Sure is some interesting threads started!

While not responding to bogus section subdivision lines!

And ya wonder why posters are leaving?

Keith

Boundary surveying is dependent upon the analysis and acceptance of corners.  Each situation is unique and can usually be answered by starting the conversation with, "it depends on...."

I believe that by challenging the verascity of two leading authorites in the surveying profession, Robillard and Bouman, you demonstrate a personal trait that could possibly be described as ingenous.

I don't believe that professionals really want to deal with these types of inane discussions.  That is why there is a lack of interest regarding your posts.

Maybe if you published articles or a book that profess what your theories on boundary establishment actually are, maybe you would have some credibility.  When was the last time you actually performed a boundary survey in the field?  I would guess not in two or three decades.

This is not intended as a criticism only as an observation of someone who may be out of touch with reality.

Posters are not leaving . . . they've been long gone.

Berating posters for not partaking in your conversation won't help to bring them back, so be satisfied that your thread appears to have been one of the most active threads of late.

As far as what's keeping posters from coming back . . . I'm not sure, but I suspect that there is(from what I've heard), too much censorship(which I haven't seen).

The other thing was that the more wild days fit the shoes of the "in the dirt", surveyors that spent way too much time(including myself), on this site than to completing office chores(I suspect).

The other site appears to be much more active, but when you look at the numbers, it doesn't begin to compare to the old numbers on this site.

Kinda like a popular resturant(s), closing for remodeling(for 2 months), and re-openning after a lot of patrons have learned to enjoy other eateries(no (s)).

Never want to give people a reason or excuse to leave and find something/somewhere else, cause then, you have to get them back. Especially so, in this case, cause in reality, this site NEVER should have been as popular as it was.  

This site was too, too, BUSY, BUSY, BUSY, morning day and night.  I wondered if anyone was actually working or if all they did was post on site . . . constantly It just couldn't go on.  I mean, eventually, the posters had to realize they needed to spend more time actually working.

I think the  "big change" occured at the apex of postings, the apex of all the in-fighting, and the apex of all the related frustration . . . at the most inoportune time, and I venture to say most posters didn't jump to the other site . . . they just stopped posting . . .  altogether.

When they finally began posting again, I think they gravitated to the more "in the dirt" site, cause that's the kind of people they(we) generally are, and that re(?) invigeration of the other site took time.  It didn't happen overnight.

As I said before, this site has become kinda . . . well . . . upity, and I don't even know how to explain what I even mean, except just to say this site has become like a person drinking a beer out of a tea-cup with his/her pinkie finger out.

JTanner,


An interesting thought;

I don't believe that professionals really want to deal with these types of inane discussions.  That is why there is a lack of interest regarding your posts.

This issue has been raised to the level of a State Board's criticism of a surveyor for not following the guidelines as espoused by Robillard and Bouman and would seem to me to be an issue of intense interest.  But that is just me, I guess.

Would you think that Robillard and Bouman are out of touch with reality, since it should be obvious that they have not been in the field for decades? 

Thank you for your post.

Keith

An additional thought!

I have testified that the Robillard/Bouman theory on subd. of sec. lines and property lines (two lines) are not in conformance with the BLM Manual of Surveying Instructions 1973 or 2009.  Therefore, land surveyors can take their pick on which book to follow when on the ground doing subdivision of sections work.

I guess that is not worth talking about?

Keith

Keith: Thanks for your thought provoking replies.  Could you post the citations to the court cases which you testified on these subjects, or better yet a link to the case themselves.  If the cases were not published,  you should have access to any particular case in which you testified if, shouldn't you?  Post that information.

That is how a good discussion about survey issues works; you provide the information which you are actually refering to other than just saying that you did it.  The surveyors that monitor this bulletin board would like to know the facts about a particular case and without you providing the specifics, the discussion is meaningless, or inane.  We all have seen the "what ifs", show us a real case so we can judge for ourselves.

You seem to pick fights over subjects by name calling and other unprofessional behavior then when responders finally take your bait, you run away.  I have seen it time and time before.  This is what drives people away from this type of bulletin board discussion is because it is a waste of their time, like mine right now. 

JTanner,

As I have stated before, I testified before Board on Surveys and that decision is not out yet, therefore I can't talk about it, anymore than what I have said.

I will be happy to report the outcome and may even have a few more comments.

It would be my opinion that surveyors could comment on the theory that is stated in the Robillard/Bouman books without a pertinent court case.  Wouldn't you think?

By the way, what is your opinion on their theory of two subdivision of section lines?

Maybe you have an example of what you accuse me of?

Keith

As far as I know the Act of Congress dated February 11, 1805, 2 Stat. 313, 43 USC 752 has never been amended nor supersceded. This is the rule I follow.

---

 Act of Congress dated February 11, 1805, 2 Stat. 313, 43 USC 752

The boundaries and contents of the several sections, half-sections, and quarter-sections of the public lands shall be ascertained in conformity with the following principles: First.

