Keith and Leaders of the Survey World

Ric Moore

Keith, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your previous remarks.

I have followed your posts, responses, etc. over the last year+ on the subject and have read your opinions on what you refer to as the "bogus theory" way more times than I care to admit. But that is not what my questions were about.

Just to get something out of the way...I can appreciate your pride about your experience and the level attained during the many years employed at BLM working on federal lands in the context of land surveying. I'm sure that many of us that have not had that opportunity would relish the chance to experience that, even if just for a short while to supplement our experience that we are all equally proud of. And I would bet that if you share any of the traits that are common amongst land surveyors, you would probably jump at the chance to have some of the experience that us private land surveyors have also obtained in all of our years. I have not critized you in that regard nor requested that you explain your experience. And I do not have a need to request that of you, or anyone else on this forum.

"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."

You've mentioned advocacy by national book writers, seminar speakers, etc. quite a few times in all these posts and I feel that the context in which you present this implies that the rest of us automatically subscribe to those opinions, theories, etc. just because of who uttered those opinions. I, like the rest of my peers, read these writings, listen to these speakers, debate endlessly our interpretations of these opinions without ever treating these opinions as gospel. I like to think I learn from studying other opinions and can only hope that others feel the same way when listening to mine. So, please don't assume that everyone is on board with another's opinion simply because of who stated it. Whether that is a national well known writer, you, or me.

"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."

I can't speak for laws and requirements in every state, but I am familiar with the California laws that mention the BLM Manual and feel that I do have a pretty good handle on how that language is referred to. California references the manual primarily in terms of the minimum requirements to qualify for state licensure as follows:

"...The applicant shall be thoroughly familiar with (1) the procedure and rules governing the survey of public lands as set forth in the Manual of Surveying Instructions (2009), published by the federal Bureau of Land Management..."

I submit that the California legislature recognized that the manual is specific to defining the appropriate procedures to be employed by federal employees, serving under federal survey authority, for the purposes of surveying federal lands. There is no mention that the manual is to be used as the defining procedures by anyone with the proper state authority for surveying non-federal lands within California. Only that individuals seeking licensure should be competent in understanding the methods and procedures used by those with federal authority that generally came before us.

Laws and regulations in other states may require that the Manual shall be followed explicitly regardless of ownership of the lands to be surveyed and may not. Other states also have sections of their laws that define the minimum standard requirements for performing any survey in great detail. I am not a proponent of those requirements being regulated to that level primarily because I believe it delegates the role of the land surveyor to nothing more than a technician. And, by not having those requirements defined to that level, I like to think that the California legislature recognized the professional stature of land surveyors more appropriately.

"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."

I agree with you...within the confines of federal lands. BLM doesn't have any more authority outside of federal lands than I do within federal lands. I have known several individuals with land surveying careers employed by the federal government and respect their experience, knowledge, insight, assistance, etc. in regards to understanding the complexities associated with those responsibilities. However, I do not automatically subscribe to those federally-mandated procedures or their opinions as being the unchallenged truth as it applies to surveying within non-federal lands. I attempt to consider all available evidence in an effort to arrive at a conclusion that I feel represents my best opinion.

In regards to your bogus theory...

If you are generally referring to how those with federal survey authority should be appropriately subdividing sections, within federal lands, I can understand your desire to see this published and standardized across all offices at BLM.

If you are stating that all land surveyors, regardless of federal or non-federal employment status need to clearly understand that same distinction pertaining to the appropriate procedures required to be employed by those with federal survey authority, I can also understand that position and believe it falls within the context of "thoroughly familiar" in the aforementioned California reference to the Manual.

If you are stating that because BLM issues internal policies, including a written set of instructions for their employees to follow, that BLM is establishing principles and procedures that all land surveyors shall follow regardless of employment status or fee ownership status, I cannot agree with you on that position.

"Did I have the authority to establish boundaries between Federal Land and Private Land when I drafted those dashed lines on the resurvey plats?"

No. Do federal surveyors have the sole authority to establish boundaries between federal land and non-federal lands now?

Ric Moore

Ric,

I think that you misunderstand.

The bogus theory is that anytime a surveyor, federal or not, surveys an aliquot part, they are to redetermine the subdivisional lines as if the section had not been previously subdivided, and then when some, most, or perhaps all of the existing monuments within the section do not fall precisely on the calculated positions, reject those monuments and redefine the corners.

Although that is something that many surveyors do, it is wholly inappropriate in the vast majority of cases, regardless of what authority the surveyor is working under.

Keith is not advocating that all surveyors adhere to the mathematical procedures and methods outlined in the Manual for the subdivision of sections whenever surveying within the PLSS. He is advocating that all surveyors properly evaluate the existing monumentation and marked boundaries and accept or reject them based upon applicable law, as the instructions indicate in the resurveys portions of the Manual, with which so few are familiar.

