James Fleming, post: 343427, member: 136 wrote: ... Federal administrative agency rules, which stand above case law in the hierarchy of sources of law....
cute. perhaps that is where Keith gets confused.
Private Land is of no concern of the BLM, they are merely a neighbor (or a meddling disinterested party)
Keith is about the only BLM surveyor I have met who is the least confused when it comes to following federal rules when doing dependent resurvey of corners that control both federal and private land. The few BLM dependent resurveys I have dealt with show great confusion regarding following manual instructions with respect to accepting previous surveys. Both Federal and private. I have a great deal of respect for him in his campaign to get the agency to adhere to their own playbook. You have to look no further than the thread about states looking at doing away with licensure to realize the harm that has resulted from practice of the bogus theory. Some of us have said for years there is no need for a measuring technician to have a license for boundary determination. It seems others are coming to that realization as well.
WTF, This is not a bogus theory. If you IGNORE EVIDENCE , then you are are not following any THEORY. The surveyor's duty is to collect all the evidence for and against a boundary location and then evaluate the totality of the evidence and form a professional opinion. It could be, that after PROPERLY EVALUATING ALL THE EVIDENCE, that a surveyor could form the opinion that chapter 3 is proper method.
Yes Dane, it is possible that a diligent surveyor after finding no evidence that a section has been previously divided, can come to a proper conclusion that the instructions for the subdivision of sections in Ch 3 is the appropriate course of action.
But what Keith has been railing about are the numerous instances where those of us who do or have regularly worked in the PLSS have found where BLM surveyors have come into a section that contains parcels which have been patented, surveyed by non-federal surveyors and occupied per those surveys for decades. Often, and depending upon the individual BLM surveyor performing the work and the State Cadastral Chief, the BLM would utterly ignore the section breakdown previously established except for the fact that there are monuments present that they report as being some distance from the "true" corner, thus upsetting established corners and lines, and even ignoring the admonition within Ch 3 that in subdividing the sections, the private surveyor is fulfilling the role contemplated in law.
Almost anytime a section has been surveyed and divided, it is improper for any surveyor to ignore that subdivision and create new lines and corners which conflict with the established interior lines. In a minority of instances, the contrary might be shown.
That ignoring the lines and corners that have been established appears to be, at least in Keith's opinion the prescribed and correct course of action according to Robillard & Bouman (Clark, 5th, 6th, & 7th) is the basis for his ascribing the label "The Bogus Theory".
2014 Dependent (bogus theory) BLM Resurvey notes:
"S 1å¡ 30' E between Sec. 3 and 4.
At 9.968 chains set new corner on line with W 1/4 corner 3 and 4 at proportionate dist.
From this point a concrete post firmly set with a 2" dia. brass cap marked ...NPS bears S 2å¡ 57' E 2.9 lks. dist (1.91 ft.and 0.10 ft. off line)
Established by xxx, Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor, in 1958, at a point intended to be at midpoint and on line between controlling corners N and S."
btw, the 1958 survey was also a government survey.
I don't care who you are - that is funny. Really, really sad, but funny.
Maybe Keith's mission is for a good cause after all. You should forward the info to him.
NPS=National Park Service?
NPS = Not proportioned sufficiently
James Fleming, post: 343673, member: 136 wrote: NPS = Not proportioned sufficiently
No, no, no......Not Properly Set = NPS
The next guy will be moving it around 0.04 ft on the cap. Better hope the controlling mon's never get bumped.
