A few days ago a poster from one of the highly urbanized parts of the Eastern Seaboard remarked on how he was having some difficulty imagining what it must be like to survey 1500 acres. Here's a little snippet from today's work. Actually, the tract contains about 1855 acres, but the work is not too dissimilar.
First, you examine the chain of title as you would a tiny urban parcel and make note of the descriptions by which the boundaries of interest were created. In the instant case, the 1855-acre tract was created by a partition in 1921 that divided a tract of about 3,000 acres into two parts, one of which adjoined a tract severed from common ownership in 1898. So, the 1898 tract is senior.
On paper, there's no problem. The metes and bounds description of the 3,000 acres calls for the line and same corners described in the 1898 conveyance which also gave calls for bearing trees that are repeated in both the 1902 and 1921 conveyances in the chain of title of the tract you're dealing with.
So, you project some trial coordinates of a corner that is about 2.33 miles away from a corner that you've located in previous work and that takes you to the vicinity of a corner of pasture fences as a first approximation.
Measuring ties from the fence corner post as if it were a perpetuation of the stone mound originally marking this corner, you aren't able to definitely identify either of the bearing trees described at this corner by the 1898 surveyor and repeated in the later descriptions. So you proceed to search from there for about half a mile North to a point where the 1902 surveyor's line struck a Bald Cypress tree on the bank of a river that looks more or less like this (the river, not the cypress):
There is one passing call along the line for a "branch", the well-defined bed of an intermittent stream that you decide after examining it is unlikely to have moved by any significant amount since 1902. There is also a call for a large Live Oak about 500 ft. away from the cypress at the river. The distance is good news because it places the Live Oak well above the level of most floods on the river. As well, since Live Oaks are a slow-growing species, there is a good chance that a Live Oak that was reported as being 30 inches in diameter in 1902 will only be about 37 inches in 2013 in an upland location.
After finding a Bald Cypress on the river bank that is large enough to have fit the size of the same called for in the 1902 deed, you run back along the line toward the trial coordinates you calculated in the office. There is some adjustment in bearing to be made, but your line is crossing the branch pretty much dead on the passing call distance from the cypress. The Live Oak bearing tree is problematic. The call is for a Live Oak that would be about 36 inches in diameter in 2013 at a distance of 205-1/2 varas (= 571 ft.) from the cypress, but at 150 varas (= 414 ft.) you find a 36-inch Live Oak that is the main candidate. There are several reasons why you think this Live Oak is probably the 1902 surveyor's bearing tree, but none are conclusive at this point.
You wonder if the 1902 surveyor made a mistake in reversing his chainage on this line. It was almost certainly run from a corner of the 1898 tract Northerly to strike the river, but in the deed it is described as running Southerly from the river, apparently to make the courses run clockwise.
You leave a question mark beside that last bit and continue about half a mile Southerly to a newly projected location for the corner where you find what looks like a scatter of rocks that could have been a rock mound in 1898 and you find this Live Oak at about the bearing and distance from it that the 1898 surveyor reported:
It looks as if the corner (marked by white PVC pipe in photo below) falls about 25 ft. away from the fence corner that you first arrived at. Then you notice that there is what looks like evidence of an old road running along one boundary of the 1898 tract that would account for the apparent setback of the pasture fence.
Am I correct to assume that you are FROM Texas, Kent?
And also that you SOUND like a Texan?
What I'm asking is that if you were to be approached by a local there in the hinterlands, would he be inclined to say "What are you doing, neighbor?" or would he be more likely to respond to you, as he undoubtedly would to me, with something like "You in a heap a' trouble, hippie!"
Just asking,
Don
Don
Defining a Texan makes one recall the story of the blind men and the elephant.
> What I'm asking is that if you were to be approached by a local there in the hinterlands, would he be inclined to say "What are you doing, neighbor?" or would he be more likely to respond to you, as he undoubtedly would to me, with something like "You in a heap a' trouble, hippie!"
Well, the only person I saw anywhere near the tract today was the ranch hand, Pancho, who said "Buenos dias, companero! Pienso que sera en las setentas mas tarde." :>
Usually in Texas if you're approached by someone in the "hinterlands"; they already know what you're doing...they've been watching you for a day or two.
If they ask what you're doing; they just want to see how honest you are.
ps - Kent, did it get that warm down there?
