MightyMoe
MightyMoe
by MightyMoe, Monday, December 10, 2012, 16:08 (1 hours, 19 minutes ago) @ Keith
I've surveyed a lot of BLM 1/16 corners-I've never surveyed one that wasn't a prorate.
They all, as far as I can remember, have been strictly math positions regardless of old occupation at the corner.
I've heard of few exceptions, but haven't experienced one. And as far as the new surveys go, all 1/16th's that I see are prorates.
I think he's saying the BLM is ignoring all 16ths that do not fit the mathimatical positions, regardless of other corner evidence or prior section breakdowns.
MightyMoe
I don't have a problem.
As John says the subsurface and surface lines are intended to be the same.
To break that connection because of an interior occupation isn't something that I'm going to do. There are any number of 1/16 corners I've seen set by the BLM during these resurveys in conflict with long held occupation, so doing something different than they have should be done with extreme caution.
There is too much liability to do otherwise.
Rankin
This discussion has been about the fact that some believe the sub-surface and surface boundary lines are different and I have reaffirmed from the Chief in Wyoming that, that is not the belief in their office at least, and that was the end of that story.
Any other differences in judgement on the acceptance of corner monuments at a 1/16 corner is a different subject and I won't get into why some monuments are rejected and some accepted. The BLM record will state that.
I can tell you that the general policy of BLM is to accept those valid corner monuments for !/16 corners and there are also valid reasons to reject some.
We are still working on the opinion from on high, on the general policy of subdividing sections.
Keith
MightyMoe
If you want to give some examples of what you post on BLM standards of acceptance, do so, but don't generalize to the point of making statements that are only opinion without fact.
BLM will accept far more acceptable monuments than I have seen from private surveyors, so we will not go there.
Dave,
The BLM stated in no uncertain terms that their survey was intended to control the mineral estate only and it was not intended to hold sway on surface ownership. Unfortunately, not everyone got that memo - so we now have a situation where some surveyors use the latest BLM survey as controlling, while others hold the "erroneous" private corners as controlling surface rights... to say nothing of how one subdivides an adjoining section where an owner was not a party to the older "erroneous" survey.
I have to take issue with this as my conversation with John Lee today relieved all doubt in my mind that BLM surveyors thought that the subsurface lines were different than the surface lines.
John is a friend, a very dedicated BLM Cadastral Surveyor, and his word is gospel with me,(well maybe not gospel) but when he tells me that they do not believe that there is a difference between the sub-surface and surface boundary lines in the PLSS, I believe him.
He tells me that they have a very good surveying relationship with the private surveyors in the northern Wyoming area where these surveys/resurveys have take place over the last 30 some years and all are on board with these protracted lines of the the United States Interests.
He tells me that they have not changed any rules of subdividing sections and you can look at these present day resurveys with protracted aliquot part lines as the same as those protracted lines on the original GLO survey plats where they gave acreage figures of 40's and 80's and 160's. Now the acreages are calculated more accurately!
Now, I can apologize for any posted opinions of mine, that may be to the contrary, but was being misled by bits and pieces that were posted and I did not agree with.
Bottom line, I never stated that there are two lines, for the subsurface and the surface and this argument is not the same as the bogus theory that I have been posting about.
Just to clear the air.
Keith
MightyMoe
MightyMoe,
Either come on here with your real name or we are done!
Understand?
Keith
Keith
I probably should have clarified the circumstances involved in this area... the BLM research disclosed information which the previous private surveyor had missed, this is what caused them to not accept a number of those monuments - leading to double corners which affects a number of sections. Given the fact that this private surveyor performed this survey for a landowner with large holdings for the purpose of subdividing, my opinion is that when I am surveying inside that original landowners property, those corners are to control surface ownership, but not necessarily subsurface rights.
I know John Lee as well, and I have great respect for the work he and his department do for us (believe me, I have been in this area since the early 80's before the BLM had made much progress in resurveys and life was NOT very good - some area townships had no corners whatsoever), so I hope it did not sound like I was bashing on the BLM. They evaluated the evidence available and set their corners based on that evidence. Unfortunately, previous surveys were performed and land transactions were done based on them which conflict with the later BLM corners - leading to our present circumstances. It may have been simpler for area landowners as well as later surveyors if this had not occurred, but sometimes that is just the way the cookie crumbles.
Thumbs up to Mr. Dowdell
> As an aside, Charles Dowdell had done some survey work in an area which adjoins this problem area and I just wanted to state on this forum that your Record of Survey was a great benefit for what I was working on - in particular your extensive notes on what was found and the documentation of your research made it a real pleasure to retrace your work... :good:
Thanks Dave for the kudos or thumbs up. :-$ What area are you refering to? so I can try to refresh my memory on the project or area.
Dave,
No problem and we all know that some are accepted and some are rejected.
Update!
Well no answer yet from the Director on the official policy of subdividing sections. I am still confident that I will receive an answer, but if not, that fact will be well noted!
Maybe staff people are on Christmas leave?
Keith
I am here to tell you that it is going to get messy and highly embarrassing if I can't get an answer!
Anybody listening in BLM?
Think I am worried about burning bridges?
Keith
Anybody in BLM care about the subject?
Getting more embarrassing every day!
You have to know that I am keeping this on top until somebody has the nerve to answer!
BLM Cadastral Chiefs......where are you?
Keith
Update:
Hello again Mr. Williams,
I am very happy to ensure you receive an accurate and timely response to your most recent correspondence to former Assistant Secretary Lewis and former Director Abbey. Additionally, I apologize for the inconvenience you have dealt with. Thank you for your patience and understanding. 🙂
Carrie M. Richardson
Office of Correspondence, International Affairs,
& Advisory Committees
Bureau of Land Management
(202) 501-2634
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I will be getting a response to my letters to the Director, BLM?
> Update:
>
> Hello again Mr. Williams,
>
> I am very happy to ensure you receive an accurate and timely response to your most recent correspondence to former Assistant Secretary Lewis and former Director Abbey. Additionally, I apologize for the inconvenience you have dealt with. Thank you for your patience and understanding. 🙂
>
> Carrie M. Richardson
> Office of Correspondence, International Affairs,
> & Advisory Committees
> Bureau of Land Management
> (202) 501-2634
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Maybe I will be getting a response to my letters to the Director, BLM?
I told you to be careful of what you wish for...
well, at least she gave you a smiley thingy but watch out because I think that she can pop you like a... ....
Try to post anything that is positive!
Any reason to post the link that you did?
Keith,
Keep after them, at least they have acknowledged you exist!!
I'm sorry, but Robert's link was funny as heck.
I'll let you know how Thursday's events go. Keep your fingers crossed.
Good luck on Thursday......go for it!
I would have liked to have some BLM documentation, but doubt it will happen by Thursday.
I am hoping too, that the language is not some bureaucratic doublespeak, but is of quality to submit to a court of law and can be readily understood.
Keith
There will be none of that jocularity here son; the PLSS is serious business, d@mn serious business 😉
You got it James! 😉
I got a letter kind of like that from the IRS yesterday. Been waiting months for our refund and getting a letter every couple of months the the effect of "we're working on it, we'll let you know if we need any additional info. In the meantime, send in copies of everything you already sent us."
Huh? OK, did that twice. Yesterday's finally said something different. Something like "Thanks for your patience. Everything you sent us is in order. You can expect your refund in 6 to 8 weeks unless we tell you differently in the meantime."
It's the Federal Government, and it's leading us to the new normal.
