New Bill being introduced in Montana

Looks to me like they are trying to gut the LS out of the law.

Sad. I would get the Society involved and start making lots of calls. BS

I believe Montana requires property corners in subdivisions to be monumental only by licensed surveyors - new recorded lots can be created only by a PLS - which would be in conflicting

@warrenward

I think they are trying to say that a PE can do engineering surveys (not boundary) if they are a PE. Is that the purpose of this bill?

While I do believe a QUALIFIED engineer (i.e. an engineering surveyor) should be able to do engineering surveys, I don't think just having a PE should be allowed.?ÿ

That's a hot mess of a definition.

I don't understand how a license is required for

"measurement and allocation of lines, angles, elevations, and coordinate systems"

yet not required for

"location of natural and constructed features in the air, on the surface of the earth, within underground workings, and on the beds of bodies of water, including work for the determination of areas and volumes"

If someone cannot perform the first, they certainly shouldn't be performing the second.

And how is it that a licensed surveyor is required for platting/layout of lands and subdivisions, but not required to monument property boundaries or create maps, plats and property descriptions?

I would be raising hell with the reps who sponsored that bill.

?ÿ

Representative that is sponsoring the bill says it was brought up so non registered personnel can search corners.

Posted by: @skeeter1996

Representative that is sponsoring the bill

His problem is obvious:

?w=402

That bill mentioning engineers as being the only licenses qualified to measure sewer inverts, where did that go ?

Great.....

The lawyers are screwing something else up they think they know about than anyone else again.....

Interesting...surprised to see that instead of just adding topographic surveying and construction staking under the authority of licensed engineers, this proposed language actually removes that authority from the land surveyor.?ÿ That seems anti-public interest.?ÿ?ÿ

And yes, the monumenting of property boundaries being removed is not in the public's best interest.

Be interesting to follow and see how this actually pans out...

@skeeter1996

It appears that anyone can set boundary corners the way it is written.

And, it seems like in the short run a loss of business for surveyors, but it seems like in the long run it will be a windfall for good surveyors. Think of all the crappy boundaries and corners and such. The cost to straighten it all out will be huge. I do not see how that would help the public.

The posts highlights the issues we are facing as an industry and profession.

Topographic maps are being created left and right by people that are neither engineers nor surveyors. This is happening across the globe and the information is being used for feasibility, preliminary design, and even final design. This will not become less common, but more common.?ÿ

This is part of the reason why we DO NOT NEED MORE PLS's, we need to let the market work it out. We do need a better way to produce qualified PLS's.

Trying to stem the flow of topographic mapping by non-engineers and non-surveyors is like standing at the top of Niagara with a bucket.

We need to focus on the core of what we offer, and essentially making widgets (topo maps) is part of it right now, but that product isn't what makes us different. What makes us different are the notes and the checks and all the things that we do as professionals.?ÿ

The need for our profession IS NOT CREATED BY A LAW. If it is, let it die.

The bill has been withdrawn by the sponsor.?ÿ

Well that's certainly good news. You have to be pretty ignorant to support something like that.

@skeeter1996

?ÿ

Or even really stupid....ignorance is not a conscious decision.

???? ???? ?????ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

Money drives too much of the effort to open up others into a registered professional field that requires special training and experience.?ÿ As we all have seen, GIS has attempted the same thing--successfully in many areas.?ÿ I have also seen a legislator try to change wording in registration so that a friend of his could get registered without meeting the same threshold that we all had to meet.?ÿ This stuff will never stop. NSPS, state boards and state societies need to stay on top of all of this mess.?ÿ My experience with NSPE is that that are a DO NOTHING organization.

I'm more concerned about the 9.e, g, and h clauses. No need to set any monuments? That bill sounds like an end to professional land surveying in Montana.

@jack-chiles

The State Organization educated the Legislator and he withdrew the bill.