In Ohio, I think there's about 2000+ surveyors and the numbers are evidently reducing . . . maybe pretty rapidly. I gather, this is happening in other states too.
Of course, if there are less and less surveyors . . . by the numbers, could this be reflected in less effective capabilities of a weakened(?), state organization to get things done legislatively?
I'm somewhat concerned as to how an organization, with say 2000 members, compares with an organization with, say less than 1000 members, regarding attempts to get favorable legislation.
I'm just curious to know what others feel about this obvious situation.
A personal concern of mine is the inability of the surveying community to lobby against aggressive and predatory legislative actions that could endanger the public and clog the courts.
> A personal concern of mine is the inability of the surveying community to lobby against aggressive and predatory legislative actions that could endanger the public and clog the courts.
This is one of the main reasons why surveyors and their state associations should be actively pushing to acquire their own licensing boards instead of being a minor part of an engineering licensing Board.
In the legislative process (especially hearings) licensing boards can have a significantly larger influence on relevent legislation than can state associations, especially when boards refuse to back or oppose legislation upon recommendations by associations. A licensing Board that is solely (or at least a majority) made up of professional surveyors is going to be far more proactive, "in-tune with", respected, and influential on matters that affect surveying and property rights than are ones in which surveying is a minor sideline. After all, who are the experts on such matters, engineers or surveyors????
I wonder if there are states that have separate Engineering and Surveying boards
> I wonder if there are states that have separate Engineering and Surveying boards
Off the top of my head, Tennessee and Florida.
> In Ohio, I think there's about 2000+ surveyors and the numbers are evidently reducing . . . maybe pretty rapidly. I gather, this is happening in other states too.
>
> Of course, if there are less and less surveyors . . . by the numbers, could this be reflected in less effective capabilities of a weakened(?), state organization to get things done legislatively?
>
> I'm somewhat concerned as to how an organization, with say 2000 members, compares with an organization with, say less than 1000 members, regarding attempts to get favorable legislation.
>
> I'm just curious to know what others feel about this obvious situation.
The Ohio Board of Registration did a study in 2000 that predicted a decrease in the number of surveyors. If I remember correctly the projection predicted issuing 30 new licenses a year and a reduction in the total number of licensed surveyors of approximately 20% by the year 2020. Last unofficial updated information was several years ago indicating fewer new licenses than predicted. Also have been told graduates of Ohio four year degree programs are being hired by firms and DOTs from other states at a very high rate. Those states face the same problem and are showing up at college career days in Ohio ready to hire.
The cause is the same thing that is facing many professions, aging of the baby boom generation. The medical profession has a double hit, older members retiring and the baby boomers needing more medical treatments. Medical schools started trying to address the problem about 20 years ago.
Civil Engineers in Ohio have started to take notice of the decline. Under Ohio law they can not complete boundary surveys. Also all County Engineers in Ohio must be dual licensed, PE & PS, to run for election. Getting the PS requires a 4 year Civil Engineering degree plus an additional 24 quarter hours, or approximately 16 semester hours, of surveying classes followed by 4 years of experience under a PS. The additional courses must be approved by the registration board. During my last 5 years teaching surveying I always had several Professional Engineers or engineering graduates taking upper level surveying classes. Most had been licensed 5 to 10 years and had real project experience. That experience often including dealing with projects that were delayed by boundary survey problems. A few could tell survey horror stories worse than I see on this board. Had two year students hearing stories of surveys gone wrong from me and backed up by the PE taking the same course. One or two of these PEs planned to go on to law school and a few were already deputy county engineers. After dealing with this group I have some hope that respect for Professional Surveyors may increase in the future.
West Virginia
West Virginia Board of Professional Surveyors
West Virginia State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers
The problem is the 4yr law they passed. No one thought to make sure there were more than 2 university’s that that offer the degree. It has to be a 4yr degree in Surveying, not a related field. They could have made it a survey heavy 2yr degree with 6yrs experience. By the time a lot of people get into the field on the lower end they're to addicted to a steady pay check to go off to the 4yr schools all they can do is attend a 2yr at night because the 4yr is across the state. Mark my words, with all the engineers running the board, they'll step in and declare that an engineering degree is good enough to survey and get the law changed back. Then we can have engineers that haven't spent a day doing boundary calcs signing off on surveys again. That'll improve the quality of surveys.
and a very bad trend
Was recently informed that Georgia had a grand total of 10 new registrants last year and 6 of those were non-residents.
Does not matter, neither (2000 or 1000) have any influence. What favorable legislation are you referring to? I can only assume that it is the bachelor surveying degree requirements. If this were to thin the field and make it possible for technicians without a degree or with a two year degree to make a living without a license, working for a licensed surveyor, then it might become an industry to be reckoned with. As it is, the profession in many states has become married to only boundaries, with an indentured servitude to gain the right to make a decent living by immediately undercutting their mentors fees. It's an anachronistic model that will not hold up in the modern world.
List Of State Board Types
I prepared this list one year ago. I have not updated it.
26 States with Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors on one Board
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
7 States with Professional Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors on one Board
Alaska
Colorado
Guam
South Dakota + Landscape Architects + Petroleum Release
Virgin Islands
Virginia + Landscape Architects + Certified Interior Designer
Wisconsin + Landscape Architects + Designer
2 States with Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists on one Board
California
Pennsylvania
5 States with Professional Engineers, Architects, Landscape Architests, Land Surveyors and Geologists on one board
Arizona
Hawaii
Kansas
Minnesota + Interior Design (Geoscience not Geologist)
Missouri
14 States with separate Boards for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
West Virginia
Paul in PA
Does any of this really matter?
In most professions/trades, fewer numbers mean more demand and larger fees and greater profits.
If the general public valued what we do or what we provide, then our fees would reflect that.
No amount of lobbying or legislation can make our services more prestigious.
I'm for letting our numbers dwindle to the point that people start to get what we do is needed. Until then, we're just swimming against the tide.
and a very bad trend
That is because the board changed how they look at your experience. Now you have to wait 4 years after you pass your LSIT. They have told people with 20 years of experiece that they have to wait 4 more years to apply for the the PS test after passing the LSIT. We will see a large number of people getting licensed in 2 to 3 years since the backlog of people with LSIT are waiting to finish up their experience.
I'm wondering if fewer numbers means less impact legislatively.
Maybe it does . . . maybe it doesn't.
BUT, if the numbers so low that needs can't be met . . . realistically, could the trend toward 4-year be reversed, or worse yet, could other profession be allowed to fill the void?
> BUT, if the numbers so low that needs can't be met . . . realistically, could the trend toward 4-year be reversed, or worse yet, could other profession be allowed to fill the void?
Definitely the latter. Heck, after all it is only about measurements and "deed" distances isn't it?
Yup, the lawyers will be allowed too fill the void. They'll hire an xpert measurer (anyone with equipment and very little experience) for pennies compared to the cost of a PLS and confidently put whatever words on the deed said xpert measurer returns to them.
What percentage of your legislature are lawyers?
Who would benefit the most?
Just sayin,
Steve
Well, I must be the lone dissenting opinion here. If what we do can be done by non-licensed individuals, then let them.
I'm not interested in protectionism just to save our positions.
If what we do is actually needed then people will understand that, and more value will be accorded to the aspects of our profession that no one else can do.
But creating laws to keep certain tasks in our domain, does nothing to further our profession.
Illinois is separate according to my former partner at work.
He is baffled at why we are combined with Engineers, he thinks it is crazy. Now we have Geologists too.
