Interesting notes on old R/S...

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:22 pm

I don't think BLM would accept this:
IMG_1534.PNG


This is in Tulare County, Monache Meadows.

7 LS 21 (Duke Hunt 1935)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Olin Edmundson » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:05 pm

It almost reads like they know which is the original corner, but are agreeing to a different position. Transfer of property without a deed?

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:58 pm

IMG_1535.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:41 pm

Looking at the previous map 7 LS 19 which held the northerly stone, it looks like the southerly stone fits better. The northerly stone puts a big kink section line so it appears they were agreeing the southerly stone is the true original corner. I don't have the field notes for comparison.

I was looking around there because the family used to vacation at a cabin in Lot 1, Section 30. 7 LS 4 shows 30, 33 & 34. He set the NW cor of 30 by intersection from the south and east.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Olin Edmundson » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:05 pm

At the very least the surveyor seems strongly suspicious that they were agreeing to the wrong corner, if not outright convinced it wasn't the original, and you'd have to assume he told them all this. It's possible that there may not have been any uncertainty by the surveyor, but the owners just chose to be uncertain because they liked a different rock. I wonder if that was public land to the south.

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:27 am

Olin Edmundson wrote:At the very least the surveyor seems strongly suspicious that they were agreeing to the wrong corner, if not outright convinced it wasn't the original, and you'd have to assume he told them all this. It's possible that there may not have been any uncertainty by the surveyor, but the owners just chose to be uncertain because they liked a different rock. I wonder if that was public land to the south.

That is my impression too.

It's all surrounded by Inyo National Forest.

Rough location:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2 ... 18.1832678
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby David Kendall » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:39 am

Is blue granite extraordinary at that location or is it common? I wonder if the USFS Rangers have the authority to make a deal like that in 1935. Is Duke Hunt acting as an agent of the FS or are the Rangers acting as land surveyors?

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:03 am

Duke Hunt apparently was a private surveyor/civil engineer working for private property owners in there.

I assume the GLO had the survey authority in the 1930s but don't know for sure. The FS most likely couldn't agree to anything except the original monument but in the case of uncertainty only GLO (or BLM) could make the decision.

Hunt set the northwest corner of Section 30 using an unusual method too, it would probably be rejected today but then I doubt anyone will go in to the wilderness to do a Dependent Resurvey. There's no logging (too hard to get the logs out); the use is just for backcountry cabins.
LS07-004-excerpt.jpg


County Surveyor's note on 7 LS 21:
LS07-021-excerpt.jpg


All maps are available on-line:
http://publicdocs.co.tulare.ca.us/Quest ... fault.aspx
Surveyor->Recorded Maps->Licensed Surveys (Record of Surveys)
7 LS 4
7 LS 19
7 LS 21
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby Olin Edmundson » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:54 am

And then he goes ahead and re-breaks down the section again, no doubt affecting other property owners who were not a part of the "conference" at least the County Surveyor isn't buying it.

User avatar
RAM
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains

Re: Interesting notes on old R/S...

Postby RAM » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:39 am

sounds like a road trip is in order to complete a field analysis, topped off by a beverage circle to debate the merits of the survey.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests