One of the tasks of the afternoon was to locate the Southeast corner of the 160-acre land grant originally surveyed in 1882, the Southwest corner of which I found in a windrow along a bulldozer trail as described a couple of days ago.
This is sort of interesting because one of the bits of evidence showing where the corner had been originally marked was a row of stones that were apparently placed before any fences were built. I call these "pointer stones" since they were apparently intended to show the direction that the boundary ran from a corner. I've seen them used elsewhere from about the same time period, i.e. at the dawn of barbed wire fencing and have assumed they were something landowners placed, not surveyors, since they seldom run in exactly the direction of the line.
What the above photo shows is (a) the row of stones that runs approximately Magnetic North, (b) remnants of very old (ca. 1900, I'd think from reading the public records and examining the remnants) wire fencing running West from a Live Oak where apparently the fence turned, and (c) my location of the corner based upon the remnants of very old wire fence and the pointer stones.
The modern PK nail in Concrete appears to have been placed by measuring the record distance of 950 varas (2640 ft.) from a fence corner a half mile West. It's close but inconsistent with the older pattern of occupation and where other evidence indicates that the corner was originally located.
The original "pile of stones" set in 1882 to mark the corner has evidently lost the battle with fence builders and time, no bulldozers involved. The stones are still in the vicinity, but evidently now scattered.
Texas Pincushion
I commend you for your work and agree with your survey - but I cannot help but to acknowledge that everything is bigger in Texas. 😉
> I call these "pointer stones" since they were apparently intended to show the direction that the boundary ran from a corner.
From the photo it appears these ambitious surveyors of yesteryear constructed an entire "pointer compass rose".
Gee, we were under the impression (apparently false) that only sub-professional surveyors in Utah and Idaho used old fences as evidence of the original lines and corners.
Welcome to the profession of boundary surveying.
Here goes Kent Messin up the 'hood, wid his "Pointer Stones". What the heck is that? I ain't never heard of dat!!!
Seriously, WHO messed the neighborhood?
Kent, with his actual search for evidence, or Mr. 2640?
I suspect, MR 2640, in a hurry, and no time to LOOK for EVIDENCE.
Nate
Kent would the current fence corner not indicate occupation aswell , looks like its been there a while and as you said it matched the distance . Could the pointer stones just be a pile of rocks . So who set the p.k. nail, are you going to have to show the differences in the surveys . Did the records call for pointer stones ?
> Kent would the current fence corner not indicate occupation aswell , looks like its been there a while and as you said it matched the distance . Could the pointer stones just be a pile of rocks . So who set the p.k. nail, are you going to have to show the differences in the surveys . Did the records call for pointer stones ?
The purpose of my survey is to find the lines and corners of a 160-acre land grant as originally surveyed. So, the task is to find the footsteps of the surveyor who originally established the lines and corners of the tract, not where those lines and corners may have been later moved.
The P-K nail was fairly obviously set in a position as close to the newer pipe corner post as possible, while still being able to get a prism pole on the nail. The general pattern of recent resurveys in this area has been to simply accept any fence as marking a boundary and to treat the meanders of fences that run from tree to tree as being the best evidence of original survey lines, without ever realizing that enough original evidence still exists to actually find the footsteps.
> From the photo it appears these ambitious surveyors of yesteryear constructed an entire "pointer compass rose".
I interpret the pattern of stones as being the scattered remains of the original mound near the end of the row of stones where I set the rod and cap marker and a row of stones running Northish from where the mound was. The 160 acres was a homestead grant that gives "hardscrabble ranch" new life as a descriptive term. The fences that the original grantee built are generally rock, not store-bought wire, although he had enough cedar (Ashe juniper) on the place to fence entire counties. It was the large ranching operation that surrounded the homestead that probably built the older wire fences around 1900, or so I'd think from reading an affidavit given in 1922 by one of the partners in that ranch.
> Gee, we were under the impression (apparently false) that only sub-professional surveyors in Utah and Idaho used old fences as evidence of the original lines and corners.
No, in Utah and Idaho, you dudes would be on the pipe fence corner as the "established" corner and wouldn't even be trying to figure out where the original surveyor ran lines and made corners.
> > I call these "pointer stones" since they were apparently intended to show the direction that the boundary ran from a corner.
In areas of the country where the fields are plowed the farmer throws the rocks he plows up over on the fence line. Years pass and the fence disappears but the rocks remain.
Quite common in central Oregon - and I suppose elsewhere- are fence "posts" made up of wire baskets filled with rocks. I suppose that in later years the attached wire might pull such baskets over in the direction the wire runs, spilling the rocks generally along the boundary line.
> In areas of the country where the fields are plowed the farmer throws the rocks he plows up over on the fence line. Years pass and the fence disappears but the rocks remain.
The more common pattern in rocky ranching country is that stones are placed along the bottoms of fences to fill in gaps from irregularies in the land, critters, or washouts.
I considered that the row of stones was basically a gap filler below the older fence, but thought the cedar stake propped up in some large rocks about 24 ft. northerly from the corner was more consistent with a landowner's marking.
You should follow the law, even if you don't like it!
> You should follow the law, even if you don't like it!
Yes, I've understood that the folks in Utah and Idaho give themselves a big pat on the back for not bothering with retracement work since there are fences in place. In this case, the legal issue is where a line that is in dispute was originally run.
I agree, you are following the law in your state.
> No, in Utah and Idaho, you dudes would be on the pipe fence corner as the "established" corner and wouldn't even be trying to figure out where the original surveyor ran lines and made corners.
A wanna-be that wears a feed store you-roll-it cowboy hat calling me "dude"?
You apparently know as much about cowboys as you do surveying practices and boundary law in Utah and Idaho.
Have a nice "fence-line" surveying day. 😀
In the first picture, what was the cedar stake in rock mound behind the tree? Is that a different corner?
> A wanna-be that wears a feed store you-roll-it cowboy hat calling me "dude"?
That made me lol
10-4 , so was the rock pointers and ceder post called for in the original notes.
> A wanna-be that wears a feed store you-roll-it cowboy hat calling me "dude"?
I don't know doodly-squat about surveying in ID (or much anywhere) but I can say I can not stand to be called Dude. My Dad does it to me just to get my goat. One my beer-drinkin buddies says Dude about 5 times in every sentence - even when he's talking to his girl-friend.
As to the cowboy hats. I never found one that suited me. I just don't seem to look right in one. I feel more "at home" in a ball-cap - preferably Navy of some sort. I imagine it might look weird with a Navy-man with aviator Raybans on horse back. But, I got as many hours on horse back as I do in the cockpit - probably lots more.
This is interesting
I always enjoy reading your posts, Kent.
I'm very curious about the dispute. Is your client concerned about the new fences being wrong? Does the dispute impact the entire 160 acre tract? Is the tract "the same tract" it was when granted or has it been cut up in some manner?
I have a lot of questions. I am a boundary surveyor and understand the importance of original evidence but we (here in the mountains of PA)have been cut up so much that there are very few original tracts left intact (at least in the county I survey).
I've been following this survey and look forward to more information. Perhaps we might be told of the outcome.
Right or wrong, the original surveyor left some tracks to follow.
