Kent McMillan, post: 440519, member: 3 wrote: Typical means commonly expected. You could probably assign a chance or frequency of occurence to a typical PLSS township. An easy way to do that would be to randomly sample various states, starting with Iowa and Kansas, and working West to see what the relative frequency of occurrence of standard PLSS townships is.
well, I am young and I don't get out much, and I have only worked in the Western states...
One of these days I may see a "Typical as Expected". Please tell me where to look for one
actually this is not atypical http://www.sdi-baja.com/survey/t9nr11wmdm.htm
KScott, post: 440523, member: 1455 wrote: Warren, I am not familiar with that issue. Is it current? I was involved with the USA v. Exxon and others on the ownership of the islands of the Colorado River through that area in the 80's.
I disappoint myself rising to the "bait" in these discussions but the "simple" PLSS has kept me awake many nights in my career. I have attended many continuing ed classes to learn the intricacies of dealing with the simple problems. I have worked with great surveyors and teachers like John Stock and Dennis Mouland who never told me how simple it was.
KScott,
Here's a July 17, 2017 article in the Denver Post about the feud.
Old West-style land war in Colorado Rockies pits ranch widow against oil company
Ranch widow Susan Robinson is battling a Conoco Phillips subsidiary over rights to land her family has grazed for 100 years
PICEANCE CREEK ?? The frenzied cows circled recklessly in a dust cloud, desperately searching for their missing calves amid a tangled maze of sagebrush on a mountain slope. Their high-pitched wails were like nothing Susan Robinson had ever heard in five decades of working her mountain ranch in Rio Blanco County, and the pitiful bellowing left her frightened and nauseous.
Boot prints in the dirt told her what she had already suspected: Someone had stampeded her prime Black Angus cattle through a barbed-wire fence, driving them away from windmill-fed water holes and leaving them parched, injured and separated.
The Robinsons have used barbed wire, guns and gumption to protect their land and livestock since the early 1910s, when Joseph Robinson drove thousands of sheep from Paraguna, Utah, to Rifle. They survived the sheep and cattle wars, the Depression and countless trespassers.
An aside: I bet Mr. Stock has chatted with you about the joys of working in South Park in the 60s and being socked in by ground blizzards.
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 440514, member: 12536 wrote: Scott, are you familiar with the rancher vs oil company issue near Rifle? Is it a prescriptive grazing rights vs US mineral rights issue? does it have anything to do with the PLSS? I ask because I have never heard of these types of rights being attached to any colonial state, but I have no business talking about surveying way over there.
speaking of rifle- who was the wackadoo fugitive that got nabbed in rifle about 20 years ago? i can't for the life of me remember who it was, only that i was up camping at rifle falls during all that and came into town to hit the walmart for some trail mix or something and it looked like a swat team convention had descended upon town.
Peter Ehlert, post: 440526, member: 60 wrote: well, I am young and I don't get out much, and I have only worked in the Western states...
One of these days I may see a "Typical as Expected". Please tell me where to look for one
actually this is not atypical http://www.sdi-baja.com/survey/t9nr11wmdm.htm
Sampling the USGS quadrangle maps showing section lines in Kansas and Iowa would be a an easy way to begin. Here's a link to the interface:
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
On my first draw, I hit the 1:100,000 Healy Quadrangle and it looked pretty typical as expected. Possibly you see something very much different:
Kent McMillan, post: 440519, member: 3 wrote: starting with Iowa and Kansas, and working West
I think I know why leave out Ohio; it's a jigsaw puzzle of early work before the PLSS instructions matured. Arkansas and Missouri are more regular in design but suffered from measurements in rough country that resulted in some atypical-looking sections. But why not include Indiana and Illinois?
