I reckon it's a fence post or part of a fence?
I would certainly be inclined to mound rocks around a post or picket rather than attempt to dig obviously rocky ground. People also used to ride their fence lines (to check on the condition of the fence). It helps to throw the rocks out of the way...at the base of the fence is the most neighborly thing to do.
My grandfather had an on-going battle with a neighbor (pastor for the church). Pastor would chuck the rocks out of his yard into the pasture, where my grandpa's mower would run them over. Grandpa would jump off the tractor pissed and throw them and a few others back over the fence. This went on for a few years.
Brother also had similar feud with neighbor same rocks got thrown back and forth over the fence.
Seems stupid, but in both cases the neighbor started it by chucking rocks over the fence where people mowed the fields.
> 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...
You can say that again. No cows are going to crawl under this one:
You'll also see big piles, like the size of a dump truck, out in the middle of fields. Too many rocks and not enough fencelines to populate with rocks
Here's one of my favorites. 31.845973,-101.571297
It is about 5-6 ft high last time I saw it. Definitely some rocky semi-desert but with a little water and a lot of work you could be in high cotton.
This is interesting
> 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?
One of the question is where the North line of the 160-acre land grant was originally located on the ground. The two adjoining land grants were surveyed by the same surveyor in the course of one or two days, so in Texas there is no question of a conflict or vacancy between them. It is a fairly straight forward surveying problem of just figuring out where the line was orignally run.
That North line of the 160-acre grant is the record North line of one of the parties to a land dispute. That is, such title as he can prove by virtue of a regular chain of conveyances from the State of Texas stops at the North line of the 160 acres as run in 1882. Naturally, there is a bit more to it than that, but that is the main point.
> 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 .
The most significant evidence of occupation in retracing old surveys is occupation that dates from a time nearest the time of the original survey, not something that appeared 130 years later as the new fence did. The rationale isn't complicated. If the fence or improvements were built at a time when the survey marker at the corner can be reasonably presumed to have existed, then unless there is some compelling reason to think not, it's usually safe to assume that the improvements were located in some sort of relationship to the marker and so can be considered as perpetuating its location in some way.
So, a fence built in 1900 to a line surveyed in 1882 is important evidence to be considered. A fence built in 2010 in ignorance of any original line or corner? Not so much.
> 10-4 , so was the rock pointers and ceder post called for in the original notes.
No, the 1882 surveyor's field notes run from the pile of rock that, as I posted the other day, I found hiding in the windrow of the bulldozer trail "East 950 varas, crossing a creek to a pile of rock". There is no call for bearing trees at the corner, but judging by the sizes of what is there now, there likely was nothing eligible nearby.
So, the call for the monument at the corner is "a pile of rock", which in that locality I'd expect to mean a rock mound with more than about 14 substantial rocks in it, not fist-sized, but bowling-ball-sized or larger.
> 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.
Man, you dudes in Idaho sure spend a lot of time worrying about how your hats look. I'm trying to think of whether I've ever read a thread describing the retracement of an original land grant line in Idaho and all I'm getting are fence corner this and fence line that. Those of us who actually get out and get our hands dirty in the real world don't worry about getting our hats messed up. 🙂
So, a fence built in 1900 to a line surveyed in 1882 is important evidence to be considered. A fence built in 2010 in ignorance of any original line or corner?
This approach to boundaries is how we are required to establish the boundaries of a given title.
Any other approach leads to a shifting cadastre that ebbs and wanes.
Here we are required to establish title boundaries, the title is proof of ownership, fences don't prove ownership, just occupation.
A dispute between parties over occupation is for the courts to decide.
A title doesn't guarantee measurements, only who owns the title.
This is where the skill of boundary redefinition comes to the fore as we seek out original marks, monuments and earliest occupation all to support each other (hopefully).
Just curious if that's how it is handled over your way?
> So, a fence built in 1900 to a line surveyed in 1882 is important evidence to be considered. A fence built in 2010 in ignorance of any original line or corner?
>
> This approach to boundaries is how we are required to establish the boundaries of a given title.
> Any other approach leads to a shifting cadastre that ebbs and wanes.
> Here we are required to establish title boundaries, the title is proof of ownership, fences don't prove ownership, just occupation.
> A dispute between parties over occupation is for the courts to decide.
> A title doesn't guarantee measurements, only who owns the title.
> This is where the skill of boundary redefinition comes to the fore as we seek out original marks, monuments and earliest occupation all to support each other (hopefully).
>
> Just curious if that's how it is handled over your way?
In theory, the object of any resurvey in Texas is to locate a particular tract of land according to the recorded descriptions under which ownership may be proven. If pieces have been severed from a larger tract, then surveying the remainder will necessarily involve locating the severed tract boundaries that form the boundary of the remainder.
What it all means in practice in this case is that if a landowner can prove record title (meaning an apparently regular series of conveyances from the sovereign) to a particular original land grant, the first object of the exercise is to identify the boundaries of that tract upon the ground, which means finding the boundaries of that original grant from which the present owner's record title is derived.
It is also true that where parties other than the record owner are in possession of some part of a tract, that the exercise of resurveying also consists of delineating the limits of that possession and describing the facts surrounding it in a way that would be useful to a title examiner.
The work that I'm engaged in is actually figuring out where in 1882 a specific surveyor ran a line that he reported as being 950 varas (2640 ft.) in length between monuments that he made. That survey still defines the limits of record title to a particular tract.
