So, attending the State Conference Continuing Education, the traveling "snake oil" salesman, aka, instructor made a couple of interesting comments about the BLM Manual of Surveying Instructions.
“The Manual of Surveying Instructions is instruction ONLY for Federal Surveyors on Federal Land.”
“The Manual of Surveying Instructions is ONLY for NEW SURVEYS.”
I found those two statements interesting considering that we are guided to follow in the footsteps.
"The Manual has guided the original surveys and resurveys of the Public Lands, first through the General Land Office, and since 1946, through the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. While not written specifically for non-Federal surveyors, the principles contained in the Manual on the subject of retracement are an integral part of private surveying in the 30 Public Land States. Further, many States have formally adopted the Manual in statute, rule, and/or case law as guidance for private licensed surveyors. Thus, the book is a fundamental piece of the complex subject of boundary surveys here in the United States."
I believe that many individual state societies have endorsed the BLM Manual as their guide for surveying.
Which conference are you attending?
I believe, if you are attempting to follow in the footsteps, you should use the instructions that were in effect at the time the original survey was made.
Ditto, Mr. Leu.
In my state, surveyors sometimes misconstrue the fact that the manual is codified in state statute as a mandate to subdivide all sections as if they were the original surveyor, instead of refering to the instructions for retracement.
“I believe, if you are attempting to follow in the footsteps, you should use the instructions that were in effect at the time the original survey was made.”
I agree, That is why the BLM manual is only one of many books on my shelves.
That mistaken belief is primarily responsible for the uncertainty in location of the numerous County survey markers in our little Ute Meridian. It was once stated to me by the County Surveyor that up to 80% of the markers he felt did not represent the original location of the government established sixteenth corners. It sometimes makes it interesting!
Nice to see your taking something away from the conference Mr. Davidson.
So what part don't you understand? I know mandatory cont. ed. has its problems (many of the same points mentioned and some that have not been), but why not make the best of it? I guess this is one of the things the mandatory part brings about, similar to those students who have to take English in a surveying program. Find fault with anything possible and determined not to learn anything. So, I've found another fault with the mandatory part. I'll add it to my list, but still try to make the best of it. It's here for good for all professions (and most of the trades as well).
It would be nice to here people that are actually Practicing Professionals and Experts on the topic.
Misinformation is a dangerous thing to teach those that need the knowledge.
Question:
When the person running the course made those statements, was he challenged?
Did anyone ask a question?
Did the statement engender any additional discussion?
If any of the above occurred, what happened next?
Hopefully, the attendees did not just sit there and nod (or nod off....).
I don't know who made the statement, and in what context s/he made it. I wasn't there. I don't know if they are expert in the field or not. But I question who will be the arbiter of who is or isn't an expert? Should they be presenting their paper and have a panel of experts deciding if they qualify? If someone has a reputation for being knowledgeable and has been to court and has their license, it seems like they would be people to listen to. If they continually express nonsense, and prove that they are not real experts, it seems to me that their courses wouldn't be attended and the teaching circuit would essentially be of not value to them.
It certainly isn't incorrect that the Manual of Instructiosn was not written for state-specific surveying. It was written as instructions for laying out the Public Lands. Once property ceases to be in public domain, it becomes subject to State Jurisdiction. It takes a State License to survey private properties. A surveyor authorized to survey as a representative of the BLM has no right to deal with private property rights and land unless s/he has a State License for the State it's in.
That means to me, that State Statutes apply, and that State boundary laws will have precedence over the BLM manual. That does not mean that the practicing surveyor shouldn't reference the BLM Manual (to me), especially when most stetes reference that manual. But it may well affect when and where you accept local control and determine local boundaries and a lot of other boundary decisions you make.
The mouthpiece that made this statement made "all" the statements that I've complained of in threads concerning CE.
There was another presenter one room over that is close to being an exact opposite on presentation, theory and law.
I believe it is confusing for the Newbies in the crowd for our State Society to employee the questionable presenter.
Yes, I challenged him multiple times. I got tired of it after a while. I received feed back from many attendees. Generally speaking the educators and the degreed professionals agreed with me. Those from the school of harder knocks seemed to confused to know the difference. i.e. Why would the society or others employ him if he is "that" wrong.
Some people are just professional Shysters.