thebionicman, post: 408390, member: 8136 wrote: The Manual only deals with the PLSS portion of our boundaries. Once divided in an other than aliquot manner our parcels are essentially metes and bounds. While we do our fair share of section breakdowns, we also deal with the same issues as non PLSS states. The primary difference being the layers of crap are usually a little thinner here as modern occupation started later.
I've taken and passed 4 PLSS State exams so far. Less than 20 percent of any exam came from the Manual or things related to it. If all you know is the Manual you won't get Licensed. If you happen to luck out and pass the exam you won't last. Your broad brush slap is unprofessional disparagement without foundation.
No my comment had foundation, its true and i will not hide the fact I respect a Surveyor in a Metes and Bounds State more than I do in a PLSS, that doesnt mean I do not respect a PLSS Surveyor I do, just a little less than a Metes and Bounds one. When I was studying for my exam we had to learn PLSS as well, all i could think was wow I can not believe I have to study something that is spelled out in a book on how to solve it.
Is it true if you pass an exam in one PLSS state the other PLSS will just give you a quick legal exam in that state and mail you out a new license?
Scott Ellis, post: 408397, member: 7154 wrote: No my comment had foundation, its true and i will not hide the fact I respect a Surveyor in a Metes and Bounds State more than I do in a PLSS, that doesnt mean I do not respect a PLSS Surveyor I do, just a little less than a Metes and Bounds one. When I was studying for my exam we had to learn PLSS as well, all i could think was wow I can not believe I have to study something that is spelled out in a book on how to solve it.
Is it true if you pass an exam in one PLSS state the other PLSS will just give you a quick legal exam in that state and mail you out a new license?
Ha it's even easier than that, just mail a photocopy of the title page of the manual and they send you your license.
Scott Ellis, post: 408397, member: 7154 wrote: No my comment had foundation, its true and i will not hide the fact I respect a Surveyor in a Metes and Bounds State more than I do in a PLSS, that doesnt mean I do not respect a PLSS Surveyor I do, just a little less than a Metes and Bounds one. When I was studying for my exam we had to learn PLSS as well, all i could think was wow I can not believe I have to study something that is spelled out in a book on how to solve it.
Is it true if you pass an exam in one PLSS state the other PLSS will just give you a quick legal exam in that state and mail you out a new license?
Every State I have taken requires the same application and test for comity and initial licensure. The last test I took (Oregon) was 4 hour essay based. I just sent in Nevada. They eliminate the requirement for references but everything else is the same.
So let me ask an honest question. How can it be simpler to work metes and bounds than working PLSS and metes and bounds at the same time?
So let me ask an honest question. How can it be simpler to work metes and bounds than working PLSS and metes and bounds at the same time?
First I do not think it is simpler to survey in just a metes and bounds state, then a PLSS state.
In the PLSS with Metes and Bounds you always have a way to re establish a known starting point. With just a metes and bounds something it takes days and many tracts to find a good place to start from.
Why do you think it is harder to survey in a PLSS state than a metes and bounds state?
Scott, it is essentially unfair to compare. PLSS vs Land Grants.
They are so different. I can see a land grant that will give you a real run for your money, and the same is true for a PLSS deal.
I just don't think comparing them is fair, either direction.
N
We here in California don't let just anybody into the brotherhood, we have PLTS, metes & bounds, Ranchos, subdivisions, of descriptions, we aren't one trick ponies like Texas Surveyors, I mean those guys are registered for crying out loud, like they have to keep track of them by registering them.
Scott Ellis, post: 408405, member: 7154 wrote: Why do you think it is harder to survey in a PLSS state than a metes and bounds state?
I don't think one is necessarily harder than the other, but they are different.
Over nearly 40 years I've surveyed in about a dozen States and several Countries. Some Colonial, some PLSS and a few MGRS or similar. They all have challenges. I didn't settle in PLSS land because it was easy. I did so for the chance of following some relatively intact surveys from the Civil War Era and for the variety of work and environment.