That is a very reasonable position to take.

His question regarding the authority of a GS-5 was rhetorical. A GS-5 draftsman is roughly equivalent to an unlicensed CAD operater who may have 2 to 3 years of chainman experience.

BLM summer help is in the GS-2 to GS-5 range. Beginning range for the cadastral surveyor series is GS-7, typically a person fresh out of college with a few years of experience, and the rough equivalent of someone with an LSIT getting close to taking the LS exam.

What bothers me about the whole Keith wanting to right the wrongs of the world, is that this seems to be borne of a personal beef steming from a long ago puffing of chests.
His attacks on "Clark" may stem from philisophical differences he held with one of the current authors, but he has shown a defiance in understanding what is actually contained in the book.
For instance, I tried to debate a passage from the current supplement, and Keith's response is as follows:

Me: "The document, once again, is from the 2012 supplement to "Clark on Surveying", ...."

Keith's response: "I don't have that section and don't plan on getting it!"

To me, this attitude speaks volumes. He doesn't care to read what the book's current advice is, and now is trying to get the BLM to give a statement he can use to continue this misdirected crusade.

In fact, his whole attack on what he calls a "bogus theory" is questionable. "Clark" does recognize the original status of corners of common acceptance. To read Keith, you would believe "Clark" only recognizes the protracted lines. This is simply not true.

A good for instance, is that the case "Dykes v Arnold" that Keith likes to tout, actually has its final based decision on the guidance provided from "Clark".

Again, I have got to believe Keith's attacks are borne from past personal disagreements, and not from what guidance is actually provided in "Clark".

> 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.

:good:

Doesn't anyone think that the 2009 manual is the official stance of the 'leaders' of the BLM?

There's a lot more to decision-making on what to accept or not accept than "monuments" vs. calculated positions. The are (or should be) books dedicated to the decision-making process of determining boundary corners. A simple statement by the BLM does not answer all questions. There are going to be mixed opinions of what is meant by different "official" statements regardless. If you try to get the BLM or statute law to give you a cookie-cutter answer to how to decide where property corners fall, then you have taken the professionalism out of surveying and made it a chore for technicians with their little rule books in hand.

Well...that's my opinion anyway.

Evan,

You got it.B-)

Leon

Part of the problem that the DC office may need to address is that all of the BLM still doesn't know what the 2009 Manual says (in which there is little "new" law on the subject from the 73 Manual) as evidenced in my repose thread above.

And yes, a good deal of the problem is with some national authors and speakers, some of which are now trying to negate part of Cooley's authoritative writings.

Ric Moore

Thanks for responding with a thoughtful and serious discussion on the primary issue of the day! At least in my opinion and why I am continuing to push to get a definitive answer from the Director, BLM. This bogus theory keeps coming up in posts here and I know of other places wherein it is used to define rulings.

But, I do not agree with some of your basic statements and they are;

In regards to your bogus theory...

If you are generally referring to how those with federal survey authority should be appropriately subdividing sections, within federal lands, I can understand your desire to see this published and standardized across all offices at BLM.

No. Do federal surveyors have the sole authority to establish boundaries between federal land and non-federal lands now?

Whoever said this is wrong....and I did not state it or believe it.

It is my clear intention to have the guidelines in the Manual explained in further detail so even those land surveyors that are practicing the guidelines in the other texts can understand what they are doing is wrong. I have no intention of banning the other books, as most surveyors are fully capable of sorting out the guidelines that are valid and lawful.

As was noted before, I did prepare and issue guidelines that were in accordance with the Manual and on issues that needed clarification.

It cannot be that hard to understand my rationale now in requesting further explanation of the Manual.

Keith

Evan

I have to believe that most readers got my point about my boundary establishing authority as a GS-5 draftsman!

Clearcut,

Tell us who you are and I will answer your allegations.

Keith

“…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…”

It seems to me that if anyone has made their point well, they should be able to state their point briefly and concisely. There should not be a need to read torrents of posts to follow a well-made point.
Brevity is the soul of wit ~ Hamlet

“…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…”

Expertise is indeed relevant. Opposing council will typically try to challenge the qualifications of an opposing proffered expert witness. Licensure is typically the very first qualification questioned. Licensure is a direct measure of CURRENT qualifications. Another measure of CURRENT qualifications might be how well the individual is viewed by other supposed experts in the same field. I think this thread might be indicative of the BLM’S view of said expert.

Richard

“…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.

This has actually happened several times and the opposing attorney did not want all of my qualifications known to the Judge.

I am qualified as an expert witness on testifying on the Manual of Surveying Instructions in Federal and State Courts.

