> I thought the article was too vauge. Just another excuse to bash surveyors based on one bad decision.
What? One bad decision? Sorry the court got it right and followed the law. If you are referring to Hasty as being in the minority of surveyors, why are so many cases ending up in court? Heck, I know of a licensing board which probably would have sided with Hasty.
No appologies needed sir. It's a good discussion.
I agree with Carl's post. There must be some outside influeance that would cause Hasty to change his mind over time. I don't really beleive he just oopsed the survey from one time to the next. I'll bet he knows the area well and knows of every survey he did in the past. He was probably influenced by the way the minimum standards were being represented by the powers that be. It happens. The incorrect theory of incorrect location has a strong foothold in some high places. There are well known authors and speakers to thank for that.
I only read the article, not the court papers. I meant a bad decision by the surveyor to ignore accepted monumentation. But again, I think the article is in such a rush to complain about surveyors it skips through the details that would have made a better point. I don't think it ever says that there WAS an actual pipe, just a call for a pipe. If I missed that, Ill have to read it again.
If Hasty came upon something later that changed his mind from the original location, I would have thought he would have clearly noted that on the second survey.
Having not given an explanation for the change I have to conclude he's just winging it and didn't even look at his old survey. We don't work in a vacuum and even unrecorded surveys may make it into the public records as this one did. I'd rather put a hundred notes on surveys never to have one read than change my mind on a decision and not explain the thought process to some unknown person 30yrs down the road. Not noting it makes it look like your disagreeing with yourself because you don't know what your doing. The times I've come up with a reason to change my mind, I've gone back to the original client and explained why I'm changing the corner (if it did) and supplied a new survey of his parcel to the county. Just take your lumps and get on with it.[msg][/msg]
Thanks line bender and thanks for bringing the case up earlier.
I believe we are guessing at the reason that Hasty changed his mind, but I have to believe that he knew full well of his earlier survey that is NOW shown to be correct, as retraced/resurveyed by Arnold.
So that leaves us with the opinion that Hasty changed his survey procedures due to new State regulations?? and or the teachings of the national leaders where they seemed to have convinced legitimate land surveyors that the only position of the section subdivision lines are at the actual exact protracted positions and previously set monuments can/should be ignored. Isn't this the exact outcome of Hasty's 2004 survey?
Once again the bogus concept that is being advanced by the Bouman/Robillard theory was shot down and the case should be read again to understand that fact.
The Court got it right!!
Maybe BLMers are also reading of this bogus theory?
Keith
Also the Subject of the Latest Lucas Letter
Jeff also used this case as the basis of his latest newsletter. It was clearly explained there that the court held to existing pipe over the fantasy point of Hasty's precision coordinates.
Hasty pretty much destroyed any credibility he had with the trial court by having held the pipe in an earlier survey but then rejecting it based on math rather than solid evidence in his later survey.
The problem is that it isn't just one bad decision by one misguided surveyor. There is a significant percentage of surveyors who do this all the time, reject established, accepted monuments (even verified originals at times) in favor of calculations based on more distant supposedly controlling monuments.
This surveying contrary to well established common law is even more prevalent, I believe, in PLSS based surveys in which the descriptions of points, lines or parcels is by reference to an aliquot division. Many surveyors believe that the only original survey is the GLO survey, and so all other points and lines are perpetually open to correction. They don't realize that where the GLO did not actually survey a subdivisional line of a section, the original survey for those points & lines is the one that first established them on the ground.
The GLO plat showing protracted subdivisional lines, and the instructions current at any particular point in history is merely the plan for the local surveyor to follow to establish those lines.
By definition, if the GLO did not run the lines and set the corners of the subdivisional lines, they did not survey them and therefore the GLO survey could not be the original survey of those points and lines. It was the original survey of the controlling points and lines by which those subdivisional lines were to be established.
If the surveyor who did establish the subdivisional points and lines used the GLO set corners as control and exercised the care commonly expected of surveyors at the time and place he performed the survey, there is no valid reason to reject the points he set. His is the original survey of those points and lines.
Getting back to the modern problem. Those who hold that the GLO survey is the only original survey most often hold section corner and 1/4 corner positions only, rarely investigation as to whether the monuments at those locations are the GLO originals or are valid perpetuations of the original GLO corners, and even more rarely investigating whether other points along the section lines, subdivisional lines, or other lines are positions of corners actually established in the field by the GLO.
For instance, an iron pipe along a section line, if its history is investigated, might be found to have been set in the root hole of a fallen, verified original line tree marked by the GLO. But many surveyors, finding the iron to not be on line between the monuments they've accepted as the section corner and 1/4 corner, and if they bother to compare, not at the precise record distance for the line tree stated in the GLO field notes, will reject the iron as being valid in marking any PLSS point.
