The Pine Valley Deeds

[Bryan Izatt]

Why would the caption describe it as "rolling country" if it was looking back toward the second tee and first green?

Wherever it is looking, doesn't it look like the ground rolls down a hill and then up a hill.  Does that not constitute "rolling hills"?  From the 3rd tee the land rolls down to the first green and further down across the tracks to Lake Lekau and then climbs back up the ridge to the Clementon - Berlin road.  Is that not rolling hills?  Writers sometimes take poetic license in what they write.

[DMoriarty]

Jim and Bryan, looking at the shape of the contour lines on the various maps, I don't think there is any reasonable way to extrapolate the elevations across the RR tracks using the 1913 map.    The contour lines stop well short of the rail line, and the elevation is on the other side of the tracks.   I think at best the benchmark provides some indication of the accuracy of the other maps and elevation sources.

Jim,  I don't understand what you are saying about Google Earth showing different elevations across the RR tracks as the various maps.  On the google earth ground view, vision is virtually unlimited, so the terrain you may be viewing on the two dimensional rendering maybe miles and miles away.    That hillside in the photos with the white building is not miles and miles away.

Why my reluctance to provide a specific measure of the visible amount of the distant hillside visible in the Brown pic?  Because my "position" doesn't hinge on my ability to pretend like I can attach an exact measure to something that amounts to little better than a guess.    The way I understand the geometry from the various maps and sources of data, and the way I read the captions, it really isn't a close call.  We aren't just looking at some trees sticking up over the ridge.  Look at the height of the building in relation to the visibility.  It looks like around 3 or 4 times the height of the building.   And unless that building is a treehouse, we know that the ground - not just the trees - extended well above the ridge line.  

Bryan,

Regarding the benchmark, I went to the national geodetic survey website.  http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/    I looked up the data points using the coordinates and there is a link to the photos.   I don't think I've ever been to the website you mentioned.  

As for the dam and the pond, they sure look like they were drawn as part of the original map to me, and not add ons like the various stick routings.

As for what I see in the photo, I was simple stating what it looks like to me.

Look at your cross section from the 3rd tee.  That hardly looks like "rolling country" to me.

You two keep asking for my "position" but I don't really have one, other than that the Brown photo doesn't seem to match the caption, and that it seems impossible because of the the geometry of the land.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I guess, to me, then you do have a position, and that is that the caption is wrong on the Brown picture.

I assume that your position is that the caption on the man-in-hat picture is wrong too.

I guess the past pages have been about discrediting others positions on what the photos show as opposed to espousing your own position of where they were taken from. 

So, I guess that leaves us with these are pictures of we don't know what from we don't know where, in your opinion.

_______________________________

As for the dam and the pond, they sure look like they were drawn as part of the original map to me, and not add ons like the various stick routings.

Well, if they were drawn by the surveyor/mapmaker in March 1913 and the dam and pond were there at the time of the survey, then that would conflict with the independent written article that I've posted.  I guess I'll go with the contemporaneous written article in place of your supposition that surveyors/mapmakers don't draw objects that aren't there yet.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, no offense meant, but it is up to me - not you - to determine what my position is or isn't.

The caption of the Brown pic doesn't ring true to me because it seems to describe something that seems physically impossible to me.  I've left open the possibility that someone will make it make sense, but no one has thus far.

As for the May 1913 pic from the magazine, it still looks to me that the two were taken from the same ridge but not the same place; however I don't have a strong basis for saying the caption is wrong, and it is a strong possibility that I am I am just not understanding the photo.  Jim knows the site and if he says that is what it looks like from the 3rd tee, I don't have a strong basis to go against him on this.   

It is two different situations.  The former seems physically impossible, while the latter is more just a question of interpretation.  In this regard his personal experience carries much more weight with me than do my own efforts to understand an old photograph. He isn't suggesting something that seems physically impossible with regard to the man photo. 

I guess the past pages have been about discrediting others positions on what the photos show as opposed to espousing your own position of where they were taken from.

I guess so.  But had you been paying attention you'd know that I have never been claiming to have known the answer in this discussion.  Quite a few of you seem to think you have it all figured out, but I have made no such claim.

