I think the GPO printing cost was around $37, but I would have to go back and do some research to verify. Of course even the GPO has to cover some other costs.
However the entire ACSM/Private publication of the Manual was not done by GPO. In fact all the GPO printings were for internal BLM distribution only as far as I am aware.
So it is a little odd that there was this bifurcation of printing. Some normal channels kept away from the public or any public distribution and and then some back channels funneled through ACSM and for significant profit.
The cost to produce the Manual was 'paid for' by normal budget appropriations and programmed over many years.
The cost to 'print' the document is another matter. Of course it should not be free.
- jlw
PS, I am not sure of all the political implications of what your are trying to say. It could be a theory that all government services should be charged out at cost or cost plus?
In general the way things have gone is that the citizens of the United States through their elected representatives have seen fit to fund certain government functions and capabilities for the benefit of all, rather than as a strictly market driven system.
On the local level citizens have decided over the years that certain goods and services are for the public good and should be supported by tax dollars.
However if you want everyone to pay the full cost of government services in a complete open market, let it rip.
Ate we talking total cost recovery or cost recovery plus some profit. Where is the congressional mandate to do that.
So what would it cost to visit a National Park? or travel on any Interstate Highway?
These issues are not so simple. What is the real cost of managing the public lands? Wbat does it really cost to subsidize a cow on public land grazing? The BLM carries a lot of cost to manage the Wild horse and burro effort, partly to maintain the viability of public lands for grazing. That is tax payer costs, as mandated by congress to subsidize an industry? And we could go on and on and I really do not want to get into political, because I will not argue there.
The new manual was developed over many years via normal BLM appropriations and the time of regular BLM employees.
We can get back into some politics as to how 'effective' that effort was. Or what was the cost/benefit. Or what was gained by that effort over the 1973 Manual. What specific and lauditory goals were met and which were defeated?
Personally I think way more was lost than was gained.
In the future perhaps we go into each Power Point assertion made by HQ Cadastral about the Manual and why it is or is not significant to the private sector.
But for this discussion I mainly want to question not only it's price, but it's cost and then in the end the VALUE.
And again leave for another discussion the bizarre way in which it has been published for profit and not for profit to the tax payers.
GET IT! Private profit!
It is pretty clear that the Manual was produced for internal BLM Cadastral Survey use. It has very limited applicability to the private sector or as viable legal guidance to the private sector on surveying issues. This is one big misreprentation of it. 95% of the thing does not apply!!
There has historically been some value in understanding BLM's reasoning as reflected in case law on land decisions.
So there is another question. Does this manual reflect valuable legal precident and case law that should be of significant interest to all PLSS surveyors? And as such warrant is't cost? Maybe.
This Manual besides it's other negatives is in my opinion severally negligent in almost every aspect of it's purported value and authority and is being vastly misrepresented as having such vast authority strictly as a markeing gambit.Having it your shelf as reference material is up to you.
Anyone using any legal reference should at least know it's limitations. Brown certainly seems to catch flack these days as an authority and likewise for Clark. Too bad because they are all viable authorities if used by a questioning and skeptical mind.
Each professional needs to have some understanding of the veracity of the commonly assumed 'authorities' which they use. This is no more or less true for the alleged 2009 Manual.
So there is your new years can of worms...
- jlw
They should release it in electronic format, for free. In this day and age there is absolutely no reason why that should ever not be the case. They say:
About digital versions of the 2009 Manual:
A few professional surveyors have asked us about the availability of a digital version of the Manual of Surveying Instructions (2009). While we want to provide the Manual to as many users as possible, and be in synch with modern technologies, we are still considering some issues pertaining to copyright and license matters. Possible approaches to making the 2009 Manual available digitally may include sale of the book through a digital book-reading system (like Kindle) and other approaches. For now, however, we are not placing a purchasable or free version on the internet. We appreciate your understanding.
Kindle? They should be focusing on a simple, straightforward web download, in the most ubiquitous types of format. Even a PDF or HTML output should be something easily within their capability with negligible cost. If not, they are being bamboozled.
Licensing and copyright? What kind of warped entanglements have they gotten themselves into with that nonsense? How about "Public Domain" as it should be.
JLW,
This is getting way off topic, but you asked, "what would it cost to visit a National Park"? You might be suprised to find out that you actually do have to pay a fee to visit a National Park.
Yosemite, for example, charges a $20 entry fee per car or $10 if you arrive on foot. That doesn't include the campsite fees if you plan to stay the night.
In 2009 the park hosted 3,866,970 visitors.
The park's budget for the same year was $28,398,513.
If each vehicle has an average of three passengers (that's just my guess), that would mean that 1,288,990 cars (3,866,970/3) entered the park in 2009. At $20 each, that totals $25,779,800. That figure wouldn't include walk-ups, camping fees, etc.. I would think that if those fees were included, the park's budget (plus) is fully realized by the fees that it charges visitors. I would also guess that they receive tax dollars.
I'm not making any judgement as to whether this is fair or not. I'm just stating the facts as I know them.
Jeff
I understand having to pay for the printing. But it IS a procedural manual for working on the public lands. That cost is a bit hefty. I remember balking at the price of the 1973 manual.
I'm assuming that the changes are significant between the 1973 and the 2009 versions?
On a side note for the book collector, the GPO printed version of the manual is of a higher quality and durability then the ACSM produced copy.
