Steve
I am sure you are stating correctly what Lance would say about the bona fide rights.
BLM does not resort to mathematical solution to problems where there are landowner evidence of boundaries.
Keith
Dave
Well my memory is it was the sort of thing where the boundaries aren't real definite. Hill Country. No fences. Just some buildings, roads and general area occupied. This is an inholding in a Township in a National Forest I think between you and Monterey.
I don't know how they handled the final product in that situation.
Lance was saying that the government will try to fit the aliquot in such a way as the owner keeps their buildings but they can't claim twice as much land as is in the patent or a parcel that is shaped completely differently from the patent. But obviously there is some latitude to slide the parcel around when the nearest proven corner is miles away.
Dave
I have to assume that Lance was exactly right in his explanation of the circumstances. It is not an exact deed dimension problem.
Keith
The private land surveyor is required to obey state laws, the gov't surveyor is specifically banned from doing the same.
Your experience, as far as private land surveying is concerned, is that of a glorified party chief.
Richard Schaut
All
A competent gov't surveyor would know about tract segregation and document reformation as set forth in Chap 6 of the '73 manual.
da w posted a 1988 Nevada federal district judge's opinion regarding a 1939 resurvey that segregated at least 6 tracts, 37-42. Part of the subject of the case was, 'was the tract designation of '42' valid when selling a parcel originally described as an aliquot part?' and the decision was yes.
Do a search for da w's posts in 2004 regarding bona fide rights and you can read it yourself.
Richard Schaut
All
Richard gets stuck in a rut and cannot get out of it.
Once again, the case that Richard refer to, is about a BLM INDEPENDENT RESURVEY.
When was the last time that you or any private surveyor conducted an INDEPENDENT RESURVEY?
Richard refuses to learn that one can't pick and choose those sentences from a court case or especially the Manual, to back up his cockamamie fence line surveying procedures.
Same story every day.
Keith
K Williams - stuck on stupid
43 USC 772 does not distinguish between dependent or independent resurveys and, at the end of section 6-27 in the DEPENDENT RESURVEY section of Chap 6 there is a reference to tract segregation being acceptable, so, tract segregation and document reformation is available during any resurvey where bona fide rights apply.
I have quoted this section of chap 6 to Mr Wiliams before.
Apparently his 'experience' is limited to the operation of a defunct BLM office.
Try reading Chap 6 with a 6th grade english student who will explain the 'hard parts' to you Kieth.
Richard Schaut
I repeat:
Richard refuses to learn that one can't pick and choose those sentences from a court case or especially the Manual, to back up his cockamamie fence line surveying procedures.
All one needs to do is read the 1973 Manual sec. 6-27 that Richard has cited, to understand his picking a sentence out of context to give him his "authority" to accomplish his fence line surveying procedures which ends up with a "changed" description.
Same story another day.
And of course he is good at his insults.
Keith
I repeat: again and again.....
Sorry.....these arguments are old. You sound like a bunch of partisan politicians where one thing is right and the other is wrong.
How could one possibly totally ignore a written deed descritpion? That is the description of the parcel of land that is being conveyed. It is the legal transaction. How could one totally ignore physical evidence? Physical evidence is what is laid out on the ground to show the deed locations. I find some level of contradictory evidence in every (or virtually every) deed description I ever read adn in virtually every field survey I retrace. You have to weight all of the evidence. period. How do you know if an original monument has been moved? You compare it to other evidence, that's how. How do you know know there is a bust in a deed, you go to extrinsic evidence in the field.
You might determine that 200' really meant 2000' if that matches the rest of the deed, including the acreage, and the physical evidence in the field. Oh...wait acreage is on a lower weight than distances and bearings...... You might determine that an original stone has been moved when it doesn't match all of the other evidence in the deed and the field. Wait----artificial monuments are higher on the heirarchy scale.....
You guys are professional surveyors. You know better than this.
adam
You are right!
How do you read the 1973 Manual sec. 6-27, for instance?
Keith
adam
Keith,
I am not going to get into your disagreement on the manual. I respect both of your opinions, but I do not respect Mr "Shout's" references to another professional being a dippy idiot or having the intellect of < a 6th grade education. I don't see either of you convincing the other of your positions. It is simply rhetoric I don't like to get into.
Don't get me wrong, I love reading these disccussions on boundary, but sometimes I think logic gets lost in the name of debate.
adam
You are right,
What is your opinion of the 1973 Manual sec. 6-27?