With some hesitance, I had offered an alternative view of from where the photo(s) could have been taken, but that view has some issues I haven't been able to resolve, and don't have a strong sense that I am correct.  It was just an idea.  You guys didn't buy it, and that is fine.  I immediately wrote it off as an idea that didn't get much traction amongst this esteemed crowd, because I've got little to offer in the way of proof and I am not going to bang endlessly bang the drum on an idea that has little factual support.



I am much more comfortable with this conclusion than pretending I know something for certain when I don't.
_______________________________

As for the dam and pond,  I wouldn't really call it a "supposition" to say that, generally, "surveyors/mapmakers don't draw objects on maps that aren't there yet."  They might have on certain types of plans,  but would such plans would be so marked?

If your position is that they reflected future changes on this map without so noting, then your premise that this is a good resource for understanding the pre-construction site collapses on itself.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

OK, I think I understand where you're at with the pictures. 

____________________________________

Re the dam and the topo, do you have a "position", or a "view", or a "theory" or whatever about how to account for the dam being on the map? 

My view/supposition is that the dam was not there in March because: Crump built it; and, there wasn't enough time to construct it over the winter between November and March; and, there was a report of the stream still being there after March.

I can reconcile it being on the topo because Crump could have drawn it himself or he could have instructed the mapmaker to put it on there for him. 

Regardless of what else is on the topo and who put it there, I think that has no meaning regarding the integrity of the survey and contour lines.  You are free to think otherwise, as always.   

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Re the train story, your summation of your "position" a page or so back is the first time I've seen you state it that clearly, and I do read what you say and I'm not that forgetful:

I think AWT got it wrong in terms of one word, "FIRST".
I don't think that GAC "first" saw PV with a "chance glimpse" from a train traveling east at 60 mph.
Neither the terrain/topography/landform nor the dense forestation and undegrowth allow for that.
I've said, dozens of times, which you either forgot or didn't read, that GAC, already familiar with the property, pointed it out to AWT and others on a trip to AC.

So, it comes down to one word: "first"; when did Crump first see the property and recognize it as a good site for PV.  Of course, Hazard/Tillie didn't actually use the word "first", nor did the hunting stories.

I had thought that you didn't believe that Crump had told Tillie about the land as they passed on the train. I now understand that you do think he pointed it out to Tillie from the train.  But, that you still believe that the two of them couldn't see any of the rolling hills because their view was blocked by the landforms and dense forests. I guess that Crump said to Tillie - here is some really good rolling land for a golf course, for our Pine Valley golf course.  I know you can't see anything, but it's here because we just zipped past Sumner station. 

So, it basically comes down to you believing the hunting pictures as proof of the hunting story as opposed to Tillie's account of the train story? Or, are you also relying on MacWood's 8 supposed supporting hunting stories?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan

If GAC DIDN'T "FIRST" spot PV from the train that means that he was already aware of the site.

Why are you calling Shelly a liar ?

[DMoriarty]

The pond doesn't look like the other features which were obviously added later  The trees appear to have been cleared around it (on the map) and the contours do not extend into the pond.   Had the pond been added later, then I'd expect we'd see some indication of this.  

I think you drastically overestimate how long it would take to construct a small dam to create a small pond.  Beavers do it in a matter of days, and with the right terrain it could be done in a matter of hours.  Surely a man with Crump's resources could get it done in five months.  It wasn't Hoover Dam.

As for AWT referring to it as a stream, you'd have to ask him.  Did he climb down in there and examine it, or did he see it from the infamous ridge on the 6th or perhaps from the 4th tee?  If he was looking at the upper portion it may well have looked like nothing more than a stream.  For that matter, it wasn't a very wide pond so maybe he just misattributed it. Or maybe he was thinking of what he knew of the site from sometime earlier.   I don't know, but as I recall it was a fairly offhand reference, and nothing on which I'd hang my hat.

As for my "position," it seems more likely to me that the dam was there and his description was less than perfect.  I don't really have a strong feeling about it one way or another, but as between a site map and an offhand mention, I'll go with the site map.  But mostly I am surprised you are so sure of yourself on this issue, and that you are willing to pick and choose as between which aspects of the map you want to believe.

[JESII]

The caption of the Brown pic doesn't ring true to me because it seems to describe something that seems physically impossible to me.  I've left open the possibility that someone will make it make sense, but no one has thus far.

