California started in 1892 as a Land Surveyor Board. Most practitioners then would write "John Smith, C.E." on the map and bill themselves as a Civil Engineer. Under the signature line would be "State Licensed Land Surveyor." In newspapers and City Directories from the first two decades of the twentieth century they were always Civil Engineers except for the County Surveyor. Mulholland's Dam collapsed and killed thousands of people in Ventura County so the practice of engineering was first regulated in 1930. They almost abolished the LS license and converted everyone to Civil Engineers but somehow the LS survived. We have had a combined board ever since. Geologists were added a few years ago. The Land Surveying privileges were removed from Civil PEs beginning in 1982 but they have a shorter road to the LS, this is not reciprocated, naturally.?ÿ
There are three times more pre-82 CEs practicing as there are LSs practicing but most of them probably don't use their LS privileges. My Uncle, for example, was a drinking water regulator, his job had absolutely nothing to do with Surveying but theoretically he could open a boundary Surveying practice.
funny, in the days since first reading this post i've seen some more chatter in various places.?ÿ and a couple of the loudest moaners are guys who, based upon the work i've seen from them, are among the more inept (i won't say "unethical", even though that too is a possibility) ones around.?ÿ or, at least, the more inept ones around who are plugged into the online community...
which leads to this aside, now that i think about it: as somebody who has spent too much time online in the past, i'm pretty diligent now about keeping it "appropriate" (coffee time in the morning, mental breaks when CAD work gets too... you know, and a little bit at the end of the day).?ÿ but there are some cats who i can't figure out how they get anything done?ÿcorrectly?ÿat all, based upon the non-stop 24/7/365 social media activity.?ÿ there are 3 or 4 dudes in the state of texas that i happen to be connected with on linkedin (which i don't get on/use much), and i swear every time i log in to that site these guys posts and comments DOMINATE the day's stuff.?ÿ and, yes, a lot of it is topical and interesting... but jeez, i can't for the life of me figure out how these guys can post this much stuff (and read the stuff in the first place) and still competently oversee the work they're supposedly so passionate about (as all their posts would indicate).?ÿ anyways, just a thought-fart...
Here is a link to the full report.
I asked our buddy Kent what he thought about this.?ÿ?ÿ...?ÿ Here is his response:
?ÿ
... [KM's first response to PC]
?ÿI thought Kent's opinion was an objective view and possibly even bordering on pragmatic...a word I might not have thought I could ever use when describing Kent's opinions...I wondered if he was losing his edge..or maybe wasn't feeling well.?ÿ The last sentence was the clue to resolve my fears.?ÿ A few moments later I read his next reply.?ÿ I believe all is well with our amigo south of the Rio Roxo.?ÿ Here's what he added:?ÿ[KM's follow up to PC]?ÿ?ÿ
I actually agree with all of both posts from Kent.?ÿ That's something I've very rarely been able to say.
?ÿ
As best I can recall, all of the states I've worked in since the early 80s have had a combined PE/LS (and sometimes other design professions) board.?ÿ Except for those states where being able to practice surveying as an incident of being a CE was permitted, I haven't perceived any drawbacks.?ÿ From all I've heard from those practicing in states with and without combined boards, each is equally capable of being inept as the other.
The Board in CA has done many things well, but has several fundamental problems with its enforcement functions which renders it sometimes effective, sometimes ineffective, and occasionally corrupt.?ÿ It made what is, IMO, a fundamentally poor decision when it went to the computer based, all multiple-guess format for the LS exam in 2011, but from what I experienced prior to that and from what I have heard of it since then, they make the attempt to create questions that reasonably resemble issues that would come up in practice without being unreasonably difficult, and have and probably do still try to build processes into the exam grading system which eliminates the personal biases of one a or very few individuals.
No form or system of regulation and oversight is ever going to be perfect, but IMO, is always going to be necessary for professions.?ÿ But it should also always be subject to attempts to improve and ensure good practice within the workings of the Board just as the Boards are charged with supposedly ensuring good practice among practicing licensees.