Keith
test
.
adam
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to be referring to the case where a line was discontinued and is now to be finished. Reading between the lines I can see where an entryman may have extended the unfinished line to his apparent corner and maybe a Tract segregation would be used in that case (where the entryman's corner is not exactly where a careful survey would put it)?
6-27. A comparison of the temporary points with the corners and boundaries of alienated lands often helps in determining how the original survey was made, how the claims were located, or both. In analyzing the problem of a particular corner's location, it is often helpful to determine where the theoretical corner point would fall if a three-point control were used. In extreme cases the collateral evidence may be weighted against the position obtained by use of two-point control, particularly when supported by well-identified natural features. It may then prove that the original corner, which would otherwise be lost, has been perpetuated by an acceptably located claim.
Ordinarily the one-point control is inconsistent with the general plan of a dependent resurvey. The courts have sometimes turned to this as the only apparent solution of a bad situation, and unfortunately this has been the method applied in many local surveys, thus minimizing the work to be done, and the cost. Almost without exception the method is given the support that "it follows the record." This overlooks the fact that the record is equally applicable when reversing the direction of the control from other good corners, monuments, or marks. The use of one-point control is only applicable where the prior survey was discontinued at a recorded distance or where it can be shown conclusively that the line was never established. If the line was discontinued by record, the field notes may be followed explicitly. If it was discontinued by evident unfaithfulness in execution, its use would be limited to the making of a tract segregation where the claimant has given confidence to the so-called field notes.
adam
> Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to be referring to the case where a line was discontinued and is now to be finished. Reading between the lines I can see where an entryman may have extended the unfinished line to his apparent corner and maybe a Tract segregation would be used in that case (where the entryman's corner is not exactly where a careful survey would put it)?
>
> 6-27. A comparison of the temporary points with the corners and boundaries of alienated lands often helps in determining how the original survey was made, how the claims were located, or both. In analyzing the problem of a particular corner's location, it is often helpful to determine where the theoretical corner point would fall if a three-point control were used. In extreme cases the collateral evidence may be weighted against the position obtained by use of two-point control, particularly when supported by well-identified natural features. It may then prove that the original corner, which would otherwise be lost, has been perpetuated by an acceptably located claim.
>
> Ordinarily the one-point control is inconsistent with the general plan of a dependent resurvey. The courts have sometimes turned to this as the only apparent solution of a bad situation, and unfortunately this has been the method applied in many local surveys, thus minimizing the work to be done, and the cost. Almost without exception the method is given the support that "it follows the record." This overlooks the fact that the record is equally applicable when reversing the direction of the control from other good corners, monuments, or marks. The use of one-point control is only applicable where the prior survey was discontinued at a recorded distance or where it can be shown conclusively that the line was never established. If the line was discontinued by record, the field notes may be followed explicitly. If it was discontinued by evident unfaithfulness in execution, its use would be limited to the making of a tract segregation where the claimant has given confidence to the so-called field notes.
how does the 1973 Manual pertain to a subdivision that was created in 2005?
The answer is - it does not
it seems as if we are arguing over if 2+2=D
It doesn't ~~ 2+2=4
The lot line between Lot 3 & Lot 4 of Richard's Subdivision
is fixed, non movable, nor are you able to change its' location
The ownership line between NW1/4 & NE1/4 of any Section w/in the PLSS
its' a different bird, it's defined by many different elements
and we look to the manual for direction, clarification and instruction
Black is Black - White is White
If you mix the two - it becomes grey
-
Richie - stuck on stupid
> 43 USC 772 does not distinguish between dependent or independent resurveys and, at the end of section 6-27 in the DEPENDENT RESURVEY section of Chap 6 there is a reference to tract segregation being acceptable, so, tract segregation and document reformation is available during any resurvey where bona fide rights apply.
>
> I have quoted this section of chap 6 to Mr Wiliams before.
>
> Apparently his 'experience' is limited to the operation of a defunct BLM office.
>
> Try reading Chap 6 with a 6th grade english student who will explain the 'hard parts' to you Kieth.
>
> Richard Schaut
>
To Richard
>
Dude - I take exception to the innuendo and the reference to the 6th grade teacher
I know that your anger & frustration was directed towards me, 6th PM
at least call a spade a spade
and Man Up and pick a fight with the one you have the issue with
don't be taking swings at bystanders
Hey it's on -
It's on like Donkey Kong
-