You've said it's the geometry that doesn't make sense, I believe.

The geometry isn't all that difficult I don't think.

I don't believe there's been an item yet that suggests the 6th fairway ridge is less than 10 feet higher than the 3rd tee...do you agree? I also think there all consistent in showing a reasonable slope from the 3rd tee area cross the ridge of the 2nd green and 4th fairway. I think this slope probably drops another 10 feet or so...sound reasonable?

I measure the distance from the middle of the 6th fairway to the 3rd tee to be 450 yards, close enough?

I also see high ground in the distance, out by Clementon Road/Rt 534 that measures about 1500 yards away...3X or 3.5X the distance as the third tee.

It's been a while since geometry class but I'm vertain that if a view provides 10 feet of clearance at 450 yards it'll provide 30 feet of clearance at 1,350 yards. Now I can't really tell how much is visible on line with that house but the most conservative math goves us 35 feet of the hillside visible.

A couple other factors that would increase that number:
1) The camera man may have been elevated above the gound level. This is your theory, not mine but you seem to have a hell of alot more experience and skill analyzing what's in these pictures than I do. For each foot he's elevated we would gain 3.5 feet of visibility on the hillside.
2) The third tee may actually be more than 10 feet below the 6th fairway. If this is the case, again we'll gain 3.5 feet of visibility on the hillside for each foot increased.
3) The third tee on the Blue/Red Line Topo has two locations. The Blue version of the third tee is in the middle of the current second green. Each topo has shows the second green at a lower elevation than the third tee by 5 - 10 feet. Again, if that was the third tee mentioned in the caption and it's 5 feet lower than what we've been guessing at we would gain another 17.5 feet of visibility on the hillside.

I'm not sure of any of these but you suggested earlier that the picture seemed to be physically impossible. I hope these possibilities reduce the impossibility a bit as none of them seem unreasonably far-fetched to me.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  A number of sources, including google earth and the most recent new US Topo, dated 2011, have the elevation difference at less than ten feet.  In fact depending on where one is standing, these sources  have the two ridges at fairly close to the same height.    But let's set this aside . . .

Even assuming your 10 foot clearance and extrapolating to your 30 feet clearance, I don't think it comes close to working.   You seem to be assuming that the opposite hill (with the white building) is as tall as the viewing point.   IT ISN'T, at least not if we believe the caption.  On a line from where you think the photo was taken and over the third tee, the hills around Clementon Road look to be around 120 feet.  

The thirty feet clearance starts at the height of the viewpoint and goes down.  So if the viewpoint is at 167 feet, your 30 feet clearance means you will only see above 137 feet.   Not only that, but you estimate that we can see 35 feet of hillside.  So if we can only see above 137 ft, we need to add 35 feet to that.   So that means that we would need a hill of about 172 feet according to your estimates. So by your measures you need a 172 foot ridge, and you have a 120 foot ridge.   It isn't even close.  Even using your numbers, it isn't even close.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Your geometry is fine.  David's correction is also correct.  Depending on the assumptions that are made about the height of the camera, the 3rd tee, and the far ridge, the far ridge - since the topos are measuring the height of the ground - would be slightly below or maybe level with the top of the ridge.  Of course there are trees out there on the far ridge, so you have to account for those too, which neither you or David did.  It seems fairly certain that you could see some or a lot of the trees on the far ridge. 

To me, it is impossible to distinguish in the picture how much of what we are seeing is ground of the ridge and how much is trees. 

So far, in other posts David has been reluctant to say how high that background, trees or ridge or both, is above the ridge or how far away it is.  But, unless we have some agreement on that then there is no way of saying there is too much or not enough showing, in my opinion.

If you leave the camera in the same position and turn it slightly to the right and draw a line over the middle of the second green, then there is about 25 feet of ground (plus whatever for the trees) on the far ridge visible.  From there to the right there is plenty of the far ridge, plus trees visible.  Hence my guess that the 3rd tee and probably the 2nd green are just out of the picture to the left.  Based on the other thread, the topo fits pretty well if that is the angle of the photo.  Of course, that requires us to accept that the caption is partially misstated.

In my opinion there is no way to force fit the Brown photo to a literal reading of the caption.  It doesn't seem far fetched to me that whoever wrote the caption, may have been slightly off in their description.  There aren't a whole lot of reference points in the picture to go on - then or now.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Where did I call Shelley a liar?  Why do you make these things up?  

