CFEDS- now allowing non-licensed individuals into program

http://www.cfeds.org/news.asp?id=26 6">link to the news release.....

edit I see where Ryan V. posted on this Back when it was first announced, with no comments regarding the actual subject of the original post.

I guess maybe I am reading this wrong, but I don't see where it lets unlicensed people into the program. It lets them take the test if they are already signed up for the state tests, but no certification is made until they pass their local test and get registered in at least one state. They pass the Cfeds but flunk the state test they get no Cfeds certification.
At least that's the way I read it. If that is correct, I see no problem here.

> I guess maybe I am reading this wrong, but I don't see where it lets unlicensed people into the program. It lets them take the test if they are already signed up for the state tests, but no certification is made until they pass their local test and get registered in at least one state. They pass the Cfeds but flunk the state test they get no Cfeds certification.
> At least that's the way I read it. If that is correct, I see no problem here.

I think this is a great idea for people looking for a way to study for the exam in a PLSS state.

You are correct, they have to receive their state license before the CFedS will be issued to them. Heard this direct from a Chief Cadastral Surveyor at BLM two days ago.
So I see no harm in it, could be a good education, even for those who are not looking to get CFedS or State PS, but just want to take the classes.

Correcting Rankin_File's link to original announcement.

After reading both links it appears the person applying for CFED training must have passed the NCEES fundamentals exam. This would mean they have passed the state requirements for what many states call Surveyor In Training (SIT) status. Would be great training for a working crew chief with college and a year or so of field work.

I haven't done the CFEDS program but I did go through all the PLSS classes at U of Wyoming with Dennis Mouland so I may have gotten much of it there.

I'm sure the knowledge is great.

How many actually get more work due to it or do work that requires a CFEDS?

"How many actually get more work due to it or do work that requires a CFEDS?"

I think that question is the elephant in the living room. I think that the expectations for the program initially were that it would not just be a PLSS advanced course, but that those certified under it would form a group of well qualified licensed surveyors in the various states who would greatly expand the ability of the BLM to provide a more professional solution as opposed, for example, to bringing in unlicensed BLM personnel from several states away.

Maybe I completely misunderstood that concept. As far as I know, the answer to the question is -0-. I'd like to be wrong about that so let me know.

> Heard about this the other day-
> Not happy.

I guess I just don't understand the complaint. Why wouldn't it be a good idea for as many people as possible to learn to survey by the BLM rule book? Is the problem that it somehow cheapens the credential to have folks without licenses to survey passing the test?

I think I commented on this on some forum.. somewhere a few months ago.

Originally the CFEDS training was to be available to all basically for the cost of the training media. That was a bunch of DVD's originally and then evolved to the USB hard drive. It was offerted to BIA employees as such.

The training was sold as free. Of course you could not be certified except by registering and participating in the regime. That would give you access to instructors and other advantages, but the coursework itself was paid for 110% by the taxpayers and as a mostly positive training tool was sold initially as a publically available resource.

Then the CFEDS program became with the ACSM alliance through the PLSS Foundation a 'for profit' operation.

While I recognize that the parties that be need to fund the activities, their operations have been a little less than transparent.

So now if you want to get and keep a CFEDS there is considerable expense in fees and Continuing education. Not hard to figure designed to generate revenue with minimal evidence of value.

Part of that has been restriction of access to the training which only a few years ago was to be 'free to all'. Of course the certification was to cost you but the training materials were to be free.

So confusion continues, does a non LSIT or LS BIA employeee eligible to take the program? is a previos 20 year veteran 1373 in BLM or USFS allowed to take the training? Just a few years ago any man off the street who could cover the costs of the media could obtain an take the course work. Guess not any more. Could be posted by someone on line though?!

- jerry musing

What I hear is that CFeds is a good training program. The certification has not lead to much actual work from what I have heard. I would like to see a state by state report by BLM or BIA to demonstrate how much actual work has been awarded to CFeds since the program's inception. Has anyone ever seen one?

I have considered getting CFed certified but I can not justify the expense of the program plus continuing education costs. It doesn't make good business sense unless someone can demonstrate a viable business case for me.

There are enough people giving seminars or on-line courses on PLSS subjects to satisfy my needs for a lot less cost. Dennis Mouland puts them on all the time, not that this is an endorsement.

The CFed-in-training move by BLM makes sense seeing that enrollment is way down and they need to justify the program's existence by inflating enrollment by any means.

I think that the best thing that BLM could do for the profession is make the CFeds training program free. The certification doesn't mean much anyways, does it? The program was built with taxpayers money so shouldn't it be public domain? BLM must have recouped any development costs by now anyways.

Second to Jerry's idea to post it on the web. It isn't copyrighted material is it?