Assuming all we have to do is follow a handful of rules and that all deeds are simple aliquot descriptions is no more accurate than thinking all Colonial surveys can be retraced by reading a roll book. It's simplistic and unfounded.
thebionicman, post: 408414, member: 8136 wrote: First I do not think it is simpler to survey in just a metes and bounds state, then a PLSS state.
In the PLSS with Metes and Bounds you always have a way to re establish a known starting point. With just a metes and bounds something it takes days and many tracts to find a good place to start from.
Why do you think it is harder to survey in a PLSS state than a metes and bounds state?
I don't think one is necessarily harder than the other, but they are different.
Over nearly 40 years I've surveyed in about a dozen States and several Countries. Some Colonial, some PLSS and a few MGRS or similar. They all have challenges. I didn't settle in PLSS land because it was easy. I did so for the chance of following some relatively intact surveys from the Civil War Era and for the variety of work and environment.
Assuming all we have to do is follow a handful of rules and that all deeds are simple aliquot descriptions is no more accurate than thinking all Colonial surveys can be retraced by reading a roll book. It's simplistic and unfounded.
Yes your right is it simple, however it is also founded. In the BLM they tell you how to reset corners, which method to use and when to use that method. How can that be unfounded?
Is it not true the BLM spells out to you which method to use and when to use it?
Scott Ellis, post: 408416, member: 7154 wrote:
Yes your right is it simple, however it is also founded. In the BLM they tell you how to reset corners, which method to use and when to use that method. How can that be unfounded?
Is it not true the BLM spells out to you which method to use and when to use it?
Actually, unless you are retracing lines adjacent to current Federal ownership, no. Case law for the State in question for private property rights certainly does. And we all know how unambiguous that is.
That's correct. Once it's all private, I really don't care much what the book says. I have to deal with the idiosyncrasies that have been created by my predecessors, some of which were liars of the first order.
Warren Smith, post: 408417, member: 9900 wrote: Actually, unless you are retracing lines adjacent to current Federal ownership, no. Case law for the State in question for private property rights certainly does. And we all know how unambiguous that is.
I was not aware of this rule, thank you for I learned something today about the PLSS
http://geostor-plats.geostor.org/Pike/241110.pdf
Just look at the 10 acres extra..... Between Whitfield survey, and the actual county line
Scott,
Yeah, after patent into private ownership, the Public Lands States have statutory schemes for the resolution of boundaries between private parties. It's essentially based upon the law of contracts - hence the search for intent of conveyances.
The Federal Courts will apply State law in most real property matters because State law controls most disputes.
Scott Ellis, post: 408420, member: 7154 wrote: I was not aware of this rule, thank you for I learned something today about the PLSS
Even this 'rule' has exceptions. Some States mandate that lost corners controlling private land be restored according to the Manual. The key is 'lost'. We have to consider all of the forms of evidence just like Colonial folks.
The PLSS is a great foundation for disposal of public lands. It is critical to maintain, but it only gets us so far. The same can be said for the Manual. It is pure genius as a foindation. If you try to survey using it as a cookbook you will fail. It is only one piece of the puzzle.
In the end I hold great respect for both Colonial and PLSS Surveyors. I consider us equals. Most who don't either have little or bad experience in the one they consider inferior.
I knew I had no business in a Colonial state when I saw a description from somewhere in North Carolina that read in part, "thence 9 poles to a cucumber".
Or the one going west two smokes.
Cucumber trees are usually easy to find, it's those pine trees in a pine patch that I have trouble with.
It was the absence of the word "tree" that threw me. I did not know there was such a thing as a cucumber tree. I was picturing an extremely overripe cucumber rotting away.
Dave Karoly, post: 408372, member: 94 wrote: I think the PLSS should be called the PLTS because that is what it is, a quickie title system with just enough Survey control to provide a basis for location. I doubt Thomas Jefferson ever thought we would still be refining the corners of 40s 200 years later.
It's the ultimate down and dirty, quickie dicky, survey it today, sell it tomorrow crap on the grandest scale. It's been said that America's original sin was slavery, I'm thinking number two has got to be the PLSS.
