South Quarter Section Corner:
The found stump does not exist but using the County Surveyor's 1949 data it appears to have been:
S 50?ø48' W ~ 77 feet from the current monument set by SP
or -53.6' latitude; -54.9' departure.
The calculated mile from the CS's map is about 8' short of my measurement.?ÿ I also have a stadia traverse done in the 50's
Dyer's 1951 Stadia traverse of the south section line has the stump 2667.6' west of the southeast corner (CS 1949 is 2661.1') and 52.2' south of the straight line to the southwest section corner.?ÿ My calculation of the stadia traverse is 100' shorter (almost exactly) of my measurement of the mile but it seems to be accurate from the east to the quarter section corner.
The only two definite original corners are the southeast section corner and the north quarter section corner, everything else is "local."
I view it like this, the CS had the opportunity to view the stump in 1949, he apparently thought it was credible, he subdivided the section "fulfilling a function contemplated by law." In the 1950s BLM accepted his corners.?ÿ The stump is questionable, I get that, but I think once the CS used it his decision should stand unless it can absolutely be proven wrong which is impossible because the stump is no longer there.?ÿ If we keep revisiting old decisions over and over chaos will result.
Maybe I'm revisiting an old decision but I have two monuments and a line which was not surveyed.?ÿ I'm not disagreeing with the Dependent Resurvey because it didn't survey the line in question.?ÿ That's my thinking anyway.
Well, you're disagreeing with the 1/16 so it doesn't matter if they surveyed another line or this one.?ÿ It's the corner that's in question.?ÿ But a dependent resurvey is a retracement.?ÿ The holy grail of retracement is a chain of evidence.?ÿ The stump is not questionable unless we discard all retracement documentation.?ÿ I mean, if you can't rely on the identification by the previous surveyor of the original tree/stump, then nothing the BLM or any other surveyor can be relied on either.?ÿ You don't have better evidence now than the retracement surveyor did in 1949.?ÿ And neither did the BLM in 1970.?ÿ If the BLM did an independent resurvey in 1970, then things might be a little different.
I've met these "fed surveyors".?ÿ
Good guys, as far as personalities go.
But, they don't even have a state license.
Weather you are wrong, or right, NO unlicensed person, from out of state, should out rank a licensed person, from that state. Period.
N
Nate, not necessarily so.?ÿ During the time I was a BLM Cadastral Chief with designated authority for approval of federal surveys I was a State Licensed surveyor, and had been for many years.?ÿ Are you speaking to have meeting the approving officials when you say "fed surveyors"??ÿ ?ÿI can't remember the exact number, but during my tenure many other State Cadastral Chiefs also had their state Land Surveyor licenses.?ÿ ?ÿThere was fair number of my field staff Cadastral Surveyors that also had their state license.?ÿ Our expertise is in the survey of the federal interest lands, however I would respectfully disagree with your statement.?ÿ ?ÿWhether you agree, depends on your weather I suppose.?ÿ ?ÿ
South Quarter Section Corner:
The found stump does not exist but using the County Surveyor's 1949 data it appears to have been:
S 50?ø48' W ~ 77 feet from the current monument set by SP
or -53.6' latitude; -54.9' departure.
The calculated mile from the CS's map is about 8' short of my measurement.?ÿ I also have a stadia traverse done in the 50's
Dyer's 1951 Stadia traverse of the south section line has the stump 2667.6' west of the southeast corner (CS 1949 is 2661.1') and 52.2' south of the straight line to the southwest section corner.?ÿ My calculation of the stadia traverse is 100' shorter (almost exactly) of my measurement of the mile but it seems to be accurate from the east to the quarter section corner.
The only two definite original corners are the southeast section corner and the north quarter section corner, everything else is "local."
I view it like this, the CS had the opportunity to view the stump in 1949, he apparently thought it was credible, he subdivided the section "fulfilling a function contemplated by law." In the 1950s BLM accepted his corners.?ÿ The stump is questionable, I get that, but I think once the CS used it his decision should stand unless it can absolutely be proven wrong which is impossible because the stump is no longer there.?ÿ If we keep revisiting old decisions over and over chaos will result.
Maybe I'm revisiting an old decision but I have two monuments and a line which was not surveyed.?ÿ I'm not disagreeing with the Dependent Resurvey because it didn't survey the line in question.?ÿ That's my thinking anyway.
There is an original at the southeast corner, the stump is 2667' from it, sounds like a difficult monument to ignore. I can't see how you can disregard it, one thing is for sure a prorate isn't going to be at the original position, add to that a prorate using only one original monument. The BLM misses evidence just like everyone else.?ÿ
?ÿ