Arizona does, but it would be probably be pretty hard to enforce unless you could actually catch someone in the act and be able to offer proof. Then, if those that would enforce the statute did not persue the complaint, it would not have any displinary action taken anyway.
Randy...this was a good post
although it seems to have very little input from different states. It would be nice to see a post like this develop into something informative. I'm sure that's what your intent was. Thanks for posting your states law.
Over 100 posts and only 11 posters replied to the original question. 27 comments from Kent.
Kent
If you have proof of BLM ordering the obliteration of private survey monuments, bring it on!
Kent
> If you have proof of BLM ordering the obliteration of private survey monuments, bring it on!
So, you aren't so certain that it hasn't happened, then? BTW I see that you're already starting to moonwalk away from your original bombastic claim, which was:
>BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period!
>
> And what, exactly is the "error ellpse"(sic) of an original, undisturbed boundary monument? This whole discussion has been about the case where an original monument exists and some other surveyor has placed another marker in ignorance of the original.
>
So, you would take this approach towards 1/16th corners and centers of sections? Corners which may well have been set & duly recorded, with lands referenced & even conveyed using same location, perpetuated through some passage of time, but in disaccord with record information or instruction. In other words, corners set at the supposition that the originals are lost - or even incorrectly positioned (center section). Corners which may in fact be erroneous, but ones you don't so glibly yank if you value your license. I think you're thinking inside of a marginally small, isolated box, whereas the vast rest of us are thinking quite a bit outside of that box.
Reminds me
of my posting on my own 1/16 sec. cor. monuments that I know were not set with the accuracy that Kent espouses. (width of my finger nail)
Keith
Kent
Bring it on Kent!
I am out of here for the next few hours, but will check back with that proof of any corner monument!
Kent
Man, that is some fancy moonwalking, Keith.
You first said:
>BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period!
Then you walked that back to:
> If you have proof of BLM ordering the obliteration of private survey monuments, bring it on!
>
and now it's:
>I am out of here for the next few hours, but will check back with that proof of any corner monument!
So what is it that you want to claim BLM never obliterated? Was it:
a) any survey monument, period!
b) private survey monuments, or
c) any corner monument!
Seems like a No-brainer
I assume Texas requires recording of all surveys?
Seems like a No-brainer
> I assume Texas requires recording of all surveys?
No, of course not. This is why leaving grossly replacements for corners where the original, controlling monuments remain in place is so injurious. Only the original subdivision is typically of record.
Seems like a No-brainer
So you've never had a more senior legal instrument come to light after your work?
> I guess I'm not explaining myself well. It's not about the time it takes to remove the monument, it's the fact that the Board of Registration frowns on it.
> Just yesterday I was looking for a monument near a fence intersection surrounded by blackberry bushes. The one I needed is shown on a recorded map with a notation that another one that he found and disagreed with is 0.9' from the one he set. I found the one he rejected and so I knew where to look for the one I needed. Neither one was what I would call an original monument because neither one was called for in the deeds or anything. Just two different opinions of the same corner. The reason I wanted that particular one was that the other corners of the property I'm working on were supposedly placed in relation to that one.
Yes, I understood you perfectly when you said that you seldom dealt with original monuments where you are, that everything was just sort of airy-fairy subjective opinion based upon some sort of something but not a whole lot of anything. That clearly is a much, much different situation than the one I deal with where there are obviously faulty quickie-dickie attempts to reestablish corners that actually remain marked by their original monuments.
Thanks Mr Mapit
I was hoping for folks from more states to chime in because at this point I am curious how many states have a statutory prohibition against destruction or removal of "survey markers". I realize that most if not all of these statutes are virtually unenforceable. I would think however, that whether enforceable or not, those statutes would tend to govern the actions of conscientious surveyors.
As to the preponderance of posts from Kent in this thread...don't get me started. For some reason I get the mental picture of Kent out standing in a field, engaged in a vehement discussion of the finer points of surveying with, you guessed it, a fence post.
And just for the record I did acquiesce to Kent's argument that this is a state specific issue, hence this thread.
I like the wording of the Arkansas statute, "a) Any person who willfully cuts down, destroys, defaces, removes, or carries off any
witness tree, monument, or other landmark established by legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.", it seems to overcome the ambiguity present in many of the other statutes quoted -established by a legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line- doesn't say anything about correctly delineating said boundary line. I also like the use of the word willfully rather than maliciously.
RRain
Thanks Mr Mapit
> I like the wording of the Arkansas statute, "a) Any person who willfully cuts down, destroys, defaces, removes, or carries off any
> witness tree, monument, or other landmark established by legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.", it seems to overcome the ambiguity present in many of the other statutes quoted -established by a legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line- doesn't say anything about correctly delineating said boundary line.
Well, if it isn't used, i.e. if the adjoining owners agree that the original monument is what they will use, since it is the true corner of their properties, then there is nothing in the Arkansas statute that would prevent removing the unused survey marker, is there? Furthermore, if the survey that established the unused survey marker wasn't in conformance with the laws of Arkansas governing surveying, presumably it wasn't a legal survey in the full sense of the word, either, and could be lawfully removed on those grounds as well.
Kent
Lay off the bottle of wine, you are not making sense.
Bring on whatever you have.
Keith
Did you guys
hear something. I thought for sure that I heard something.
I found three monuments this last survey
That had 'justifiable removal' written all over them. I did not remove them. I did prepare an RS stating total rejection of them though. I think that is a much better way to get the point across of so called monuments set in a careless fashion. Leave the offending piece of junk in the ground and make it public record for all to see. I has a much bigger impact when the registrants tag number is visible on the RS and the monument.
Yes, California is a recording state
> I did not remove them. I did prepare an RS stating total rejection of them though. I think that is a much better way to get the point across of so called monuments set in a careless fashion. Leave the offending piece of junk in the ground and make it public record for all to see. I has a much bigger impact when the registrants tag number is visible on the RS and the monument.
Yes, in California where you're going to file a record of survey anyway, there isn't much of a cost associated with leaving confusions in place. It still would have been more professional if the junk markers were clearly of no redeeming value to have removed them and referenced their positions on the ROS, were the California BOR not so keen to perpetuate multiple boundary markers at all costs.
That's what I'm talking about
Observe and report. Opinions are just that opinions. Including the OPINION that a particular monument is original or not.
RRain
Other parties were involved
Specifically the neighbors on either side of two of the erroneously placed markers. I do not know what their opinion is of the markers or even if they know of their existence. So it's best to leave them as they are. The third monument was a city placed spike that was supposed to be at a PRC, the city missed that by 2.4'. I might add that I do know who set the two private markers. I did not recognize his tag number when I saw it on the markers but when I looked it up I said “Ohh it’s Jerry. No wonder those are so far out of place” I had rejected them prior to discovering who set them.