Too often, and certainly true in this state, the professional societies have significantly large contingents among general membership and even more so among governing membership that are of the opinion that it is dangerous, improper or unethical to ever question anything the Board does or wishes to do.?ÿ When you get unchecked authority of Board members and Board staff as advocated by the spineless or sycophants within the professional societies which were initially formed to promote and advance good practice, you can be certain that the decline of the profession will accelerate.
Only Surveyors that have been licensed in Texas can possibly understand the impact when Engineers become in control of Land Surveying licensing.
There is a Handbook that governs surveying in the PLSS world and it really does not cover anything about what my 46yrs of work has experienced since I graduated college.
Local engineers mostly consider any surveyor nothing more than a laborer that does not deserve a living wage as it is.?ÿ
This directive would be a very bad decision on all fronts for the future of Texas Land Surveying and will only lead to the uneducation and loss of surveying programs across the state.
0.02
Only Surveyors that have been licensed in Texas can possibly understand the impact when Engineers become in control of Land Surveying licensing.
There is a Handbook that governs surveying in the PLSS world and it really does not cover anything about what my 46yrs of work has experienced since I graduated college.
Local engineers mostly consider any surveyor nothing more than a laborer that does not deserve a living wage as it is.?ÿ
This directive would be a very bad decision on all fronts for the future of Texas Land Surveying and will only lead to the uneducation and loss of surveying programs across the state.
0.02
Your take on the typical attitude of engineers as to the relative worth of surveyors is far from unique to TX.?ÿ If you really think that, you must not have ventured out of state much.
Likewise, if you think the BLM Manual is the cookbook to cover all surveying in PLSS states, you're way off base.?ÿ That's about as accurate as saying that Boundary Control & Legal Principles, together with Evidence & Procedures for Boundary Location provide everything you need to know for non-PLSS states.
The BLM Manual is designed for providing instruction of the original surveys and the resurveys of Public Domain lands.?ÿ For most surveyors in PLSS states, they sometimes work on lands comprised of or adjacent to public domain lands.?ÿ Many never work on such lands, and some have some public domain aspect with nearly every project.?ÿ As a guesstimate, I'd say that the average surveyor in a PLSS state has call to apply the BLM Manual to their work about 30% of the time, perhaps less.
Judging from comments on this and other survey forums over the years, it seems to me that there is some aspect of training that most TX surveyors get that leads them to believe they know all that's required for any survey in every other part of the country, particularly if they've never worked anywhere else.
Its been determined that surveying is not a valid (or worthwhile on its own to license, with all the costs involved) profession.?ÿ It should be under the PE license and regulatory authority.?ÿ Pretty simple.?ÿ This has been a nationwide push by ASCE.?ÿ I see threads of it in NCEES model law, ABET program requirements, everywhere.?ÿ Texas is only special in that it had a separate board that needed to be dealt with.?ÿ Not anymore.?ÿ I make no judgement on whether this is the correct path or not.?ÿ I expect any surveyor that ends up on the board in TX will be either dual licensed as a PE, or from a civil engineering background rather than boundary.
@?ÿeapls2708
"I've been everywhere man"
That does not mean that I have surveyed out of my jurisdiction or want to survey sectioned areas in or out of Texas.
I managed an engineering company for many years and most everything was spelled out in a design book in a library. They never used common sense, it all came from a design book.
More than one person on Beerleg came from California and other states to Texas and tried surveying here and packed up and went back just as puzzled as they were on their very first survey gig.
I've had many helpers that surveyed in other states quit because it was more than they signed on for.
I have people from other states ask me all the time why does every surveyor around here do all that we do because they never did that in the state they came from.
Our own absent philosopher Kent will tell you that he does not want to cross the Trinity River any more than he has too.
You can tell an engineer's survey around here because it will show found monuments matching what is described in the deeds that fall over there and how far from the computed location they fall and never mention the witness and record monuments their own property deed has of record.
If not that it will state the same exact measurements from the original deed a century or more ago so the Title company won't have a problem with what is actually on the ground.
