Requesting an official response from the BLM Director
Thanks!
Keith
If Eickbush was Chief at the 15 level, how could you have retired as a 15? There wasn't 2 15s at the same time because you stated there was (is) only one 15 position in WO. That is why I said that it didn't add up.
As was suggested before, if you were in the position to make the policy decisions before, why didn't you? Clark, 5th edition, was already available for you to challenge. I guess it wasn't an important issue back then, but it has become an issue now that you are not a federal surveyor.
BLM never ventured into determining any corner acceptance policies during your tenure, why not? Maybe that is the same position BLM is taking by not answering your request today.
I would think that the Manual together with statutes and leading court decisions would be all the guidance necessary for a professional surveyor to rely upon to conduct their work in the PLSS. Heck it took BLM over 7 years to rework the 73 manual. So based on that schedule, maybe you will hear from them in 4-5 years.
The issue in a nutshell: the Manual of Surveying Instructions consists of more than Chapter 3.
Dave
You are exactly right and why is it, that some, even BLMers, can't accept that fact?
Keith
linebender
The court case cannot distinguish between those solid lines that are actually on the ground and those dashed lines that are not on the ground.
Keith
Dave
I think you are right that everybody realizes that there is more to the Manual than Chapter 3. If we took a vote I think it would be unanimous. The Manual provides enough guidance for a professional to apply in practice. The specifics vary enough from case to case and the Manual cannot cover all situations. Professionals don't need (or shouldn't need) a cookbook anyways. Just good judgement relative to their own situation.
Dave
> I think you are right that everybody realizes that there is more to the Manual than Chapter 3. If we took a vote I think it would be unanimous. The Manual provides enough guidance for a professional to apply in practice. The specifics vary enough from case to case and the Manual cannot cover all situations. Professionals don't need (or shouldn't need) a cookbook anyways. Just good judgement relative to their own situation.
I agree. "The Problem" that is not being elaborated on, is a problem of surveyors not adequately applying the laws and the manual. I believe the answer to the question is within the writings of the manual and answered in a collection of many well-written books. If I am not misunderstanding, it is a matter of surveyors not accepting monumentation that is in the ground over a mathematical solution. The answer to what should and should not be accepted, is a matter of a case-by-case solution and professional judgment. I highly doubt that one paper can clarify exactly how and when to apply a particular decision of acceptance.
Tom
Your statement:
I highly doubt that one paper can clarify exactly how and when to apply a particular decision of acceptance.
You are exactly right about that and of course the Manual cannot and should not have "cookbook" answers, as it can only give general guidelines on field procedures.
I have to think that if in fact the Director, BLM would issue a letter on what I am requesting, it is entirely possible that the letter would only have to cite pertinent sections of the Manual, which would point out what has been stated for years and simply emphasize the procedures on how to subdivide a section.
My answers are already in the Manual, in case anybody really wants to know.
For instance, Chapter 3 guidelines in the '73 Manual are not appropriate when retracing existing monumented subdivision of section lines. And why would that have to be repeated?
Keith
Tom
Well Keith, I guess I am just at a loss on what you want. You want the survey leaders to tell you that finding a monument so many feet within your mathematical position is close enough?
Maybe you should read that Clark book. It looks like, from linebender's post, the answer to your question might be in there. even if not, it might be easier to trash the authors and their philosophies if you have actually read what they have to say.
Tom
Where did I ever say this?
Well Keith, I guess I am just at a loss on what you want. You want the survey leaders to tell you that finding a monument so many feet within your mathematical position is close enough?
I would rather have them comment on the bogus theory of subdividing a section by using only the protracted lines as evidence and rejecting existing surveyor monuments that are a foot away!
For your information, I checked out the recent Clark's book from the library and copied for my information, certain sections.
Keith
Keith
So what is keeping you from writing and publishing your interpretation of subdivision of section by survey contained in the Manual? You say that you have been testifying in court on this subject, so why don't you write a technical paper and present it before professional organizations or here on this bulletin board. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do in an an hour or so since you seem to have all the answers. Since you initiated this subject shouldn't you profess your opinion in a well written technical paper. I have not gotten a clear sense of what you are after through all of these disjointed posts.
Did you just say you finally checked out Clark to see what it has to say on the subject? After all these years? Like the Manual, Clark must be studied in its entirety not just selected sections.
J Tanner
I was using Clarks before you were born!
And thanks for the advice!
Keith
So you must have known John Grimes?