RJ Leaver submitted a new blog post
Gambling With The Deregulation of Land Surveying
The editor of POB just wrote about the deregulation of land surveying. Everyone is buying it. Everyone seems to be missing the point that we have already been deregulated as land surveyors, long ago. How did this happen?
We have been dealt a bad poker hand
I would argue that as a profession, we have dealt the bad poker hand to ourselves.
BigMac, post: 383561, member: 11954 wrote: I would argue that as a profession, we have dealt the bad poker hand to ourselves.
That is certainly the case here in New Zealand.
Our Institue of Surveyors seems hell bent on destroying what little remaining value it has for members.
There is also now a move afoot for the Government Land Registry to be "out-sourced" to a private contractor 🙁
What amazes me is here in the States, most Boards of Registration focus only on the regulation of boundary surveys. The more forward thinking ones also require licensure for non boundary activities but they are more the exception than the rule
BigMac, post: 383641, member: 11954 wrote: What amazes me is here in the States, most Boards of Registration focus only on the regulation of boundary surveys. The more forward thinking ones also require licensure for non boundary activities but they are more the exception than the rule
How is it more foward looking to regulate non-boundary activities? (Interested in your opinion , not trying to argue )
Perhaps "regulate" isn't the proper word.
What I am getting at is if more states expanded the definition of surveying (and requirement for licensure) to include those measurement activities that are not necessarily boundary related, the profession and the public would be better served.
[USER=11954]@BigMac[/USER] is right in that regard. (In my humble opinion)
The only way to safeguard the profession and by proxy the public is to expand into other measurement areas. Hopefully before GISPs who know nothing about surveying, although I know there are those who make that effort, control everything spatial.
Perhaps a more supportable answer is to increase scrutiny of work and greater financial penalties for malpractice?
Expanding a license requirement to cover areas not necessarily within their expertise is hardly an answer in these de-regulatory times. The suggestion that all land measurement require a surveying license ignores many activities for which surveyors are not necessarily competent: archaeology, crime scene investigation, geophysical monitoring, establishing geodetic control, etc.
I'm not sure if I'm misreading the closing argument or not but it sounds like we're playing poker and have a lousy hand we should fold. If I stick to the analogy, it's a one hand game and we don't get a redeal. I think I'll wait for the river and see if I can hit this gut-shot straight flush...
aliquot, post: 383648, member: 2486 wrote: How is it more foward looking to regulate non-boundary activities? (Interested in your opinion , not trying to argue )
We are typically licensed for the protection of the protection of the general public's health, safety and welfare. There is a great deal of liability riding on non boundary survey issues. I do not know how deregulation helps protect "the general public's health, safety and welfare" in that regard.
So there is an opinion that the profession is dying, and the solution to that is to encompass more items into our registration in order to remain viable?
I'm not buying.
I think the answer is a lot more complicated than just a one or two solution answer.
For starters:
I believe we should have self regulating boards. The acting society of that particular state calls up a couple of NON-Biased and well reasoned surveyors to put under scrutiny some of the complaints that have been submitted to that society. The said board then investigates and levies penalties for non-compliant and/or negligent behavior. This would not just be looking for things to pick at on a plat, but it would be more in depth in terms of what practices are used to verify corners, deed research, crew training, etc. Way too many jack legs doing the bare minimum with no punishment in site.
Secondly I think there needs to be more of a presence in every aspect of design. When they are talking about 'more regulated' services outside the typical boundary, I think this is what is meant. I have been in many meetings where had the surveyor had the presence to speak and speak intelligently then it would have gone well and the 'outsiders' would have respected the profession more. Instead, what we had was a verification of the status quo. There is a communication breakdown between some surveyors and the public. That portion is our fault. If we cannot communicate in the simplest possible way the importance of our services and the consequences if they are ignored then we are the ones to blame.
Thirdly, STOP SPLITTING HAIRS!! I understand accuracy is important, but by gosh you can't tell me that we should use a micrometer to verify all of the measurements. I believe there is a reasonable amount accuracy required for each one, independent of the instrument used in order verify the property corners. I am far more concerned with finding the corners, putting my hands on them, marking them and then measuring to them. I simply don't understand the idiocy of trying to nit pick every hundredth of a foot on the boundary. PLEASE STOP!!