That is because engineers are mostly out of their element and ethically bound to leave boundary surveying to licensed surveyors that are trained for the job when the engineer is stepping outside their expertise.
That does not matter to an engineer because they have had at best 6 weeks of summer camp training on how to operate the machinery and measure and think they can.
Unless they have interned for years under a Texas Professional Registered Land Surveyor, they don't know.?ÿ
They have tried to get their license and usually fail because it goes against everything that makes them an engineer.
A person can not serve two different masters.
In most states, your surveying training is from a book and property monuments were rarely set until the last few decades. Individual tracts with small acreage monuments were some computed location relative to some section corner a long way from there. That is what an engineer would do.
In Texas, surveying is a lifestyle and our training only applies to Texas boundary surveying.
The recommendations that have been made to the Sunset Commission were not made by surveyors, they were made by politicians for a reduced number of government employees.
Texas surveyors have been able to pay our own way in this state without government funding and are the only agency that can make that claim.
You got to have lived out this last 50yrs of events in surveying in Texas in "living color" to even grasp what is at stake should things go south from where they are now and engineers gain control.
0.02
That is the longest post I've ever read with almost nothing correct in it.
There is nothing more or less difficult about surveying in Texas, or any other State for that matter.
I did learn quite a bit about surveying from books, but most from 4 decades doing it. That may not be an exceptionally long time to many surveyors. It is worth noting that in that time I've surveyed MO, IL, NY, TN, KY, AL, GA, OR, UT, NV, ID, WA and Texas. Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head. All of them had monuments set regularly more than 'a few decades ago'.
Also in that time I've met some incredible boundary surveyors, some of which were excellent Engineers. It's not 'serving 2 masters'. It's learning 2 professions. Some people do it real well.
I sincerely hope the best for our surveying brethren in Texas. If you look around after the decision is made the sky will probably be blue (and still above)...
?ÿ
@?ÿthebionicman
I do not believe that you are in tune with boundary surveying in Texas any more than I would be at home in the military, so try and stay in your own lane.
The fact that you passed thru some portion of Texas and made some measurements does not put you in any position to act as monitor to what I have followed and seen in 50yrs of being here and bear witness to.
For years and with many of the same people that visit and share here, the same talk about the difference between a surveyor and an engineer and an architect and a cartographer and a technician and?ÿ anyone else that has pulled a chain before to be thinking they can do each others job better than the person that holds a license in that field has been tossed around and from all parts of this nation and others everybody has had a story to share in telling of some rogue crew muddying up the surveying pond.
All these non licensed surveyors doing business across the nation are not having their work stamped by an ethical surveyor. The ones I've known of were under the wing of an engineer that is not bound by oath as to ethics concerning boundary surveying or a surveyor with no sense of their sworn ethics.
The basic part of measuring is the same all around the world, it is the laws and principals are what differs from in Texas and that of the rest of the world.
Since I began surveying great strides have been made by our Board to reign in and define what it demands of licensed boundary surveyors and with the passing of laws that require surveyors to gather their CEUs in order to renew puts us on notice that when we meet and talk out and ask questions about the ideas of others, we become better or we get left behind.
I do not want the door to be opened where another untrained crew with a truck full of?ÿ some surveying technology will be out there trying to do boundary surveying.
In no state has any Board got it all right on their first outing and after all this time are still trying to get what they need thru the right people in charge of making the laws needed for all this to be in check.
It is also no time for anyone to begin writing out what is in place in order to let in an entire group of non boundary educated engineers to be in control of boundary surveyors without holding dual licenses and that is not a requirement that engineers want.
This started 30+ years ago when engineers ask the Texas Legislature to abolish the Surveyors Act and terminate the license of every surveyor and out of those ashes rose the Sunset Commission that meets every 7 years to hear from every group they act as over watch of and to send on their recommendation to the Senate to decide or ignore.