James Fleming, post: 440439, member: 136 wrote: Chicks dig Colonial Surveyors
PLSS surveyors just walk around in colonial surveyor shirts for obvious reasons.
gschrock, post: 440494, member: 556 wrote: Hi Conrad,
As you might have noticed, some of the discussion has been objective, and hopefully helpful. As for the "one is tougher than another" de-evolution of the dialogue, keep in mind the following:
PLSS states have both. The origins of some land tenures in PLSS states pre-date the PLSS system(s). Practitioners in said states have to deal with both, and the peculiarities of each. So instead of expending so much time posturing over whether a Ford is superior to a Chevy, the PLSS state practitioner has to be a skilled driver and mechanic of both, and probably several other models as well.... 😀
Skilled driver and mechanic or just being able to read step by step instructions?
foggyidea, post: 440436, member: 155 wrote: PLSS surveyors have a manual to tell them what to do
A manual that tells how to survey in virgin territory, which the vast majority of surveyors will never do, and some advice on retracement. However, that doesn't begin to describe the variety of instructions issued over the life of the PLSS. C. Albert White's book collecting historical instructions weighs about 6 pounds.
the BLM Manual gives many examples, and lots of history too. I found the 2009 here... https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc ="s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjK4prr-8XVAhUV3WMKHWFLDdEQFggoMAA&url= http://cfeds.org/docs/sml/ManualOfSurveyingInstructions2009_060414.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHy06N7Adg_mbNo_sM4R9QlqPkgA g"
checkout page 171
Kent's writings on this matter could probably fill several volumes. I think.he.is.trying.to.compensate.for.something...
But maybe that is just me.
Dave Karoly, post: 440548, member: 94 wrote: Kent's writings on this matter could probably fill several volumes. I think.he.is.trying.to.compensate.for.something...
But maybe that is just me.
I think he's trying to compensate for the fact his momma used to have to tie a pork chop around his neck just to get the dog to play with him. 😉
gschrock, post: 440547, member: 556 wrote: That can be argued in perpetuity, but the fact is that practitioners in places that have both have to deal with both. No two surveys in any system should be treated the same, and if folks do that it is to their own detriment and that of their clients. I see no gain for our profession in the childish characterizations of PLSS as being simple and practitioners in places where such systems are in place as having it easy. If anyone would like to explain how that is great for our profession then I am all ears. Otherwise the silly posturing is more childish and pointless than a Chevy vs. Ford argument and makes me wonder how we can call our selves professionals if we are unwilling to recognize the same in our own peers.
I understand why the Surveyors in the PLSS would like to be seen as equal to the Metes and Bounds states, but a triple AAA baseball player is not equal to a Major League baseball player. Also when A PLSS system has Metes and Bounds it is based off of the PLSS Grid. It's not two separate systems, just use the grid to make the metes and bound easier to write and understand, I am sure some would like to include the page number out of the manual to help them understand the survey.
The most childish remarks I see on here are from PLSS Surveyors who can not accept the fact that the PLSS is easier to Survey in, than a Metes and Bounds state. They have to resort to attacking the person or the state in which they are licensed in, which means they know they already lost the debate and have really no facts to make a valid point.
Kent McMillan, post: 440512, member: 3 wrote: I used the element of state and federal interest simply to approximate the complexity inherent in a system of metes and bounds land grants such as exists in Texas where the process is subtractive. That is everything that isn't specifically covered by a survey remains in State ownership, regardless of use and possession. That is a very different sort of problem from knowing that the entire township was surveyed into pieces that fit together seamlessly.
While you will never admit it, what you describe is the same for mineral lands in the western PLSS states. You seem to confuse the issue that the subdivision of a township equates to all of the land being patented based on that survey. All along the Colorado mineral belt where the land has been classified as being mineral lands (i.e. the land is more valuable for its mineral wealth than for agricultural use) there are gaps and gores between the patented mining claims. Only a fool would assume that there are no longer any Public Lands within a "mineral" township. For junior lode claims that have conflicts with senior claims, the situation is even more complex than Texas metes and bounds surveys. Each senior claim must be surveyed and its conflict subtracted before one can determine that what is left belongs to the junior claim owner.