What Shelley wrote included:

"It could be that, in tramping through the grounds, he saw more of the trees and shrubs than the forest and perhaps only realized the rolling nature and the possibilities when he saw it at a greater distance from the train."

Why can't you accept that.  Or, are YOU calling him a liar?  Or, as in your post to Jeff, are you just saying that he misstated it?  

[Bryan Izatt]

..................................... 

I think you drastically overestimate how long it would take to construct a small dam to create a small pond.  Beavers do it in a matter of days, and with the right terrain it could be done in a matter of hours.  Surely a man with Crump's resources could get it done in five months.  It wasn't Hoover Dam.

Well, Crump certainly seemed to be an eager beaver.  From the pictures, the pond doesn't look so small.  And, I guess you have knowledge and experience in dam building.  As a matter of curiosity, how do you suppose they managed to keep the pond level up given the sandy nature of the site.  Some clay lining perhaps?  Or is there just a high water table under the sand layer?

As for AWT referring to it as a stream, you'd have to ask him.  Did he climb down in there and examine it, or did he see it from the infamous ridge on the 6th or perhaps from the 4th tee?  If he was looking at the upper portion it may well have looked like nothing more than a stream.  For that matter, it wasn't a very wide pond so maybe he just misattributed it. Or maybe he was thinking of what he knew of the site from sometime earlier.   I don't know, but as I recall it was a fairly offhand reference, and nothing on which I'd hang my hat.

I assume you are being facetious in the above paragraph.  And, the reference wasn't offhand, whatever that means.  It was part of a hole by hole description as the holes stood in April 1913.  A while ago Paul Turner posted a 1920 aerial that showed the meandering creek and the dry pond bed.  Don't you think Hazard would know a creek like that compared to the pond that it became?

"The fifth
is the second of the four one-shot
holes on the course. A very pronounced
depression, over the creek
must be carried with a short iron to
the green in the hill side beyond."



As for my "position," it seems more likely to me that the dam was there and his description was less than perfect.  I don't really have a strong feeling about it one way or another, but as between a site map and an offhand mention, I'll go with the site map.  But mostly I am surprised you are so sure of yourself on this issue, and that you are willing to pick and choose as between which aspects of the map you want to believe.

Why is it so hard for you to accept anything other than your own discoveries and analyses?  The map is what it is.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else apparently, knows for sure who drew what on the map and when.  I think it's a reasonably safe bet that the surveyor drew the contours.  What we are trying to do is a logical analysis of what we see and read from the topo and other sources.  On this point, I think you are being illogical.  Of course, if Hazard was wrong about the train and the abscessed tooth then he must also be wrong about the creek on the 5th hole, and by logical extension everything else he wrote.   

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

As to your references to the trees on the far ridge, it is a bit of a "red herring."   We can see some sort of a structure on the ridge, and whatever it is I don't think it is a treehouse.

As to the pond discussion, I've explained my thoughts on that repeatedly.  I understand your position.  Without more information neither of us are likely to see it the other's way.   So what is your point of pounding away at it and casting aspersions on my approach?

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan,

In that same post I missed you asked about what I have called the low slung RR shed.  Here is a 1938 oblique from the Hagley collection showing the shed and the extra track.  The 16th green and 17th tee are visible in the lower center of the photo.



Here it is again from 1931 from the other direction.   Note that the building had been expanded between 1931 and 1938.  Note also that while the bed for this small loading/unloading spur was visible in 1931, the part of the tracks connecting to main line is not there at this point.  If I had to guess, I'd guess that this shed was used intermittenly over the years depending upon the needs of the land owner.  

It was reported a special railroad siding was created to remove the trees from the property. One or two reports claimed 30,000 trees were cut down and removed; another report said 80,000. I would guess this was the track created for that purpose, and also to deliver car loads of manure, and such. The PV station was further down the track, by the first hole.

I've never heard of a surveyor adding features to his survey that did not exist, an engineer or an architect might included designed features, but not a surveyor. I'm sure the pond and dam existed March 1913.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

In that same post I missed you asked about what I have called the low slung RR shed.  Here is a 1938 oblique from the Hagley collection showing the shed and the extra track.  The 16th green and 17th tee are visible in the lower center of the photo.