One has to often wonder if those in charge are more interested in educating those in the profession or just taking their money. I personally did not pursue the CFedS program due to the high cost to take it and maintain it. When the 2009 Manual of Instructions came out with the high dollar price tag I was taken back. I believe the asking price was around $125. Amazon now has them for $169.90 which I believe is due to that initial high price that was set.

I have owned my own publishing company since 2000. I outsource the actual printing. In 2009, I published a hardcover WWII book with 320 pages, over 200 illustrations, and full color covers. Of course the more you print, the cheaper the rate per book. My cost to have this book printed in the United States was around $16 each for a quantity of 500 books. This can be done much cheaper overseas. I have to charge more when selling them due to the tremendous cost I had involved in research, marketing and other expenses. In general, book publishers make a profit, but people are not usually required to purchase that book. The glaring exception to this are college classroom textbooks.

I have previously read in this forum that the actual printing cost of the 2009 Manual was thought to have been around $37. The number printed was certainly more than 500. I personally don't believe the 2009 Manual cost more than $20 to print per copy, yet there was well over a $100 mark up in the purchase price per book. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the compilation of this book done at taxpayer expense, so why the high mark up price charged to those that need it to better do their work? We can generally pick and choose which text books on surveying from assorted authors we would like to have in our collection, but the BLM Manual is something that most feel is an essential part of our library. Perhaps those setting the price knew this and went with the college textbook scenario when setting the price?

Jerry-

Several years ago, shortly after the latest manual came out, we had an extensive discussion here about the existence of copyright. The BLM had some mumbling to muddy the waters about "possible copyright" in portions of the manual it got "somehow, somewhere" but it was just smoke.

I think we settled it when I asked my staff attorney for an opinion. The legal opinion was that there was no copyright of US government produced publications possible in the US, but an international copyright was possible with proper notice clearly printed in the publication. No notice of any kind exists in the current manual as for as I know. I don't have that manual and will not be spending any money to buy it, as I have already paid for it with all of the other taxpayers. Has any owner of the manual seen a copyright notice in it?

Being in Ohio, the manual has no power here and it might have a house dropped on it if it showed up looking for trouble. Nevertheless it might have an interest to some of us here as a curiosity. I'm surprised that at this point it has not been scanned by someone and put online. I think it is only out of fear of the BLM's purposely obscure statements that that prevents it.

It can only be a matter of greed to overcharge surveyors for what has been fully paid for by taxpayers.

I agree with Jerry that the cost should only be the actual cost of production and delivery.

2009 BLM Manual $75

$60 if you buy in bulk. $45 if you buy 6 or more boxes.

Thanks for posting.

I think it makes Jerry's point that the cost to print is around $20, so why doesn't it cost $20 plus shipping. If the NSPS really had a jones about getting it distributed, it would be online as a free .pdf or .epub like all of the previous editions.

Once the costs have been covered by the taxpayers, the idea of making a profit is to cover the costs of- what?

I haven't bought one yet but probably will pay the $75 as I really should have one.

There is copyrighted material used in this new manual and is used in the manual by permission of the person holding the copyright. This probably does not free up his material to classify this manual as "taxpayer paid" for.

I think that in Utah you probably need the manual.

I certainly understand that. I think Utah is still about 75% owned by the feds. If the feds publish new regulations at taxpayer expense about your profession, should you have to pay to read them? That's just a rhetorical question which I'm not trying to use to put you or anyone on the spot.

I'm just trying to make a point about the latest manual, which is unique as supposedly being copyrighted. I thought we covered this several years ago.

The 2009 Manual was offered to our society for $90 if we had a certain number of requests. People jumped on that price knowing it would cost $125 otherwise. My point is proven when it can be offered for $60 in bulk price or even at $45 for the multiple box price. Being in the publishing business I maintain that even at $30 money is being made on the sale of this book.

When I set the price for a certain book, say $35, I should be willing to hold that price for several years. I only serve to make enemies of those who paid the $35 but then later learn that I am selling it for $20 a year later.

Where does the rest of the money from the sales of the 2009 Manual go after the cost of the printing was recovered?

Yes Carl it was discussed but really never fully explained. From what I hear the portions that Wilson and Simpson supplied for the 09 manual rewrite were copyrighted material but they transferred their rights to BLM. I have understood that both contributors agreed that BLM could disseminate their material in any way they felt was in the best interest of the profession, both in print and digital formats. BLM had some agreement with ACSM for exclusive publishing rights but that was only for 1 year with a potential for an extension of another year. That agreement ran out in 2011 I believe.

What is now preventing BLM from producing a digital version like was available for the 73 manual?

So besides the CFeds training information, the 09 manual should be made available digitally at no cost to everybody if BLM had the best interest of the profession in mind. To me it is like if Congress or a State passes a new law with regulations, then charges for the public to see and use it and also fully expects the public to abide by their rules. Doesn't seem right to me.