All the corners marked in the surveys, returned by the Secretary of the Interior or such agency as he may designate, shall be established as the proper corners of sections, or subdivisions of sections, which they were intended to designate; and the corners of half- and quarter-sections, not marked on the surveys, shall be placed as nearly as possible equidistant from two corners which stand on the same line. Second.

The boundary lines, actually run and marked in the surveys returned by the Secretary of the Interior or such agency as he may designate, shall be established as the proper boundary lines of the sections, or subdivisions, for which they were intended, and the length of such lines as returned, shall be held and considered as the true length thereof.

And the boundary lines which have not been actually run and marked shall be ascertained, by running straight lines from the established corners to the opposite corresponding corners; but in those portions of the fractional townships where no such opposite corresponding corners have been or can be fixed, the boundary lines shall be ascertained by running from the established corners due north and south or east and west lines, as the case may be, to the watercourse, Indian boundary line, or other external boundary of such fractional township.

Third. Each section or subdivision of section, the contents whereof have been returned by the Secretary of the Interior or such agency as he may designate, shall be held and considered as containing the exact quantity expressed in such return; and the half sections and quarter sections, the contents whereof shall not have been thus returned, shall be held and considered as containing the one-half or the one-fourth part, respectively, of the returned contents of the section of which they may make part.

 

 

JTanner,

Thanks for quoting the law and the BLM Manual.

So, I take it and understand that you use original survey procedures as stated in Chapter 3 of the 1973 BLM Manual for any and all subdivision of sectons?

Keith

Yes, I would apply the law.

That gives me the basis from which I can evaluate any and all existent evidence.  Everything after that, depends on.....................

Well it sounds good, but ain't the way it works and you can't have it both ways.

Testimony was given and is the way it works, that the section subdivision lines are run from the 1/4 corners to 1/4 corners and the intersection is the Center 1/4 sec. cor. and all 1/16th corners are set on these mathematical run lines.  Any other lines that have been established by the landowners are simply ignored and the landowers are advised to seek remedy with the court system to "re-locate" their boundaries to where they should have been.  Thus, this theory creates the double section subdivison lines and creates chaos where none existed before this surveyor entered the section.

Speaking of laws; do you follow this one too:  Sixth.  All lines shall be plainly marked upon trees, and measured with chains, containing two perches of sixteen and one-half feet each, subdivided into twenty-five equal links; and the chain shall be adjusted to a standard to be kept for that purpose.  It is the law, 43 USC 751!

Keith:
Thus, this theory creates the double section subdivison lines and creates chaos where none existed before this surveyor entered the section.

Yes this happens. What I find mind boggling is that surveyors who have been instructed NOT to do this, still do it. I'm sure you understand my reasons for not naming names.
MLB

Unless otherwise proven, fences and occupation which could have originated when the original corners still existed, should be considered as possible evidence of the location of original corners that have become obliterated.  However, this evidence should not be accepted only for the reason that it would disturb local conditions.  This evidence should be accepted only when they can be reasonable reconciled with the record and other evidence of the original survey.

If you don't subdivide according to the law, how can one reasonably determine any point of reference from which to make a decision on?

MLB,  agree!

JTanner,

The argument is that all subd. of sec. lines are to be run from 1/4 cor. to 1/4 cor. and the 1/16th cors. set on these lines, without regard to any established corners set by the landowners.  In the event that a prior subd. of sec. survey was done by a surveyor, those corners might be considered, but fence corners, no matter how old, are simply not acceptable. 

That theory is not in accordance with the BLM Manual guidelines and the surveys excecuted in the above fashion may in in accordance with Robillard and Boumans theories; so you can take your pick on which book to follow.

You need to go into the rest of the BLM Manual and find out what Bona Fide Rights are and we can talk more about accepting or rejecting "local corner"?

Your stated rationale for the non-acceptance of fences are not in accordance with Bona Fide Rights rationale, as explained in the BLM Manual, therefore you must have some court cases with language to support the arguments; not just Clark's book.

The mathematical subd. of secs. is absolutely correct when there is no evidence of any survey monuments, land owner monuments or years of occupation like fences, plowed fields, or testimony from land owners etc.

I have yet to read a section in the BLM Manual that fences can only  be accepted if in fact they were at the origianal PLSS corner. Maybe you could point that out?

"Bonafied Rights" applies to land entered prior to the PLSS survey.

Once the PLSS corners exist, all other aliquot corners exist where the Manual says, whether they have been monumented or not,

That an owner subdivide his land contrary to the Manual does not make his markers Aliquot corners.

I sure hope you did not spout that garbage to a judge.

Paul in PA

JTanner,

I will take this example from Paul in Pennsyvania to be one of those cases where I run away from......in your words.

It ain't worth commenting on!

You want to comment on Bona Fide Rights?

Keith

Suppose Paul has ever read and understood the 1909 statute?