Here it is again from 1931 from the other direction.   Note that the building had been expanded between 1931 and 1938.  Note also that while the bed for this small loading/unloading spur was visible in 1931, the part of the tracks connecting to main line is not there at this point.  If I had to guess, I'd guess that this shed was used intermittenly over the years depending upon the needs of the land owner.  

It was reported a special railroad siding was created to remove the trees from the property. One or two reports claimed 30,000 trees were cut down and removed; another report said 80,000. I would guess this was the track created for that purpose, and also to deliver car loads of manure, and such. The PV station was further down the track, by the first hole.

I've never heard of a surveyor adding features to his survey that did not exist, an engineer or an architect might included designed features, but not a surveyor. I'm sure the pond and dam existed March 1913.

Tom,

It seems likely to me that the trees were removed from the property via the RR.  The property appears to have been pretty much landlocked when they bought it.  There was a ten foot wide right of way to the northwest corner, so there presumably was a road or ROW from there to Pine Hill, but the RR seems the easiest way to ship the lumber out.

The siding wasn't there in 1931, but was in 1938.  In any case that's well after they would have finished clearing the trees.  When and where were these reports?  Eighty thousand trees seems a little over the top.  Assuming a 150 sq ft footprint per tree, 80,000 trees would cover about 275 acres, more property than they had, even if they'd cleared every tree.

Yes, the Sumner station is clearly visible in the 1931 picture near the bottom centre.



I believe that the topo map we have been referring to is actually called a "Plan Showing a Topographical Survey".  It is possible that it is not the actual survey but rather a plan superimposed on the topo survey.  Hence the dam and tree lines etc could be planned while the contours are actual existing.  I can't discern a surveyor's signature or stamp on the photos I've seen.  Perhaps others who have looked closer at the actual map could clarify if there is a surveyor signature on it.

I believe, but am not SURE, that the dam came after the topo.  I have no reason to believe that Hazard mistook a pond for a creek in April 1913.  What makes you so sure, other than the fact that you've never heard of a surveyor adding features that aren't there to a survey?  What makes you so sure that this is the actual survey and not a plan based on the survey?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

1. A number of times you have referred that train station visible in the photo as the "Sumner Station."   I recall reading (I don't remember where) the "flag stop" known as Sumner station was further east.   If my memory serves, one of the deeds you posted mentioned a right of way  along the RR tracks to the RR station.   If the RR station was across the tracks I don't see how this makes sense.   

2.  As you can see in the zoomed in version of the 1931 photo above (the second photo) there is evidence that the siding had existed prior to 1931; the foundation for the extension is there and some of the remains or the track or markings of the track are visible as well.  My guess is either the siding hadn't been maintained or they and been removed.  By 1938 the building itself had been expanded and the extension appears to have been repaired or rebuilt, so apparently it was in use again.   

3.  I don't think anything in your last post adds anything new to the discussion of the pond, and again I doubt either of us will change or view without something new.  I am curious as to why it is so important to you though?   Who really cares?  I certainly don't.   

4.  The 1913 survey shows a road running across the property.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Where did I call Shelley a liar?  Why do you make these things up?

I didn't make anything up.
Crump and Shelly stated that the course was "amongst the pines".
Not the deciduous trees mind you, but the pines.

Carr and AWT wrote that the land was densely forested with thick jungle like undergrowth, so thick in fact that AWT indicated that the land was invisible to the mortal eye. 

But, you want to call all of them liars and claim that there was no visual impediment to seeing the land.
This despite the fact that you've never set foot on Pine Valley and that Carr and AWT were contemporaneous eye witnesses.
Carr probably knew more about Pine Valley than anyone else, except Crump.  

What Shelley wrote included:

"It could be that, in tramping through the grounds, he saw more of the trees and shrubs than the forest and perhaps only realized the rolling nature and the possibilities when he saw it at a greater distance from the train."

That's really disingenuous of you.
What Shelly wrote, that preceeded the above statement, which is purely speculative, was the following.

"Some reporting by the press at the time mentioned Crump had seen the property from the train.
But, there is PROOF that IN FACT he knew the grounds by tramping through them with his gun and dogs while hunting for small game with which the property was well blessed.  A photo of Crump resting amid the pines in 1909 is testimony of that FACT.