Here is an example plat for an area north of the Eldora Ski Resort west of Boulder. It is Sheet 4 of the 1943, Dependent Resurvey With Mineral Segregations in Five Sheets that was conducted to lot out the remaining Public Lands.
Scott Ellis, post: 440551, member: 7154 wrote: IAlso when A PLSS system has Metes and Bounds it is based off of the PLSS Grid. It's not two separate systems, just use the grid to make the metes and bound easier to write and understand, I am sure some would like to include the page number out of the manual to help them understand the survey.
Wrong, Scott. I recognize that your ignorance of the PLSS system is based on the fact that you are only licensed in Texas. I would imagine that should you ever become licensed in a western PLSS state that you would most likely enjoy retracing mineral surveys. You would also know then, why your statement above is wrong. 🙂
Gene Kooper, post: 440552, member: 9850 wrote: While you will never admit it, what you describe is the same for mineral lands in the western PLSS states.
Okay, I'm willing to look at the typical mineral lands of Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. Probably lots of examples there, eh?
Gene Kooper, post: 440553, member: 9850 wrote: Wrong, Scott. I recognize that your ignorance of the PLSS system is based on the fact that you are only licensed in Texas. I would imagine that should you ever become licensed in a western PLSS state that you would most likely enjoy retracing mineral surveys. You would also know then, why your statement above is wrong. 🙂
I am sure I would enjoy the retracing mineral survey, however I would also get very bored of seeing squares all day long.
I will admit the work you do is not in the normal PLSS survey, it takes more Skill and I am sure is difficult at times.
gschrock, post: 440556, member: 556 wrote: Falsehood.
Many of the metes and bounds within PLSS states were established long before the PLSS grids were surveyed, but I guess folks so eager to claim some superiority would either not know that or consciously wish to perpetuate such falsehoods.
Sorry, no cigar in the petty posturing game.
What percentage would you say was already surveyed before the PLSS system?
It is not a claim of superiority, but a stated and know fact that Thomas Jefferson invented the PLSS to make Surveying easier.
Was it ever, and/or is it still, possible for land owners to subdivide their land without the aid of a surveyor in PLSS states? I know Maine still allows the practice and it tends to encourage a good deal of investigative work and reliance on parol evidence during the course of a boundary retracement.
Are there any PLSS states where the towns create and maintain tax maps or is that task performed at the county or borough level?
The PLSS is a giant subdivision. Bigger than any ever before or since. That makes it a little complicated but not like a hodgpodge of descriptions coming from an obscure point of beginning that is poorly described and monumented. There are parcels based on metes-and-bounds within the PLSS system, as well as some homestead grants and townships and land grants that are senior to the PLSS coming through. Typically most metes-and-bounds descriptions are tied to the PLSS, but can be just as big of a mess if that point of beginning is erroneous, ambiguous or obliterated.
Most colonial states (I think) have subdivisions within their hodgepodge of sloppy descriptions that are often hard to follow. Those simultaneous conveyances are without gaps or error (I think) if you can find the original exterior monumentation. Some colonial surveyors might want to study the PLSS manual to help them understand other simultaneous conveyances/subdivision standards of retracements. (The only caveat I would add is that I think the whole topic of double-proportionment for re-establishing an original corner location is ridiculous.)
If you tell a skilled surveyor that he has it easy you will get extremely knowledgeable people offended by downplaying their knowledge or skill. I think I heard Ty is surveying in Texas now, I wonder how that sits in Kent and Kent-Junior's craw. We know that everything's bigger in Texas...but I'm not sure if that just means that everyone's ego is bigger down there. You know guys....if you don't like that Texas is not the largest State, they could just cut Alaska in half .... and Texas could be the 3rd largest state (that was an old joke floating around back in 1959 according to my dad)
Here's another randomly selected part of Kansas (1:100,000 St. Francis Quadrangle). It still looks pretty typical from Texas.