In my opinion of course, it dawned on the opposing attorney that it best just to move on and try to discredit me in other ways.

For instance, in one of my last court appearances, the opposing attorney did not question my expert testimony status, but did inquire if I had a detailed written agreement on my Court room and research hourly rates.

I had to say no and the opposing attorney then brought up a court case in California where the expert did not have a detailed agreement on these items and was not allowed to testify. The Judge excused herself for an hour or so, to read the case, and came back with the decision that I could not testify.

I learned a valuable lesson!

Keith

Keith

Why is is that I can imagine you in 8th grade refusing to read "Huck Finn" because Mark Twain wasn't man enough to put his real name on it? 😉

James

No comment necessary!;-)

Richard

Excellent point. Expert witnesses of any profession must realize that when you are in court you play by rules we might not typically play by. Here is an interesting reference: GUIDELINES FOR EXPERT WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS AND TESTIMONY

When in Rome do as the romans do

Keith

Something doesn't add up to me. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 5th Edition, was published in 1987 wasn't it? You were around in BLM then weren't you? When exactly were you chief cadastral surveyor? Didn't Fran Eickbush become the chief before you retired after you worked for him?

A good for instance, is that the case "Dykes v Arnold" that Keith likes to tout, actually has its final based decision on the guidance provided from "Clark".

From the case:
That leaves us looking for guidance.17 ?We have found it-in two places. ? The first is one of the foremost treatises on surveying, Clark on Surveying. ? That authority identifies precisely the problem that confronts us in this case-i.e, the problem of the center of a section, as it would be located by a correct survey, not conforming to the lines of occupation. ? Among the chief reasons for that happening, Clark explains, is the tendency of surveyors to “stub in” the center of the section using only one or two of the quarter-section corners or the mid-point of the north-south or east-west section center line. ? Clark on Surveying §?10.22 at 276. ? Clark then lists, in apparent order of preference, the generally endorsed solutions. ? The first is to deem the center of the section an original corner if it was first set by a county surveyor.18 ?Id. The second is to defer to long-standing local reliance on boundaries as reflected by the lines of occupation. ?Id. (“If the interested landowners have always relied on the location of the center of the section, albeit incorrectly located, it becomes the center of the section and no one should tamper with it.”). ? The final resolution, which apparently applies if no county survey has located the center and local reliance has not done so de facto, is to locate the center “in accordance with the federal statute” and to treat the ensuing disputes as ones of property rights, not survey law. ?Id.

?Under the facts of this case, then, Clark would advocate treating Derrick's center as an original corner and giving it the same dignity as a corner originally set by the federal government-that is, the same controlling status as if it had been set, however erroneously, in Mercer's survey. ? That approach was taken by the court in Adams v. Hoover, 196 Mich.App. 646, 493 N.W.2d 280 (1992), which is factually on point and highly persuasive in its reasoning.

From Footnote 17
Here, the evidence establishes to our satisfaction that Derrick did accurately retrace the original Mercer survey of the section's exterior boundaries and monuments. ? His only error was in measuring to the center of the section, which was an interior measurement that Mercer never made.

Now rather than insisting that exterior monuments control lines that the original survey never measured let's all go out and practice what Clark preaches.

Requesting an official response from the BLM Director

gschrock,

Your suggestions are good and I would certainly go along with the idea of more surveyors writing the Director, BLM and requesting clarification on the Manual policy on subdividing sections within the PLSS.

At this point, I think I will not make my letters public, until I get a response from the Director.

My plan all along is to go public with my letters and the response that I might get from the Director.

If in fact, there is no response, I will still go public with my letters and let the readers be aware that the Washington Office staff has refused to respond. That in itself is telling!

But since it will soon be a year that I started this process, I am willing to wait a little longer and see if I get the response?

When the bogus theory is being cited in hearing decisions, it is past the time for the BLM to explain the guidelines in the Manual.

It is readily apparent that some surveyors need further explanation of the process!

Keith

J Tanner

Something doesn't add up to me. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 5th Edition, was published in 1987 wasn't it? You were around in BLM then weren't you? When exactly were you chief cadastral surveyor? Didn't Fran Eickbush become the chief before you retired after you worked for him?

And your point is?

I don't know when the 5th Edition was published?

gschrock

It is not a secret campaign of mine and your idea of others requesting an opinion is good.

I just am of the opinion that until I get a response, my letter to them can be private.

It should be clear to them that I will make everything public when I receive their response.

No big secret about it and naturally anybody interested in the same, can write their own letter to BLM.

Keith

Requesting an official response from the BLM Director

The surveyors that I am contacting are not dumb!

We all know the problem and is just a matter of facing it.

Keith