Why can't you accept that.

Because the statement you posted is purely speculative on his part.
The statement I posted is a direct declaration of fact.
Have someone explain the difference to you.
  
Or, are YOU calling him a liar?

NO, you're the one calling him a liar.

Shelly stated, unequivically, that Crump was familiar with the land prior to the newspaper articles and that the newspaper account was false.
For you to claim that Shelly was wrong is to call him a liar, which is what you did.  

Or, as in your post to Jeff, are you just saying that he misstated it?

Shelly is crystal clear.
He notes the newspaper articles, debunks them and states that Crump knew of the land long before they were written.

In my post to Jeff, I stated that the likely chain of events was that Crump, already familiar with the land, pointed it out to AWT on one of their trips.
And, as Shelly stated, the newspaper reports were in error.  To state otherwise is to call Shelly a liar, which you evidently feel comfortable in doing.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

1. A number of times you have referred that train station visible in the photo as the "Sumner Station."   I recall reading (I don't remember where) the "flag stop" known as Sumner station was further east.   If my memory serves, one of the deeds you posted mentioned a right of way  along the RR tracks to the RR station.   If the RR station was across the tracks I don't see how this makes sense.   

I believe this is the first time I've mentioned it being in the aerials.  I previously posted an article about Virginia Ireland's honeymoon that mentioned the Sumner "flag" stop.  The "flag" stop is also visible on the edge of Paul Turner's 1920 aerial, in the same place, across from the 1st fairway.  It's in the same place as the topo shows it.  When you remember where you read about some place further "east"  (that would be somewhere out on Ireland's estate) and you can produce the reference, be sure to let us know.

Yes, that what two deeds say about the ROW.  The deeds are quite clear that the RR station is not on the PV side of the tracks.  What doesn't make sense?  The ROW was along the edge of the PV property and when you get to the end of it you turn left and cross the RR tracks to the station.  Surely you are not so focused on disagreeing on every point that you can't make sense of this simple concept.




2.  As you can see in the zoomed in version of the 1931 photo above (the second photo) there is evidence that the siding had existed prior to 1931; the foundation for the extension is there and some of the remains or the track or markings of the track are visible as well.  My guess is either the siding hadn't been maintained or they and been removed.  By 1938 the building itself had been expanded and the extension appears to have been repaired or rebuilt, so apparently it was in use again.

Could be.  My guess was that it was just being built in 1931 and they'd just started leveling there.  But, there is no way to know one way or the other from the pictures.  Do you have another source that claims it was there before 1931?  I don't.   

3.  I don't think anything in your last post adds anything new to the discussion of the pond, and again I doubt either of us will change or view without something new.  I am curious as to why it is so important to you though?   Who really cares?  I certainly don't. 

If you don't care, then let it go.  I was responding to Tom's post, not yours.  I'm sure Tom can respond for himself, if he wants.
  

4.  The 1913 survey shows a road running across the property. 

Where?  Where does it go to and come from?  There is no mention in the deeds of a road or ROW on the property per se, other than the ten foot one across the north easterly boundary and down to the station.
 

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I called no one a liar despite your tortured and convoluted logic.  Your s@!t disturbing is really pointless.

Shelley offered his proof and then Shelley speculated (if you wish) a way to incorporate the train story.  So, by your tortured logic he disagreed with his own "proof" and called himself a liar.

[Tom MacWood]

The two reports regarding the temporary siding and the 30,000 trees are from the 1940s -- Saturday Evening Post and Golfer & Sportsman. The report about 80,000 trees being removed came from the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1914.

Why is it important when the pond was created?

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Thanks for the sources.  I still think the 80,000 number is suspect, but it's not really important.

It's not important when the dam was created.  It's just one more small piece of the PV creation puzzle.  I thought the topo and the two articles that I've previously cited helped clarify this small point. 

[Tom MacWood]

I don't think your articles clarify anything, but don't let me stop you from your wild goose chases.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Nowhere in the record does it say Crump was chasing gooses!  It was small game if I recall correctly......

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

That was good for a chuckle.   

But that would be geese not gooses.  Can't you get anything right!      

And, anybody who has actually seem a wild goose knows you don't have to chase them - many a dog is used around here trying to get them to go away.