Don't forget the stories about the two centenarians that are still surveying. One had pictures with the story showing the old boy with his GPS gear in hand.
From personal experience, the 50% sounds about right.
BushAxe Life Rule No. 1 -
You will have reached the level of Expert when you realize how little you actually know about your subject matter. Never stop questioning yourself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BushAxe, post: 413210, member: 11897 wrote: BushAxe Life Rule No. 1 -
You will have reached the level of Expert when you realize how little you actually know about your subject matter. Never stop questioning yourself.
Amen. Steve
One thing Lucas is right about...if you aren't going to survey the Boundary then don't call it a Boundary Survey.
Maybe Deed Sketch Survey? Curt Brown favored Record Title Boundary but that implies it's actually the property boundary.
And if you are staking the record title boundary then why go backwards in the records? Those are no longer the record title boundary which is simply the latest vesting deed. That is even in the ACSM property survey standards from the early 1960s. If the Descriptions overlap that's not for you because you aren't surveying the boundary, just show both, two record boundaries, that's for the Court to figure out. 😉
I'm glad I don't work in Lucas land where 50% know/don't know. He gave a seminar and his point was that the Manual that has been put into the rules and regs needs to be eliminated. Basically his point was since patents have been issued then the Feds don't have any more authority. He didn't realize that 77% of the state is Fed and another
Dave Karoly, post: 413235, member: 94 wrote: One thing Lucas is right about...if you aren't going to survey the Boundary then don't call it a Boundary Survey.
Maybe Deed Sketch Survey? Curt Brown favored Record Title Boundary but that implies it's actually the property boundary.
And if you are staking the record title boundary then why go backwards in the records? Those are no longer the record title boundary which is simply the latest vesting deed. That is even in the ACSM property survey standards from the early 1960s. If the Descriptions overlap that's not for you because you aren't surveying the boundary, just show both, two record boundaries, that's for the Court to figure out. 😉
I like the term Record Of Survey better 😎
In every Profession there are 4 levels of competence.
We all start unconsciously incompetent. We have no clue how much we don't know.
We begin to learn when we become consciously incompetent. We realize we just don't know much. We either begin to learn or change careers. This used to be entry into head chairman duties.
Over time (provided we put effort into learning) we become unconsciously competent. We are getting pretty good but don't realize it.
In the final stage we become consciously competent. This often coincides with death. If we are fortunate we repeat the cycle over and over as we progress in our duties and position. In the worst case scenario we stall there, deriding all others in the lesser three positions. The most common expression of this is whiny magazine articles lacking empirical evidence...
Its nice to see Lucas discussing the manual in a positive light.
A problem I have been seeing lately is surveyors going to far in the opposite direction. Per the IBLA, a bona fide belief is not the same as a bona fide right. Bona fide rights must be tied in some manner to the original survey.
MightyMoe, post: 413237, member: 700 wrote: I'm glad I don't work in Lucas land where 50% know/don't know. He gave a seminar and his point was that the Manual that has been put into the rules and regs needs to be eliminated. Basically his point was since patents have been issued then the Feds don't have any more authority. He didn't realize that 77% of the state is Fed and another
I like the term Record Of Survey better 😎
I believe his point is that we shouldn't treat Retracement Surveys as if they are Original surveys. If a previous surveyor has set something to represent the center of section it is harmful to establish a new center of section using BLM procedures.
I second "Record of Survey."
So glad I don't work in a PLSS state.
I personally treat the exterior boundary of a section differently, than interior.
That is, a higher standard is used on the exterior.
N
Jim in AZ, post: 413254, member: 249 wrote: I believe his point is that we shouldn't treat Retracement Surveys as if they are Original surveys. If a previous surveyor has set something to represent the center of section it is harmful to establish a new center of section using BLM procedures.
I second "Record of Survey."
Jim you are correct. But I think Jeff goes a bit further. Too many cannot seem to recognize when they are performing a retracement survey. I've had people tell me that everything is an "original survey" unless they are retracing a BLM/GLO survey. Some of the other statements I have heard are:
"Only the BLM/GLO can perform retracement surveys."
"Only the BLM/GLO can perform original surveys."
"It isn't a retracement survey unless there is a recorded original survey."
"It cannot be a retracement survey unless the original was performed by a licensed surveyor."
Ours are called "Record of Survey", and that hasn't helped one bit............
Scott Ellis, post: 413123, member: 7154 wrote: I was commenting in another thread that Surveying in a PLSS system is easier than a Metes and Bounds State, and it does seem most of the questions asked on here are about the PLSS system.
Scott,
You are laboring under a misconception.
PLSS is simple in THEORY only. In Practice it is anything other than simple.
I think one thing that gets lost with the BLM and their manual is that a lot of it doesn't apply in the same way once the property has entered into the private domain and has left the public domain. That is where a lot more laws and case law comes in to play, and retracement of surveys that weren't necessarily done to the BLM cookbook, etc. Private rights have started to happen (bona fide rights I would venture to say).
I'm not saying that if you have to break down a section into quarters, you don't apply the principles set out in the manual. But I am saying that if the section has already been broken down and properties have been established, there is a lot more need to find where the breakdown corners once fell, whether they were by the manual or not.