I recently testified in a case where the surveyor had resurveyed a 1/4 section. He accepted monuments found at the section corner and the exterior 1/4 corners, and an unmarked iron he took as being the C 1/4 established in a prior record survey, but then rejected every other monument found in the 1/4 section based on his measurements from his accepted controlling mons and his calculations. Some of those mons were from the survey that first divided the 1/4 section nearly 40 years previous, and some he rejected for as little as 4", sending some of the residents into a fight that didn't need to happen.
Unfortunately, such rejection of original points to establish the "true" corners is not at all uncommon. So it's a problem that is far more pervasive than "one bad decision by one surveyor."
Thanks Evan,
As you are aware, I have been posting numerous times about this surveying concept, that I label as a bogus theory and has it's beginning with the writings of Bouman/Robillard. Seems like there are more surveyors that are believing in this nonsense and I am frankly beginning to believe that they do so, because it makes surveying easier and no darn judgements to make. It becomes a simply mathematical solution and the crew can easily do the procedure.
And of course, there are those in BLM who also believe in this nonsense.
I am taking steps to see what can be done about it!
So far, the BLM management has not considered it necessary to respond to my inquiry, so maybe the Secretary of the Interior can review his Statutory authority that was delegated to BLM and determine if this new theory has any legal backing.
We shall see!
Keith
Reminds me of the case in Louisiana that Frank posted about on a BLM subdivision of section problem!
Good luck Keith, if anyone can get a response I would think you would have the best chance if you haven't burned too many bridges. Perhaps the recent manual was a response in a way although it only expands a little on the 1973 edition.
hi keith,
making one's POB the wrong marker is not the first time this has ever happened:
line bender;
I am of the firm opinion that it is high time for BLM headquarters to step up and address the problem that BLM has in their two methods of subdividing sections in the PLSS. The new Manual expands on the procedures that should be used in subdividing sections by the retracement/resurvey land surveyor. It is obvious that Chapter 3 of the 1973 Manual is clear on procedures when subdividing the section for the first time, but these procedures are also being used by some when a retracement/resurvey is being accomplished. And that is wrong!
It is my belief that this bogus theory of subdividing a PLSS section by ONLY positioning these subdivision lines in accordance with the protracted subdivision lines and ignoring existing monuments, is dead wrong. But, the practice is being advocated by Bouman/Robillard and the result is the chaos that is created, like the section subdivision that Frank Willis brought up in another thread.
And I may be burning bridges, but somebody has to do it! I don't have to worry about pleasing everybody.
If anybody wants to get serious about learning of this bogus theory, get the field notes for the BLM resurvey in Florida that resulted in the court case of Rivers v Lozeau, and your eyes will be opened!
All minor subdivision of section corners were set at proportion and the subdivision of section lines are as protracted in the original survey and all private existing corner monuments were ignored.
You may recall, I have requested those BLM surveyors that believe in this nonsense, to come on here and explain their procedures. One would think that since they won a Federal Appeals Court Case, that they would proudly explain everything.
Have you seen them here and read of their procedures?
I know that it is no secret within the ranks of land surveyors in BLM, that this bogus theory is being practiced by a few.
Hence, my insistence on requesting answers from BLM headquarters.
You may also know that there are higher authorities too!
Keith
Moe,
Thank you and I am sure you understand that my argument is with subdividing sections in the PLSS.
Keith
i'm on the plss crash course right now. i have been approved for the october test in MD. as it appears, ncees will have some plss in their segment of the test. new animal to me. i was only sharing some case law and history.
And thank you Moe and wondering why Maryland would have anything on the test about the PLSS?
Keith
My oral interview part of the exam with the licensing board in a PLSS state 4 decades ago had a question " Where do you set the center of section?" I kid you not. I figured i have a 50/50 shot here so I told them it should be at intersecting lines BUT you have to consider local evidence. I passed anyway.
line bender,
Obviously, the answer would be to set the center 1/4 sec. cor. at the intersection of the center lines, as the Manual prescribes, but..............other parts of the Manual should also be read and understood, as retracements and resurveys have different procedures......duh!
Keith
I have to beleive that had I used the duh! answer I would still be a rodman. 🙂 Come to think of it maybe I should have.
That reminds me of a line cutter we hired. His first day the party chief dropped his plumb bob and the gammon real shattered into a hundred pieces. The party chief starts cussin and says "they don't make those ^*(!@#$ things the way the used to" The new kid says "yes they do". So long new kid!!!
its a somewhat new program, the ncees now has a six hour national test. this includes sec breakdown etc. maybe to make it easier to test by reciprocity in the future
