We shall see Evan and I am thinking positive and will get a response.
And of course, hoping it is the national policy on the bogus theory of surveying only the protracted subdivision lines.
Keith
What happened?
mattharnett, post: 343131, member: 6458 wrote: What happened?
Well.....you could start here:
http://community.pobonline.com/forums/viewtopic/2/1277891?post_id=2751413#p2751413
and work backwards until you head explodes (the over/under is three pages before insanity sets in)
James Fleming, post: 343132, member: 136 wrote: and work backwards until you head explodes (the over/under is three pages before insanity sets in)
That made me laugh out loud....:-D
When you find out let me know, I am as WTF as anyone.
I read most of that. Spent two days but I started at the beginning and came forward. A couple times my right eye stopped working and I wasn't sure I could even read.
This thread was a bit less hostile. I can understand the crux of his (our) problem. 16 pages on the other site and only a handful of real meat.
I'm upset now that I know federal surveyors hold a higher (better) position in the surveying world than I hold. I do not work in a "section" state. Pennsylvania is metes and bounds and the parent tracts are what we suffer through. I've not surveyed private land that abuts federal land. I've run along state game lands and state highways: I hold them as correct and without error. I am very glad not to be involved with such things and quarter sections.
I do reject points. We all do sometimes. You need a good reason to reject points and you build your evidence against them. I'll hold a point that is off a couple feet if there's nothing to discredit it.
I don't know anything anymore. I do what it takes, here in my small county, to stay out of court and resolve things appropriately. It comes down to "what you can defend in court."
My head just exploded.
There is something about the persistence that makes the cause seem to have merit and shake one's head too.
So after 3 years, it is time to solicit the Inspector General of the Interior Dept.
Ah human nature...totally baffling.
James Fleming, post: 343132, member: 136 wrote: work backwards until you head explodes (the over/under is three pages before insanity sets in)
Under...
Oh Lord, I thought he was starting this all over again.. I see it somehow got bumped to the top. Yawn. Carry on.
His persistence and stubbornness reminds me of my dear departed Dad, so having "Bogus Theory" show up here again brought a smile to my face. I'm glad to see he's still at it.
I've seen this topic and offshoots of it discussed for so long that I've forgotten what the "Bogus Theory" actually is. Many of the thread just assume you know the background and just start arguing against something unstated.
Could someone give a concise statement of the theory Keith is rejecting?
I think "bogus theory" is misleading. I believe he is against the BLM surveying whatever the hell way they want: Ignoring interior points found not within "federal surveyor" tolerances. I'm not a PLSS surveyor. I can surmise that the BLM has control and everything they do comes from that and then you just "calculate" the middle of the section without concern for what might be there. When you get there, you set your protracted point and disregard the rest. "Too bad Mr Landowner. Your survey doesn't match ours and ours trumps yours. You lose."
Not all surveyors would do this, of course, but I think he's pi$$ed that it does happen and the BLM knows it and hasn't remedied it.
My take (after reading TONS of posts)
Correct, and not just center of section but corners to any aliquot part. I've seen BLM plats that accept local points (even just a fence post accepted locally), so it's not like "bogus theory" is a hard-fast rule throughout BLM.
So the government cheaped out on surveying the sections, they only set 8 of 25 possible patent corners in a section. Many monuments disappeared soon after they were set (if they were set at all) or at best are difficult to find. The work was done by contractors who supposedly followed the standards but it is doubtful. The "field" notes are mostly fictional. The work was fair at best. The entry men were left on their own to subdivide the sections. Often private Surveyors were called in by private owners for various reasons including subdividing their land, the boundaries need to be marked. Despite all of this some choose to ignore history and common sense and start over subdividing the section such as the bogus Arizona case which took Congessional action to fix.
This is why it's called the bogus theory.
I think that is Keith's whole point; some in the BLM are actually reading and following chapters other than Chapter 3, while others are ignoring everything except Chapter 3, even to the extent of making up "rules" supposedly pertaining to accepting or rejecting long established corners of aliquot parts that contradict the clear instructions and definitions of "good faith locations".
All he is asking for is uniformity in conjunction with the BLM's own written instructions, definitions, and methods.
In simplest terms the bogus theory is that measurements control over monuments unless it is an original BLM monument in retracement surveys.
linebender, post: 343406, member: 449 wrote: In simplest terms the bogus theory is that measurements control over monuments unless it is an original BLM monument in retracement surveys.
good summation. if private surveying was all that simple every BLM surveyor could do it... many fail to understand that the "manual" is a cook book for Federal lands, but the instant that the land leaves Federal Ownership it is just another historical reference.
no offense Kieth, but if you could make a better summary of your point maybe you will be heard and answered
In many respects, the BLM is no different than the private sector. They are subject to the faults and inconsistencies common to all of us. When I read 'the BLM does it this way' I just laugh. Which BLM office and when? is my response.
The biggest difference as I see it is simple. As an entity directly controlled by public policy, the BLM must trade some decision making for consistency. The trade-off is obvious. Most Federal Surveyors are competent and decent folks. In 36 years of Surveying (most in PLSS States) I have yet to encounter the rampant fraud others describe.
In the end the Federal Surveyor is supposed to protect the interests of the public and the entrymen. Anyone who can make both happy is more likely to be found in the Clergy than our ranks. Perhaps change would be easier to effect sitting with the men and women with boots on the ground rather than bluster against a political appointee with little to no interest in satisfying obscure demands...
As Kipling wrote:
"Oh BLM is BLM, and private industry private, never the twain shall meet,
Regardless of the extent to which retired surveyor's bleat"
Or...as long as private surveys have to rely on the interpretation of case law for boundary determination guidance whilst government surveyor's have to answer to Federal administrative agency rules, which stand above case law in the hierarchy of sources of law, there will always be conflict betwixt the two.