> Usually in Texas if you're approached by someone in the "hinterlands"; they already know what you're doing...they've been watching you for a day or two.
Actually, I've been on the most remote part of the largest ranch in the middle of nowhere and had folks show up out of the bluest blue. It's only when you actually would like for someone to show for some reason that you'll never, ever see them.
> ps - Kent, did it get that warm down there?
It was around setenta y cinco here and I was in short sleeves. The A/C was running on the trip back to the office.
Got any snakes this time o' year? Bugs?
I don't have to tell ya all we ain't got none up here ..................
> Got any snakes this time o' year? Bugs?
I didn't see any snakes today. If I'd turned over some rocks, there probably would have been some scorpions, though.
Kent,
What River is that?
Looks like the Pedernales, but not many stretches have cypress trees.
Might be the Blanco, but it running mighty dry from the parts I have seen.
Randy
Don
A Texas rancher visited some friends in Chicago. They decided to show the Texan the big city.
They showed him the skyscrapers, and he said, “We’ve got tombstones at home taller than those.”
They showed him Lake Michigan, and he said, “I have a pond on my ranch bigger than that.”
That night the Chicagoans wanted to put him in his place, so they go two snapping turtles and put them under the sheets on his bed. He crawled into bed and had an unpleasant surprise. He jumped out of bed, yelling. "Daggummit , you all have bed bugs, and its those pesky little ones too!
Don -Cow
You are right as usual, Cow.
I was being silly, but what I am really curious about is, since Kent is so unlike a stereotypical Texan in so many ways, does he speak with that pleasant but distinctive Texas dialect?
Don
Kent-
We've been saving a bundle on fly spray this month so far.
Mosquitoes don't fly too well @ 5F with their mittens on !
Great report !
Keep them coming.
Cheers,
Derek
Don -Cow
> does he speak with that pleasant but distinctive Texas dialect?
I've spoken with Kent on the phone once or twice. It's Texas, but not severe Texas. His voice reminds me a little of Baxter Black.
> Might be the Blanco, but it running mighty dry from the parts I have seen.
The Blanco varies considerably seasonally. That stretch that appears in the photo was bone dry during the long dry spell about a year and a half ago. The drought didn't seem to faze the cypresses, though.
Looks like a fun project. thanks for posting the pics. How is that Tundra holding out?
> How is that Tundra holding out?
That Tundra has about 115k miles on it and has had zero problems. All I've had to do was get fluids changed, buy some tires, and replace the shocks. Very capable, reliable vehicle. Unfortunately, the new Tundras have been super-sized. The Tacoma is slightly smaller than my 2005 Tundra, but closer to it than the new models.
> > How is that Tundra holding out?
>
> That Tundra has about 115k miles on it and has had zero problems. All I've had to do was get fluids changed, buy some tires, and replace the shocks. Very capable, reliable vehicle. Unfortunately, the new Tundras have been super-sized. The Tacoma is slightly smaller than my 2005 Tundra, but closer to it than the new models.
Kent,
Seemed like yesterday when you bought that thing, how many miles a year are you averaging?
Ralph
> Seemed like yesterday when you bought that thing, how many miles a year are you averaging?
Yeah, it was just yesterday - a little over seven years ago. As I recall, it was one of the dealer's "program" cars that had about 8,000 miles on the clock when I bought it. It actually has 120k on it today, so I've put about 16k miles on it per year on average. The size of that truck is perfect for off-road driving, in my opinion.
Just after I bought it (note the dealer plate in front), here's where I took it:
On the same project, about an hour's drive from the nearest public road.
The above photo was shot at approximately the following position:
30-14-24.0 N, 102-10-14.9 W NAD83
Kent,
I have a 2002 Tundra, which I like a lot - zero problems. The size is about perfect.
I do wish I got better gas mileage though, so I'm thinking of trading up. Which of the later ones would be the truck to get?
> I have a 2002 Tundra, which I like a lot - zero problems. The size is about perfect.
>
> I do wish I got better gas mileage though, so I'm thinking of trading up. Which of the later ones would be the truck to get?
That's a good question. The Tacoma as currently made is very close in size to the earlier Tundras, but I haven't looked at how they're made to see whether they ought to be as rugged as those Tundras. I may be wrong, but I suspect that part of the secret to why my Tundra has performed so well is that it has a V8 that is rarely run above 2000 rpm with the constant overdrive on.
