book writers and that method is laying out the protracted section lines on the ground without regard to existing monumentation and/or use lines. Simply, those lines are what are shown on the original GLO survey plats and are the only method of subdividing sections in the PLSS.

I've stayed out of the is discussion and don't really want to get far into it now. But if the 2009 Manual has got it right, it seems to me you should be taking this up with the "National book writers" and not the BLM. What do you expect the BLM to do? I spent 5 years as a Fed so I know how it works. After your 30 years do you really expect some sort of official statement? Maybe if you sue you'll get some sort of answer from a court in about 5 years (should the courts take the case). Other than that they will just refer you to the 2009 Manual.