These are my main complaints and a few solutions. I think most surveyors do a pretty good job. There are some exceptions and I think some surveyors errors are honest mistakes that are the rarity really.
C.Tompkins, post: 383876, member: 975 wrote: I think the answer is a lot more complicated than just a one or two solution answer.
For starters:
I believe we should have self regulating boards. The acting society of that particular state calls up a couple of NON-Biased and well reasoned surveyors to put under scrutiny some of the complaints that have been submitted to that society. The said board then investigates and levies penalties for non-compliant and/or negligent behavior. This would not just be looking for things to pick at on a plat, but it would be more in depth in terms of what practices are used to verify corners, deed research, crew training, etc. Way too many jack legs doing the bare minimum with no punishment in site.
Secondly I think there needs to be more of a presence in every aspect of design. When they are talking about 'more regulated' services outside the typical boundary, I think this is what is meant. I have been in many meetings where had the surveyor had the presence to speak and speak intelligently then it would have gone well and the 'outsiders' would have respected the profession more. Instead, what we had was a verification of the status quo. There is a communication breakdown between some surveyors and the public. That portion is our fault. If we cannot communicate in the simplest possible way the importance of our services and the consequences if they are ignored then we are the ones to blame.
Thirdly, STOP SPLITTING HAIRS!! I understand accuracy is important, but by gosh you can't tell me that we should use a micrometer to verify all of the measurements. I believe there is a reasonable amount accuracy required for each one, independent of the instrument used in order verify the property corners. I am far more concerned with finding the corners, putting my hands on them, marking them and then measuring to them. I simply don't understand the idiocy of trying to nit pick every hundredth of a foot on the boundary. PLEASE STOP!!
These are my main complaints and a few solutions. I think most surveyors do a pretty good job. There are some exceptions and I think some surveyors errors are honest mistakes that are the rarity really.
I wrote a simple article and I thought made the case that land surveying was deregulated a long time ago. In my state that happened 150 years ago. This has nothing to do with the current licensing boards. I made no mention of the current licensing boards. This has everything to do with who is doing our ÛÏboundaryÛ work, and I believe my article very clearly points out how our work has been done by others (not land surveyors) who do not have a land surveyorÛªs license. The land surveyor has been excluded! In our history, do you like that there has always been an attempt to exclude us? And I am referring to boundary work and parcels.
I could care less about accident investigation scenes or splitting hairs. That was not the point of my article. If we want to understand our current day dilemma of archaic and inefficient land information systems, then we need to look back and see that the authority (in my state the federal government) picked up and packed up and left the surveyors to fend for themselves. That authority today is not the licensing boards. They attempt to regulate a very small part of land surveying activity. They are not an effective authority for our profession today.
In my state I have 72 counties. In this same state there are 72 different county developed land information systems, because in 170 years of history, each of these 72 systems was developed. All these 72 county systems then send their data to the state for statewide land information purposes. Does it make any sense that there should be 72 different land information systems in one state? There are no two alike.
Does it make any sense that most of these counties throughout history did not have a full time county surveyor presence working in harmony with the private surveyors? Without county surveyors and land surveyors, it is like building an expensive castle without any foundation. Land surveyors provide the all important foundation, but how many of the 72 counties in my state saw fit to utilize county surveyors and land surveyors in the development of their unique systems? The answer is 1 out of 72, and it was not in my county.
Principle No. 1: When you let non-surveyor and local political boards make land surveying decisions, decisions that should only be made by land surveying professionals working under a land surveying authority (as once existed with the federal government for USPLSS states), we are going to have a mess on our hands of historic proportions. I call this mess utilizing modern technology to keep running archaic and totally inefficient land information systems.
Principle No. 2: There is a way to once again re-engage land surveyors working under a land surveying/mapping/GIS authority. Recognize the gross inefficiencies of the current day ÛÏmodernÛ systems, and began to work toward futuristic, efficient and really modern systems by utilizing land surveyors in a far different and much better way.
