Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
I now realize and finally figured it out several years ago, about our arguments in our Washington, DC Division of Cadastral Survey, back in the 80's, when we questioned you about not accepting private survey monuments unless they fell in the hole that you were digging for your own monuments.
Your survey procedures at that time was in fact in line with your stated views in Clark's, that only the protracted center lines were the only evidence thqt you would accept. Hence the non acceptance of previous survey evidence that was not exactly on your precise retracement of the protracted subd. of sec. lines.
This bogus theory was in practice in the resurvey in Florida and was accepted by the Appeals Court in Rivers v Lozeau.
One can only imagine when I was hearing the arguments about the protracted PLSS subd. of sec. lines and they are the only evidence of boundaries on the ground, that I did not/could not imagine what was being argued.
I would really like to read somewhere, from Robillard, how he was convinced of this bogus theory, to put it in the Clark;s book?;-)
Think about it surveyors!
Keith
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
Well gee, no response! Maybe a friend or two could phone these guys and see if we can't talk about it?
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
> Well gee, no response! Maybe a friend or two could phone these guys and see if we can't talk about it?
Maybe they are retracing original survey evidence somewhere and can't get back t you now.
But,is this only way that you have to contact them is by caling them out here
I would think that an ex-BLM Chief wahtever would have a professional channel to contact BLM people.
Your post has sort of a 'High Noon" atmosphere to it.
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
Smiling here Robert,
Both of these guys are retired and I am quite sure they have computers and that they are aware of this board and of this thread.
Just assuming of course.
"High noon"!
Does it not seem strange that the surveyor and the approving official are not interested in explaining a case that they won in Federal Appeals Court?
Keith
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
Years ago , Mr Rodine and Bauman gave a presentation to the annual LSPS conference in Houma La. I spoke to Mr. Rodine and he was aware of the old RPLS board and that he was a lurker. I was talking to him about the fact that the PLSS system in my lil corner of PLSSia in the Greensburg Dist (St. Helena Meridian) did not exist in principle and practice. It was never adopted from the get-go by practicing surveyors.
Mr. Rodine compared the old board to a ‘Wild West Saloon” where a bunch of surveyors hung out.
[msg]14775[/msg]
I still don't know wwhat your point is to try to lure them here if you have questions of malfeasance or liability.
I hear Jeff Lucas's name pop up here a lot and I never seen him drop in here to diacuss, argue, or prattle with other posters. Of course, he is an attorney and [sarcasm]smarter than the average surveyor[/sarcasm].
I know surveyors in a few states that have attended the retracement (original evidence) retreat with Rodine and Bauman and they all gave it very solid positive reviews.
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
What is wrong with explaining the circumstances in the case?
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
No response?
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
> No response?
I thought that I responded to that in my two posts.
I can't speak for others.
Maybe this isn't the place for them to discuss BLM procedures and actions.
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
No response from Lane or Corky,
What better place to have a discussion about the circumstances in a Federal Appeals Court Case?
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
One more day and no response!;-)
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
Well gee, it these two don't see fit to respond, there should be several others that could for them?
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
Received an email from a former compadre who could have explained the situation here, but said it was demeaning and unprofessional to post on the board!
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
Just checking in?
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
If I had executed a resurvey that ended up in an Appeals Court and won.......I would be darn glad to talk about it!:-)
Keith
Surprise, surprise
Still can't answer!
Surprise, surprise
Anybody out there that would like to speak for the two mentioned?
I know there are several that believe in total!
Come on out and enjoy the conversation.
Keith
BLM survey methods in some States
This thread should be reviewed, in my opinion of course, as it sorta goes along the lines of the junior senior arguments?
Well Maybe anyway?
Keith
Musical Interlude
Well, personally...I think that Keith has a valid and important point.
Obviously the folks that Keith has directed his question to, are NOT going to respond, but that doesn't alter the premise.
The BS based modus operandi of RE-SUBDIVIDING Sections ad nauseam is so common in my area, that it defies all logic.
This practice is exacerbated by the fact that MANY of the standard subdivisional corners (C¼ and/or 1/16 corners) are NOT Monumented during the course of these “surveys.” Or, if they are, it's just 2-bit ReBars with Plastic Caps that are NOT marked as PLSS Corners to begin with.
Not only THAT, in MANY cases, these boobs don't even “visit” the location of said subdivisional Corners (including the Center ¼), to see if anything is already there. So they just “tie in” the (bare minimum) exterior corners, and act like they are the first ones on the ground since the original GLO Surveyor 100+ years ago!
By the time they get to the 1/16 Corner that they NEED (using the magic box), they (maybe) SET a NEW Monument at the mathemagical position, and think that they are doing the world a favor. If there IS a fence corner, old pipe, or even a marked stone in the weeds, they don't know what it may (or may not) mean, because they haven't looked at the OTHER subdivisional corners to see what may be there! They also ASSUME that the extant monuments on the exterior represent the ORIGINAL Corner positions, which in many cases they do NOT. So who are they to say that that fence Corner VERY NEAR their “theoretical” C¼ isn't based on the ORIGINAL 1/4s, before some previous numbnuts proportioned one or more of the exteriors ¼ Corners (or Section Corners) last month (or whenever)?
Obviously they haven't RETRACED a damn thing, and might as well have pulled the Coordinates out of the County GIS for all they are really worth.
I realize that I have drifted off topic here, but this is a real sore spot for me.
Loyal
Thanks Loyal and you might imagine it is a sore spot with me too.
And you have seen the flippant responses from those who can't or don't know how to contribute to a concept that has to be faced.
This argument of only determining section subdivision lines by the original procedures in Chapter 3 of the 1973 Manual has been around for a long time and now has made it to a once great surveyors' book, CLARKS!
It is such an asinine concept that is helping to reduce the surveying profession to only a technician trade. Think about that for a minute and a half!
Think about subdividing a PLSS section by the Manual Chapter 3 procedures and you will mathematically establish all aliquot part corners by that technical procedure and all other evidence is ignored.
If you think that is far fetched.....read and analyze the survey procedures in the Florida case of Rivers v Lozeau. This case is a Federal Appeals Court case and has some good language in it, but for the wrong reason.
Might be why I am posting this thread to have those responsible for this survey/resurvey to come out and explain it. They should be proud of the fact that they won an Appeals case?
This concept is all about land surveying 101 and needs to be addressed as such.
Some of you know and I have posted some on my attempts to get the BLM Washington Office, Director to issue a policy statement on this bogus theory. The Director has the delegated authority from the Secretary of the Interior, who has statutory authority, and would be the proper authority to issue such an opinion. I started this process some time ago and have not received a Director's opinion yet, but I have confidence that I will.
One might imagine that if I don't get that response, that fact can be made public too.
So in the meantime, I will continue to pursue a meaningful discussion about the bogus theory and put up with those flippant comments that have no meaning.
This bogus theory is being taught by some who should know better and has soaked into the fabric of land surveying and needs to be yanked out by the basic threads and make people believe they are land surveyors and not technicians.
Really!
Keith