> Here's one of my favorites. 31.845973,-101.571297
That is a big pile of rocks Andy. It is odd to see a road grid in level country that isn’t running north-south/east-west. What’s up with that?
Leave it to surveyors to have favorite rock piles. Here’s mine up north in Jefferson County
44°23'55.69"N 121°23'4.57"W
This land was homesteaded in the early 1900s. The venture failed and it’s BLM land now. Hard country to make a living.
In the photo below the circular road encloses the 5 foot tall pile of rocks that were piled around a juniper tree. The pile is about 60 feet X 40 feet and is flat on top. There is a tri-station named “Stones” nearby.
On the left margin of the photo is a north-south line of ambitious pointer stones 850 feet long and stacked about 3 foot tall. On the bottom margin is a similar east-west pointer stone construction that is 950 feet or so in length. They point the way to 1/16th corners.
If you pan southwesterly in google earth you see on the right margin of the next photo a continuation of the north-south pointer stones which runs 1/4 mile. It too points towards a 1/16 corner.
What is interesting in this photo is the surveyors Pointer Stone Calibration Course starting on the left side and running serpentine through photo center and then to top center. Pointer stone calibration was a tedious task and in this case they started from the south and had to run over 1200 feet before the pointer stones were running cardinal.
> Man, you dudes in Idaho sure spend a lot of time worrying about how your hats look. I'm trying to think of whether I've ever read a thread describing the retracement of an original land grant line in Idaho and all I'm getting are fence corner this and fence line that. Those of us who actually get out and get our hands dirty in the real world don't worry about getting our hats messed up.
I find original evidence of GLO lines and established boundaries all the time, after all, that is my profession.
Unlike you, I just don't feel the uncontrollable urge to post every detail in the pitiful attempt to seek (and bully) approval and admiration of others. I record my surveys in the public records, if anyone has any doubt about the quality and accuracy of my work, they are free to pull the plats and come discuss the details in person.
As for my hats, I have hats that range from feed-store cheap to costly custom made, and from perfect condition to very well worn. Real cowboys generally don't worry about how their hats look. We know that no matter which hat we wear, we know we are authentic, and those that know us, have no doubt.
It really isn't about the hats, boots, shirts, or chaps - it is the person that wears them and the life style and code he lives by that makes him stand out in the crowd. That is the difference between Austin wanna-be's and the real deal.
In fact, those same principles would seem to apply not only to cowboys, but real boundary surveyors vs pompous, pedantic "players".
Keep trying.
>
> I find original evidence of GLO lines and established boundaries all the time, after all, that is my profession.
> Unlike you, I just don't feel the uncontrollable urge to post every detail in the pitiful attempt to seek (and bully) approval and admiration of others.
Okay, so you try not to mention that your first object is to determine where boundaries were originally established by the government survey of the lands presently comprising Idaho, but you you want to argue that fence corners are pretty much always the best evidence of anything?
I'm sure it isn't just me who finds that a wierd approach, to say the least.
> Okay, so you try not to mention that your first object is to determine where boundaries were originally established by the government survey of the lands presently comprising Idaho,
Do you have problems reading and comprehending, or are you intentionally being obtuse?
"I find original evidence of GLO lines and established boundaries all the time, after all, that is my profession."
Here is a free lesson just in case you actually know less about surveys and surveying in Idaho than you want to admit:
The GLO (General Land Office - this was the government agency charged with surveying lands prior to alienation) laid out the original "framework" of the privately held lands in Idaho - it is called the "public land survey system".
Just west of Prineville Airport, in country just like that, there is a series of low stone walls. They don't run cardinal directions, and don't quite enclose any area, but they do run dead straight. Must have been a ton of work for somebody with more time and muscle than money. They might restrain cattle, if completed, but probably not anything more nimble. Horses could easily jump them, and sheep would easily scramble over.
Cool. I wonder if they forgot to account for local attraction when calibrating their pointer wall. LOL.
As for the orientation of the sections in West Texas, east of the 103°W, the blocks and townships were aligned to the original centerline of the T&P Railroad, whose route was set as an act of legislation (probably originally as the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific) and I assume they were swooping south to keep the line in Texas and out of New Mexico. Once you get west of the Pecos River, the blocks are nominally perpendicular/parallel to the State Line (~32°N). West Texas is not PLSS rules, just sectionalized to look like it.
Kent's hat looks good on him though,
... and he got a free bowl of soup when he bought it:
[flash width=420 height=315]//www.youtube.com/v/vmEV1d7RPvg?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0&showinfo=0[/flash]
I just used STONES as a control station on a recent survey in that vicinity.
Rock walls are like any other fence in Central Oregon. Sometimes they point you to the corner, sometimes completely random, sometimes on the line, sometimes stacked alongside an old wire fence. Professional judgement and experience are required.
My gut tells me that wire fences were reserved for the cattle ranchers in that area. Of course there are plenty of old posts in rock collars that roughly parallel some of these rock walls. Most of the other settlers were dry land farming. I think clearing the ground of rocks/brush was most important (wire fences weren't necessary). The old Metsker's maps are a great shortcut to find the lands that were held by the cattle ranchers. The Fly Creek Cattle Ranch being one that comes to mind.
We recently worked on a subdivision on the WS Reservation where three rock piles were preserved as a cultural site because they indicated clearing and agricultural practices. Duh!