That was the point of my article. So if I could explain to you how all land surveyors could be re-engaged in a far better and much more positive way, would any of you out there disagree with that? This new way would involve change however, but for land surveyors it would be very positive change, in my opinion. Are you still confused and would you possibly object, or would you like to hear more?
Call it deregulation or downsizing in governmental employees, the apparent goal of bureaucracy has been to list as many groups of professionals under the same umbrella of control without the guidance of professional mentors.
BOR and licensing is for boundary surveying. The other reasons for surveying are regulated by the construction industry and their demands and forensic investigation is regulated by the legal force and the GIS serve as map makers and GPS is guided by the goal to obtain a global network to obtain an absolute reliable and repeatable location for all surveyors and anyone else with any type of GPS unit. this list goes on...
The worst call I receive is the one after a survey order has been received and the client notifies me that they have signed a waver for a survey because that was supposedly their cheapest option. Not really Mr Client, in the long run, not getting a proper survey becomes much more expensive. Today you are asking for a simple boundary survey. With the absence of a current boundary survey, any future conflicts that may arise from not publicly recording what exists at the time of your purchase will turn into the surveyor to be placed in the position to not only be responsible for a simple boundary survey, the surveyor will now have the additional responsibility to become an advocate to prove your cause with more hours involved in field work, research and communication and perhaps to be the one to bear the burden of informing you that no, you do not own all you thought you owned.
Should the art of surveying ever be taken out of the hands of surveyors, the end product will slowly become mere paperwork or some digital image and the apparent end of physical visits to the property.
Now, sit back and think about who has something to gain and wants to deregulate surveying.............not anyone that actually knows anything about surveying.
0.02
RJ Leaver, post: 383954, member: 11815 wrote: I wrote a simple article and I thought made the case that land surveying was deregulated a long time ago. In my state that happened 150 years ago. This has nothing to do with the current licensing boards. I made no mention of the current licensing boards. This has everything to do with who is doing our ÛÏboundaryÛ work, and I believe my article very clearly points out how our work has been done by others (not land surveyors) who do not have a land surveyorÛªs license. The land surveyor has been excluded! In our history, do you like that there has always been an attempt to exclude us? And I am referring to boundary work and parcels.
I could care less about accident investigation scenes or splitting hairs. That was not the point of my article. If we want to understand our current day dilemma of archaic and inefficient land information systems, then we need to look back and see that the authority (in my state the federal government) picked up and packed up and left the surveyors to fend for themselves. That authority today is not the licensing boards. They attempt to regulate a very small part of land surveying activity. They are not an effective authority for our profession today.
In my state I have 72 counties. In this same state there are 72 different county developed land information systems, because in 170 years of history, each of these 72 systems was developed. All these 72 county systems then send their data to the state for statewide land information purposes. Does it make any sense that there should be 72 different land information systems in one state? There are no two alike.
Does it make any sense that most of these counties throughout history did not have a full time county surveyor presence working in harmony with the private surveyors? Without county surveyors and land surveyors, it is like building an expensive castle without any foundation. Land surveyors provide the all important foundation, but how many of the 72 counties in my state saw fit to utilize county surveyors and land surveyors in the development of their unique systems? The answer is 1 out of 72, and it was not in my country.
Principle No. 1: When you let non-surveyor and local political boards make land surveying decisions, decisions that should only be made by land surveying professionals working under a land surveying authority (as once existed with the federal government for USPLSS states), we are going to have a mess on our hands of historic proportions. I call this mess utilizing modern technology to keep running archaic and totally inefficient land information systems.
Principle No. 2: There is a way to once again re-engage land surveyors working under a land surveying/mapping/GIS authority. Recognize the gross inefficiencies of the current day ÛÏmodernÛ systems, and began to work toward futuristic, efficient and really modern systems by utilizing land surveyors in a far different and much better way.
That was the point of my article. So if I could explain to you how all land surveyors could be re-engaged in a far better and much more positive way, would any of you out there disagree with that? This new way would involve change however, but for land surveyors it would be very positive change, in my opinion. Are you still confused and would you possibly object, or would you like to hear more?
I am all ears.
