California Surveyors Forums

RAM wrote:It is my understanding there is NO BLM in Texas, due to the fact that Texas was an independent nation prior to being a state. All federal lands within Texas were acquired from the State of Texas. This is one of the reasons Texas has an independent layout of the public lands system, i.e. the sections are 2 miles square.

RAM,

Texas has a land grant size called a Sitio. It is 5,000 varas square or about 2.63 miles to a side. It also has a square league and labor or 5,099.01 varas square or 2.68 miles to a side. Then there are the Two league grants and others.

Then there is the King Ranch at 852,000 acres(1,331.25 Sq. Mi.) and before it was sold of in pieces the XIT at approximately 3 Million Acres (4, 687.5 Sq. Mi.) then some of the old Spanish grants were Huge.

Texas has NO part of the PLSS. The closest are the RR blocks and the University land Blocks which are normally subdivided in one mile squares. Most of those are in West Texas and the Panhandle.

Been a Registered Professional Land Surveyor in Texas for 27+ years. California for 24 years.

Your response does not merit any further comment. The next time you want to discuss "land use issues", I'll be sure to avoid the exchange.

Whenever politics is any part of the issue, some people should avoid the discussion altogether because the presence of the political aspect blinds them to any other aspects that exist in the situation.

They've picked their team. They've internalized the rhetoric. They see everything about the issue through the lens that filters out everything that does not fit the template. Politics often turns otherwise intelligent, reasonable people into raging idiots. It's true at both ends of the political spectrum.

Perhaps it would be best if this thread simply go away.

Wendell at SurveyorConnect already figured this out: allowing political or religious "discussions" in a forum nominally focused on surveying isn't worth the headaches.

I asked and all I got was grief. I asked a sincere question, because in my mind I do not understand how we get from breach of contract to a discussion on property rights. My understanding is that the ranchers have no rights to federal land except as outlined in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. So discuss away or have the administrator yank this thread because it has been short on meaningful discussion and long on soap box chest thumping over proported governmental over reach when in fact it is self inflected plight arising from beach of agreement.

I was thinking somebody in this community might have some insight to the reality of what is going on. Never was this post meant to be a political platform.

Yes, I favor the underdog. What has your mob mentality done for you?

Face it. Politics are beyond the purview of the land surveyor. The seasoned professional would have let this pass without comment.

What Cliven Bundy said about slavery is ignorant and reprehensible. Let anyone who thinks working on a cotton plantation as human chattel is better than just about anything try it themselves but remember you have less than zero rights.

Trying to make excuses by saying he was taken out of context is complete and utter baloney with cow patty seasoning on top.

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:What Cliven Bundy said about slavery is ignorant and reprehensible. Let anyone who thinks working on a cotton plantation as human chattel is better than just about anything try it themselves but remember you have less than zero rights.

Trying to make excuses by saying he was taken out of context is complete and utter baloney with cow patty seasoning on top.

David,

Are you commenting on the First, Edited version that was put out for public consumption, or are you commenting on what he really said? Which while extremely clumsy, would take someone with an agenda to call racist.