It is politics that has very little to do with what is best for anyone, especially what would be best to serve the public interest. All the present ideas are from lobbyists who have been working year round for the last 7 years to encourage the panel that their group has an equal place at the table and as it stands at present, the surveyor is fighting for an equal voice.
0.02
What you believe is irrelevant. What 'is' matters. I completely agree that measurement science is a small component of boundary surveying, though I stop short of apologizing for being good at it.
The reality is, Texas surveying is not magic. Like any place else you need to learn the law and history. At the end of the day the process is the same for every jurisdiction and geographic area.
We can exchange snippets all day long but one fact remains. If the sunset commission gets its way you will have to deal with it. Part of that will be learning to have a conversation with an engineer. Being dismissive and insulting probably won't help.
I am always amazed that Surveyors who have multi license in just PLSS states think that just because they can Surveyor in several States it makes them an expert on Texas Surveying.?ÿ ?ÿ
Really it's like the kid who in 8th grade read a Junior level book, wrote a book report on it and got an A in the class, then he used that same book report for 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grade. Then he gets to College tries to use the same report and the Professor says this is College you need to read a more advance book maybe even 4 or 5 for a report in this class.?ÿ Sure that kid can tell you everything about that one book, but has no clue about the prequel. Or they just read the cliff notes about the prequel and think they understand it.
And again, a miss.
I never claimed to be an expert Texas Surveyor, but I did live and work there long enough to know it isn't any more difficult than any other place.?ÿ
If you end up being governed by a joint board you will need to have a realistic view of Texas surveying. It is an honorable pursuit on par with any other profession, but selling it as some mystic realm suited only for gods will get you nowhere...
I never claimed to be an expert Texas Surveyor, but I did live and work there long enough to know it isn't any more difficult than any other place.?ÿ
I'm just looking at that, thinking there is a term for arguing the exact meaning of a word, while losing the context or argument in which it was offered.
As someone registered in orginally in Texas and then Oklahoma, North Dakota and Colorado, I find projects in the PLSS much easier so far. Sectionalized railroad scrip in the western part of the state can be a nightmare. East Texas is worse and don't get me started about the Spanish Grants along the Rio Grande.
Enjoying my Oklahoma projects right now.
Shawn, I feel the same way?ÿ - over the last 40 years I have had minimum interactions with the board and don't see how that will change by being part of?ÿ the Engineering Board.?ÿ Over the years I have known a few board members and they have all been conscientious and hard working but for one reason or another their hands were tied if they tried to make major changes (improvements)?ÿ in regulation enforcement.?ÿ I am curious about the future of the LSLS certification since the GLO will not be in charge of the board and registration requirements. I have a feeling that sooner or later an RPLS will be allowed to survey state land and the need for an LSLS will fade away.
after a few more days...
and trying to be circumspect...
i guess my initial reaction was "who cares??ÿ do good work and it will take care of itself."?ÿ it occurs to me- when i actually think about it- that the meat of my workload is done for engineers (at least in terms of billing).?ÿ and despite the repeated disdain i've expressed for some common attitudes among my engineering colleagues, it is also true that i know lots of very good engineers and that, generally, a good engineer both appreciates and will pay for (or go to bat for the cost of) good survey work.
i don't know if i can take credit for this thought, if it's been succinctly put out there in the world before, or if it's the synthesis of myriad things i've read and considered, but in life i tend to subscribe to the idea that worth is self-evident; that the harder somebody tries to sell me something the less i need it, the worse it actually is, or both.?ÿ and i reckon that's how i feel about myself (or anyone else) as practitioner: regardless of who is or isn't setting (and enforcing) the rules by which we work, that so long as i do good, honest, and conscientious work it will be recognized for being so and i will continue to get calls and emails and requests for my services.?ÿ?ÿ
The land surveyors should not be on the same board as the engineers for one simple reason:?ÿ IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!!?ÿ Engineers hire surveyors either as employees or they contract their services, they shouldn't also regulate who they hire!!!!?ÿ You're not thinking gentlemen.
I would be much more concerned with the quality of board members than credentials. Do the Texas Professional Societies participate in nominating Board members?