Brian Allen, post: 413274, member: 1333 wrote: Jim you are correct. But I think Jeff goes a bit further. Too many cannot seem to recognize when they are performing a retracement survey. I've had people tell me that everything is an "original survey" unless they are retracing a BLM/GLO survey. Some of the other statements I have heard are:
"Only the BLM/GLO can perform retracement surveys."
"Only the BLM/GLO can perform original surveys."
"It isn't a retracement survey unless there is a recorded original survey."
"It cannot be a retracement survey unless the original was performed by a licensed surveyor."Ours are called "Record of Survey", and that hasn't helped one bit............
How about "it can not be a retracement survey unless monuments were called for in the original deed/description" is the one I was erroneously taught. Jp
Tom Adams, post: 413290, member: 7285 wrote: I think one thing that gets lost with the BLM and their manual is that a lot of it doesn't apply in the same way once the property has entered into the private domain and has left the public domain. That is where a lot more laws and case law comes in to play, and retracement of surveys that weren't necessarily done to the BLM cookbook, etc. Private rights have started to happen (bona fide rights I would venture to say).
I'm not saying that if you have to break down a section into quarters, you don't apply the principles set out in the manual. But I am saying that if the section has already been broken down and properties have been established, there is a lot more need to find where the breakdown corners once fell, whether they were by the manual or not.
AMEN BROTHER! (My State let me practice for 25 years without fully understanding this!!)
Jim in AZ, post: 413254, member: 249 wrote: I believe his point is that we shouldn't treat Retracement Surveys as if they are Original surveys. If a previous surveyor has set something to represent the center of section it is harmful to establish a new center of section using BLM procedures.
I second "Record of Survey."
Yes, but when every point you set has a connection to government title, and they never, never, ever accept an interior corner "off" the math solution, then,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, my point being that Lucas didn't have experience surveying it those situations, and getting rid of the book is not about to happen here.
The U.S. has a weird sort of hybrid engineered slash legal boundary system but mostly legal. Engineers are used to setting things up precisely and there are clearly correct and incorrect answers. The legal system is much more gray and subtle than that. This is why foreign surveyors think we are all nuts.
It would be possible to set up a precise cadastre but it would be expensive and I don't think the American public really wants that. The way it is now you can hear-no-evil, see-no-evil for decades, just ignore the boundaries. They don't have to spend any money at all to occupy their property (other than the cost of acquisition). Or at their option they can hire a Surveyor and find out, something, no one is sure what they are finding out.
The argument appears to be old. Justice Cooley wrote about it in 1875 in a concurring opinion and spoke about it to Engineers in 1880. Curt Brown wrote in 1957 that we should stick to surveying record title boundaries and maybe that was the most achievable thing in that time and place (rapidly developing Southern California of the early post war era). At least Surveyors should follow some sort of guidelines or rules but let the Lawyers and Judges deal with "unwritten title transfers." In 1962 he wrote Experts can't testify to the ultimate issue of fact (boundary location) because that is the province of the Jury. No so today, Experts may testify to the ultimate issue of fact.
What I am finding here is times are changing. Courts are relying on our opinions more. It's not like the 19th century were probably a large percentage of Attorneys dealt with real property issues including boundaries. Boundaries is a unique backwater of law not many of them have experience in. Also we no longer live in a young country where new stakes are constantly set and the Judges were attempting to rein in some of the excesses. Many areas no longer have original monuments, only resets and often of unknown origin. The job gets more difficult but I think we can figure it out.
In a case I was testifying in a few years ago, the expert for the other side, big name in this area & owner of pretty successful regional firm, in an attempt to tear down my opinion stated that a surveyor who knows what he's doing should never have to refer to a book to form or to justify an opinion, and particularly that there was no reason to ever refer to the Manual unless the surveyor didn't know or forgot how to break down a section. He started surveying 2 years before I did and graduated from a well known West Coast university 4-year surveying program.
When I was called, I asked the attorney on our side to hold up "that blue book" (73 Manual) that was sitting near my brief case, then turned to the judge.
"That book, the 1973 BLM Manual, has 10 chapters. Approximately half of one chapter is dedicated to the process of dividing a township into sections and sections into smaller 'aliquot' parts. That's the direction to follow if the section has never been divided before. If it has been divided, there are several other chapters that the surveyor should be familiar with, including one full chapter providing basic guidance for retracements or resurveys. Those are the portions the respondent should have been following in this instance."
I went on: "Surveying is a profession, as law is a profession and medicine is a profession. Except for answering the simplest of issues, a lawyer is not going to draft an opinion or a brief without going to appropriate references. A doctor, if presented with an odd or complex set of symptoms, would be expected to consult medical manuals before making a diagnosis. Similarly, land surveying is a licensed profession and if a surveyor encounters a complicated set of circumstances, would do well to consult reliable references, if for no other reason than to confirm what he already knew."
That appeared to strike a positive chord with the judge.
JPH, post: 413255, member: 6636 wrote: So glad I don't work in a PLSS state.
Sometimes, I have no idea what PLSS guys are talking about.
