1982......Surveyor finds stone at center of section set about 100 years earlier. Shows it to his client who is now my client because the 1982 surveyor is deceased. Stone was one foot west and five feet north of corner post with fences to N-S-E-W. A wire gate would allow access directly over stone.
2017......Stone is GONE. Plenty of other monuments still existing verify the location and the fences have not changed. Some Bozo apparently was jarred a bit too hard sometime going through the gate and removed it to somewhere where no one would ever hit it again.
At least you have a likely hypothesis for its disappearance.
My brother and I have searched quite thoroughly this year for a bench mark he logged a decade ago, with no clues found this time. The thing was in the ditch by a field drive that used to be a railroad some decades ago. He measured ties to it when he found it. He told me he had been back and couldn't find it. I was sure my metal detector would get it. I measured tie distances and swept an area and found only a beer can. It looks to us like the right spot. I probed most of a foot deep all around and hit only rocks and broken ceramic.
We can't guess why anyone would dig it out nor why the ground wouldn't look more disturbed if they did.
I can't remember the man's name, but your post reminded me of a seminar given by this gent some years back. I think he was a surveyor and an attorney (spelled "confused individual").
In essence he considered the location of the monument (a stone in your example) to be the corner and not necessarily the physical monument. And he admonished us surveyors for placing too much weight on FINDING the monuments. He felt they were meant to be 'temporary', as in the cases of pits and mounds, and as long as we could ascertain the location of the corner it should be considered an "existing" corner. His theory was that the PLSS was well enough defined that almost any corner location could be defined whether the original monument was there or not.
He expounded on his theory with plenty of case law and examples from the Manual. I have to admit, though most of my colleagues split at the break, I had to hear him out. He was just crazy enough for me to take notice. I remember looking at "corner locations" a lot differently after listening to him.
In the case you've described above it should be a slam dunk. With documented accessories still standing, according to this speaker, it doesn't matter what is there, the corner still exists.
99% of the people that listened to him thought he was a nut. He may very well have been, but he had an interesting theory. Your story just reminded of his presentation.
paden cash, post: 456308, member: 20 wrote: I can't remember the man's name, but your post reminded me of a seminar given by this gent some years back. I think he was a surveyor and an attorney (spelled "confused individual").
In essence he considered the location of the monument (a stone in your example) to be the corner and not necessarily the physical monument. And he admonished us surveyors for placing too much weight on FINDING the monuments. He felt they were meant to be 'temporary', as in the cases of pits and mounds, and as long as we could ascertain the location of the corner it should be considered an "existing" corner. His theory was that the PLSS was well enough defined that almost any corner location could be defined whether the original monument was there or not.
He expounded on his theory with plenty of case law and examples from the Manual. I have to admit, though most of my colleagues split at the break, I had to hear him out. He was just crazy enough for me to take notice. I remember looking at "corner locations" a lot differently after listening to him.
In the case you've described above it should be a slam dunk. With documented accessories still standing, according to this speaker, it doesn't matter what is there, the corner still exists.
99% of the people that listened to him thought he was a nut. He may very well have been, but he had an interesting theory. Your story just reminded of his presentation.
That sounds like something Ted Madson or Jeff Lucas would say. Or maybe even John Stock. But I'm guessing Madson.
Before we finish there will be a new bar precisely where we should have found the stone.
Sounds to me like a classic case of an OBLITERATED CORNER (see 2009 Manual 6-17 to 6-21 pgs.149-150)
No worries.
Loyal
Roughly 30 years ago a buddy found a center of section stone set in the late 1860's that was in someone's home garden. He flagged it up and wrapped some flagging around it. He went back a year or two later and it was GONE. So he set a bar precisely where the stone had been. About ten years after that I show up and use his bar on a project. I foolishly flagged it up. A year or two later I returned to use the bar on a new project and it was GONE.
I finished a project and the female home owner removed every bit of flagging I used to mark the corners. She said she didn't like seeing ping or orange in the woods. At least that explained why there was zero color when I started.
Did a survey for a fellow I had known for over years. Discovered he was colorblind when I took him out to see the flagged corners. Red was more like tan to him, as I recall.