This may generate some discussion. It is a proper decsiion in my opinion.
Took me a while to read all 23 pages, but that is a very clearly written opinion, unlike many Appellate and Supreme Court decisions I try to read. Basically Hillstrom can add $4.00 to his bona fide belief and buy a cup of coffee. I wonder how old his buildings are that BLM says are partially on Indian land. It is interesting that the stone is pretty close to the record distance from the Sec.5/Sec.32 1/4 Corner but that might just mean whoever set the stone stubbed it in from that direction or from some other interior 1/16 Cor., not that it's in the original position of the post.
Looking forward to some discussion about this one. Thanks, Northern.
I hope Mr. Stahl reads this! I look forward to his "take" on the ruling. Imagine not honoring fences, etc. and re-establishing the corner coming off of original monuments. This decision exactly matches what would be done in Texas.
Thanks Northern for posting this IBLA case.
It appears to be well written and shows conclusively that BLM went the long way and made an exhaustive research effort and went back when challenged and researched more and in fact revised their resurvey to accept additional evidence.
It should be particularly noted for all, and especially BLM land surveyors, that the interior section subdivision corners are not always at the exact intersection procedure as Chapter 3, 1973 Manual dictates!
Might be time to get out of Chapter 3 and move on to Chapter 6.
And maybe even some staffers from State Boards of Surveys are reading this case and understanding it's implications? They should fully realize that this is binding on BLM surveyors, when conducting section subdivision surveys/resurveys.
The bottom line seems to be that some "local" evidence is and can be acceptable for locating the section subd. corners, and some "local" evidence is not acceptable. The distinction is described in this case very well.
So much for fence line surveying without a serious judgement call.
So much for exact intersection of center lines of sections without a serious judgement call.
The case should be read and reread until the concept sinks in!
Keith
The ruling plays very well with the 2009 Manual, and the distinction that IBLA has provided us before about bonafide beliefs and bonafide rights, and the use of collateral evidence.
Byles returned in 1873 and, as part of his survey of the Chehalis Indian Reservation boundaries, resurveyed the south and subdivisional lines of T. 16 N., R. 4 W., subdivided sec. 31, and established some of the 1/16 section corners.
Are Byles' field notes on-line? I am curious to see how he established the C-1/4, C-W1/16, and the SW1/16? Did he measure between the SW1/16 and the W1/16 S31/S6? Were there any line trees marked along the south line of S31?
Can somebody provide a link to the 2000 retracement Plat/Notes? How does the 'stone' fit a line between the C-W1/16 and SW1/16 projected?
DDSM
Good questions Dan, and maybe somebody can help with the answers and links.
Keith
Keith,
What are you smokin? Can you spell 3-mile method. The subdivision of section corners are not at intersections.
Ed,
I guess I didn't know that the original subdivision of sections in sec. 31 was done by the three mile method?
Is that true and do you have the original subdivision plat?
I must have missed that fact in the case?
Keith
Just thinking out loud of course, but what if the section was subdivided by the three mile method?
How does that affect the outcome of the case?
I really hope you are not intimating that the rule of intersection is to be adhered to always?
Keith
The "certain people hold all fences" misconception just seems to refuse to die.
You can say a thousand times this has nothing to do with fences yet they will subsequently post the "so-and-so holds all fences" BS.
Some certain individuals just refuse to listen or even think.
> Just thinking out loud of course, but what if the section was subdivided by the three mile method?
>
> How does that affect the outcome of the case?
>
>
> Keith
If the interior 1/16 corners (determined to be original) were established using the 'original' W1/16 S6/S31...would the relationship between them be applied to show obliteration?...long before a SINGLE PROPORTION of a mile and a half?
Did Byles use the same chain and compass in both surveys? Which set of 'footsteps' are to be followed?
East and West to the original corners...based on one chain. Did anybody look at the distance/bearing to the NORTH to another ORIGINAL corner measured 20+ years later?
DDSM
Is that true and do you have the original subdivision plat?
I must have missed that fact in the case?
Yes it is true. I just looked at the original survey plat.
It's an Indian Reservation; IBLA talks about the sixteenths set by the original surveyor.
It was obvious to me before I looked at the original plat. How could you have missed it?
Just thinking out loud of course, but what if the section was subdivided by the three mile method?
How does that affect the outcome of the case?
Obviously it has no effect on the IBLA decision. But it certainly points out your misunderstanding of, and off point comments on, IBLA's decision.
Well, why don't you post the plat here so we all can see what you have determined to be the facts.
I have not seen the plat of sec. 31, where the subdivision of section was done?
I read the case where the Indian Trust lands was to the south of the section line. Is that not correct?
Enlighten us.
Keith
Ed,
If you really want to get into a pissing match, I can do it.
I am having a hard time trying to figure out where you are coming from and
I am probably not alone.
Tell us oh learned one.......what is your understanding of the IBLA case?
Since you have a total of 3 posts here, am I correct in assuming that you have been here under a different name?
Why else would you start off being confrontational?
Keith
It had nothing to do with the case, so they didn't elaborate on it, but it would be interesting to know what the "metes and bounds" parts of the Special Instructions were for the Dependent Resurvey. Was there some Tract Segregation going on?
I agree with the IBLA (like they need me to agree with them)that the case shows BLM's willingness to correct their own errors when they are pointed out, but not to just roll over in a challenge when they believe they are right, or at least can't be proven wrong.
Keith,
Try this:
Go to google
search for washington state survey plats
choose T16N
choose R4W
click search.
Oh your probably not very compuiter savvy so here's a link for the technology challenged
www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatView1_2.php?path=PWA&name=t150n050w_002.jpg
Please notice this is a BLM website.
If you really want to get into a pissing match, I can do it.
You better stand on a chair
Tell us oh learned one.......what is your understanding of the IBLA case?
Tell us yours. Your the one that brought in intersection points to a 3-mile survey subdivision case. Or are you just still beating that old dead Dykes horse.