Or maybe the 1973 BLM  Manual at sec. 6-12, along with plenty of guidelines on Bona Fide Rights.

That no such resurvey or retracement shall be so executed as to impair the bona fide rights or claims of any claimant, entryman, or owner of lands affected by such resurvey or retracement.


Read it in USC 772!

Bona Fide rights are independant of the PLSS, and while they may be referenced from PLSS corners, they are not controlled by them. In that light they in no way affect the subdivison of Sections , they merely remain where they are forever. The first paragraph of Section 6-15 in the '73 Manual is contrary to Bona Fide rights. Some of your posts jump from Bona Fide rights to subdivision per the PLSS too quickly and easily. The difference between the two must be more clearly shown.  

"Testimony was given and is the way it works, that the section subdivision lines are run from the 1/4 corners to 1/4 corners and the intersection is the Center 1/4 sec. cor. and all 1/16th corners are set on these mathematical run lines.  Any other lines that have been established by the landowners are simply ignored and the landowers are advised to seek remedy with the court system to "re-locate" their boundaries to where they should have been.  Thus, this theory creates the double section subdivison lines and creates chaos where none existed before this surveyor entered the section."

The court cannot require a bona fide entryman to relocate his boundaries. He may in fact have to redescribe his boundaries, but they remain where they are.

Paul in PA

JTanner,

Comments on Bona Fide Rights per the 1909 statute?

 You previously said:  "I have yet to read a section in the BLM Manual that fences can only  be accepted if in fact they were at the origianal PLSS corner. Maybe you could point that out?"

1973 Manual  6-15. The position of a tract of land, described by legal subdivisions, is absolutely fixed by the original corners and other evidences of the original survey and not by occupation or improvements, or by the lines of a resurvey which do not follow the original.

 2009 Manual 5-29. The position of a tract of land, described by legal subdivisions, is absolutely fixed by the original corners and other evidences of the original survey and not by occupation or improvements unrelated to the original survey or by the lines of a resurvey that do not follow the original as faithfully as possible for the time.

 

Excellent JTanner,

Now quote all of sec. 6-15 to get the full context of it's meaning.

You really should comment on sec. 6-12, which leads up to 6-15,

Sec. 6-12 with the quote from the 1909 statute is the bottom line to what resurveys are about and what the guidelines in the Manual are about.

How about this one, the two last sentences in your cited 6-15:  The solution to the problem must be found on the ground by the surveyor. It is his responsiblity to resolve the question of good faith as to location.


You can't just start off with a predrawn premise and then look for a sentence or two in the Manual to support your premise; keep it all in context.

Is there any doubt that the sentence with, is absolutely fixed by the original corners is right!

I have to research bona fide rights a little more.  The case 180IBLA388, Rudy Hillstrom, has some interesting points like:

4. Surveys of Public Lands: Generally
A landowner’s bona fide belief concerning the boundary between his land and public land is not the same as a bona fide right that must be protected in a resurvey under 43 U.S.C. § 772 (2006). Although a person may have a bona fide belief based on an understanding of where a boundary lies, a bona fide right within the meaning of the statute must be based on good faith reliance on evidence of the original survey.

This was discussed on the other forum extensively: http://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=59273#p59431

The entire "Resurvey Act" is posted here.  Maybe examining the legislative history can shed some light on Congress' intent.

FINAL BILL, SIXTIETH CONGRESS, SESSION II (pg. 845)

CHAP. 271- An Act Authorizing the necessary resurvey of public lands.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior may in his discretion cause to be made, as he may deem wise under the rectangular system now provided by law, such resurveys and retracements of the surveys of public lands as, after full investigation, he may deem essential to properly mark the boundaries of the public lands remaining undisposed of: Provided, That no such resurvey or retracement shall be so executed as to impair the bona fide rights or claims of any claimant, entryman, or owner of lands affected by such resurvey or retracement: Provided further, That not to exceed five percent of the total annual appropriation for surveys and resurveys of the public lands shall be used for the resurveys and retracements authorized hereby.
Approved, March 3, 1909.

JTanner,

The new term "bona fide belief" is new to me and I will have to read the case to see what the context of it is?

I am sure you recognize the fact that the 1909 Resurvey Act was for the Land Department (GLO and now BLM) in their resurveys that identify Federal Lands as in public lands remaining undisposed of.  Obviously, GLO and BLM do not resurvey private land.

The rub is of course, those boundaries along section subdivision lines that are between Federal and Private lands and are these lines ONLY established by Chapter 3, 1973 Manual, or by normal resurvey methods in Chapters 5 and 6?  Or, only by the methods as stated by Robillard and Bouman, which are actally the Chapter 3 guidelines.

I am going to write up an anology that I think is good rationale for this whole argument and is about the reasons for the 1909 Resurvey Act.

Later.

The term "bona fide belief" is also discussed in the '09 manual
 

I don't think its all that new of a term or concept.