Hey Dave
No Keith, I am sure that is NOT what Dave is saying.
You bring a valuable asset to this site and I for one am glad you are here, but it would be great if you would stop with the "to the top" stuff. It really is not needed.
#6
See, that is the part I always liked
> setting the monuments. I would make sure they could be found and would, especially in wooded areas, flag them up like Christmas! I wanted someone to know where I was opining the boundary corner to be BEFORE releasing my map. I never got the idea of why you would want to hide your corner. Isn't that what you are being paid for, to show the property owners what they own to?
makes it too easy for some supergenius with a rubber stamp & a pair of channel locks to pull it. :-X
And
To some people a dogfight is good entertainment.
If you ask me (which nobody did) this seems to have evolved into a game of semantics. Keith unfortunately made a blanket statement that the BLM never ordered the removal of any monument, period. I took that in the context of the thread to mean weeding the pin farm of various opinions that the BLM didn't happen to agree with. Kent came up with examples of pulling a monument to upgrade it to something more permanent and moving some of their own monuments to correct an error and burying others to avoid confusion. Technically, that answered Keith's challenge, but I think Keith was talking about something different.
Dave - We look forward to hearing about the BLM notes in the case that started this lively discussion. We may find that the BLM knew about those previous monuments and set their own for some reason, but if so they did leave them there and didn't remove them.
Dan
Guilty of that Dan.
Hey Dave
I don't think some people are aware that the "Order" button at the top of the page gives you the option of the threads going to the top as they are posted to, or slipping down the page in chronological order like the old rpls. I think I got that right, didn't I?
The bigger issue is:
Texas Land Surveyors stand up and tell us Kent's method is ok in Texas!
Keith
Hey Dave
Yes, I was not aware, or I had forgotten, so if I offended anyone I truly am sorry.
I have mine so that each and every response brings the thread "to the top" and it works great for me.
#6
Steve
Keep this all in context:
". . . that the BLM never ordered the removal of any monument, period." is not the reason for this whole outburst.
This is:
BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period
Keith
Keith
I assume the monument the LICENSED surveyor set conforms to the state specs, since I don't know Montana law.
At least the licensed surveyor that set it took the time to put it in the RIGHT FRIGGIN PLACE!
For you to casually toss it off as 'two bit' is ridiculous. It shows your disdain for a Licensed surveyor doing their job. I really don't care that they re-set the monument but there is no reason the monument as set wouldn't last as long as the one the BLM installed.
Keith
Oh, sorry I got the quote wrong. Do you kind of agree with my assessment of the argument though? I don't see Kent as bashing the BLM as much as just having a semantic argument that he enjoys so much.
GEORGIASURVEYOR
I agree with you.
Andy
I know those northern States get confusing, but we are in Wyoming now with the problem.
And you are wrong about: It shows your disdain for a Licensed surveyor doing their job. It only shows my disdain about inferior monuments and you may not recall, but years ago, I started the 2 bit rebar comment and will stick with it.
Try arguing the real points and not get sidetracked with nonsense.
Keith
Andy
are you a licensed land surveyor anywhere? Did you ever work in the private sector? I'm just curious.
Montana, Wyoming, whatever...
Steve
they had to know the pipe is there, it's up about a foot and a half.
I can see why an interested private party might have moved the pipe but the Field Notes should shed light on the reasons. I was sorely tempted to go get them yesterday but my wife questions me about working on my day off when I'm only looking at the map so I didn't push it and she's kind of right with the State paying better qualified supervisors less money because it can.
Steve
The accurate quote is what is important and is what set me off.
Kent simply is desperately trying to justify his practice of pulling private survey monuments and has feebly attempted to show that BLM does the same practice.
And they don't as we can easily determine.
Just setting the record straight after much intentional misinformation.
Keith
OK I'll go sit in a corner now...
I have a lot of respect for Keith Williams.
Obviously the BLM and the GLO before it (in the 20th century at least) does a very thorough and well reasoned job. They don't just go out somewhere and blithely blast away survey style. They spend a lot of time gathering evidence (to the point of using other experts such as dendrologists) to make sure no stone is left unturned. They have a formal process where affected parties can protest. There's a lot other agencies and private firms could learn from them.
Kent is trying to use some little piece of what a huge and long-lived agency in an 8th grade attempt to make a sly slam on someone else for whatever personal reasons.
Hey Dave
I guess I'll change my settings to that way too. I liked the old RPLS where things slip off the page but I have been using the box on the right on the homepage to sort of do the same thing.
Andy
I started with the BLM in 1961, retired in 1992 and my last 18 years was in the headquarters DC office of BLM.
I was licensed in Montana in 1969 and was obviously qualified at that time to take the test.
I did not work in the private sector of land surveying.
Keith
Thanks Dave
And we all can remember past threads between Kent and myself and they usually turn into insults.
And I know it and I guess just can't help myself..........
Anyways, I want to hear from Texas surveyors!
Keith
How does it protect the public when someone automatically accepts every corner and kinks lines and creates gaps, and randomly and capriciously changes one's property ownership without any apparent due consideration of what the Manual actually stipulates about prior surveyor actually doing a diligent and careful retracement?
If the corner's obviously off by a few feet, and given the technology of the time of the retracement, that tolerance would be unacceptable, how is that diligent and careful retracement?
So how is Keith's blanket condemnation justifiable, when Kent chooses to ditch and reset a monument that might not meet the Manual's own stipulations?
Doesn't seem like it, does it.
Does Keith's automatic acceptance of anything and everything along the line meet the Manual's stipulation? Doesn't seem so either.
Simply measuring, locating and accepting is what a technician does.
Measuring, locating, weighing the evidence and applying sound judgement is what a professional does.