> It is pretty clear that the Manual was produced for internal BLM Cadastral Survey use. It has very limited applicability to the private sector or as viable legal guidance to the private sector on surveying issues. This is one big misreprentation of it. 95% of the thing does not apply!!
> This Manual besides it's other negatives is in my opinion severally negligent in almost every aspect of it's purported value and authority and is being vastly misrepresented as having such vast authority strictly as a markeing gambit.Having it your shelf as reference material is up to you.
Thanks for voicing that. I wish more folks would realize this, both on the pro-manual and anti-manual side.
2009 BLM Manual - tail wagging the dog
BLM Manuals
Why are they not free? By use of the word "free" I am not ignoring it is the taxpayers who pay for it. I do mean "free" in the sense that after the work and printing have been paid for by the taxpayers, the taxpayers should not have to pay an additional fee - since they've already paid for it to begin with.
I don't know about you, but I get government forms, notices and publications, measured by weight, from IRS, Social Security, etc. Brochures and pamphlets at national parks and monuments are free. Most of these items are not looked at or are looked at only briefly and then tossed. Taxpayers pay the bill for the time, effort and Government Printing Office. IRS forms and publications provide us information for paying taxes. National park publications provide us with information about the parks - not to mention the museums and the National Mall in Washington DC. Why is it that we have to pay a government agency, or some second party, for survey information? Other information is provided for no fee, but, if it is survey information, there is a charge. Think of all government publications, even from BLM, that are provided for free. Is there some particular reason why "survey" information is different from other types of information?
As for licensing and copyright, why is information about survey methods for OUR public lands licensed or copyrighted? If information about surveying methods is secret, confidential or proprietary, why do we [TDD has it correct: sheeple] allow our government to employ such methods? If it is secret, how can anyone besides those in goverment, retrace the original surveyor's footsteps?
The manual should be free, in print and on the internet, in the same manner as national park pamphlets and income tax forms! There is nothing so special, secret, confidential or proprietary that a special "survey" charge should be assessed.
Wag the Dog
first-
As far as I know ACSM is a NOT FOR PROFIT. The government runs at a deficit, so the truth is the funds for the new manual were more than likley BORROWED. If we as a people are not going to tax ourseleves enough to pay for the government service that we want and need, then the costs are going to be passed on in different ways, like having to pay $125 for the manual.
I have no problem with this particular public/private venture. Conservatives often scream about privatizing things, well? Perhaps this is just a straw man argument advanced in hopes of obtaining low taxes. I would suggest that one would be much happier if they accepted the fact that taxes are never going to be less, never.The funding mechanism is just going to change, fee for service like victims having to pay for their own rape kits.
Is the manual necessary? Who cares? The BLM decided that they wanted to update the manual. As a surveyor in private practice, I will obtain a copy(whatever the price or source) and review it. It is neligent to do otherwise.
Unless they changed the law in Oregon, the CURRENT manual is to be used for retracing lands that were subdivided under federal rules.
> If you could get it in electronic format, many online services would be happy to print it for you, hardbound, and deliver it for a lot less than $125.
Thats what i did w/ the '73 manual. Uploaded the pdf document to Office Depot website, told them i wanted double-sided, 3-hole punched. Cost $30 to do so, then w/ binder I was out ~$35 total. I have not read the 2009 manual, do not have a copy, nor likely will anytime soon, cuz of the cost of it which is ridiculous.
why should the colonial states pay
Should the colonial states get a rebate on their taxes cuz they have no need for a new manual? When you cut taxes revenue has to come from somewhere and this revenue comes from fees paid directly by the folks that use the good or service provided.
AND NO you did not PAY for the manual, money was budgeted and appropriated to update the manual, but because of deficit spending the manual was NOT PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERES, YET.
Corrections to 2009 BLM Manual
FYI, thought I would toss this in this thread.
2009 manual has quite a few corrections to it already.
You can view them here:
http://www.blmsurveymanual.org/errata.asp?sort=chapter&w
Corrections to 2009 BLM Manual
I am very surprised to see that this long awaited document already is posting corrections. If I remember right, BLM started this project back in 2002 after many, many attempts to rewrite the 73 Manual. So after 7 years in development, the resulting 09 Manual appears to be an inferior product. Should I expect a new addition for free once BLM/ACSM works out the kinks? For $125+ I would expect a more professional, polished edition. Although I still think that BLM and ACSM is gouging the profession for their own purposes under the PLSS Foundation, whatever that is.
It appears that little or no oversight was taken by the editor(s) of the 09 Manual because if the editor(s) did their job we would not see these type of corrections. It is very embarrassing for BLM to spend over 7 years on a project and come up with this so-called important document.
Corrections to 2009 BLM Manual
>It is very embarrassing for BLM to spend over 7 years on a project and come up with this so-called important document.
Errata is common for all technical publications, and I don't see the problem with BLM recovering costs for producing more than they need for themselves.
Those who are so upset about this: why not contact Bob Dahl or someone at BLM and ask some of these questions? You don't HAVE to buy it you know. Just like you don't have to take CFedS training. However if you work in the PLSS - and especially if manual procedures are in your state statutes - it would be in your best interest to do so.
~c
Jerry. Since the BLM has teamed with the BIA in Oklahoma and is currently doing surveys for both the BIA and other federal land, then I think the manual would be necessary for any Oklahoma Surveyor who is abutting the federal lands or who might come across one of these surveys.
I think the manual is an important document for those of us that follow and retrace our BLM counterparts.
I find it curious that nobody ever responded to my inquiry at all. 🙁
