Lucus is letting 50% of us have it in POB this month!

I know Lucas is down on the whole "expert measurer" thing; but I'd really like to see some sort of data to back up these "50% of surveyors don't know boundary law" assertions. Empirical evidence or it didn't happen.

And quoting something Curt Brown wrote in 1961 about about the low entry requirements for the profession doesn't carry much weight for me either. Anyone licensed under 1961 educational and testing requirements is most likely in a retirement home or a grave.

James Fleming, post: 413092, member: 136 wrote: I know Lucas is down on the whole "expert measurer" thing; but I'd really like to see some sort of data to back up these "50% of surveyors don't know boundary law" assertions. Empirical evidence or it didn't happen.

And quoting something Curt Brown wrote in 1961 about about the low entry requirements for the profession doesn't carry much weight for me either. Anyone licensed under 1961 educational and testing requirements is most likely in a retirement home or a grave.

After reading some of the questions posted on here about needing help to solve a boundary issues, I would say 50% seems about right to me

Jeff likes to say things that get the surveyors dander up. If you've ever heard him in person, he is preaching his gospel like a good southern baptist minister. I would not want to try to get into a debate with Mr. Lucas any more than I would with Kent McMillan......but I would pay good money to watch the two of them go at it.

(Actually I might get into a debate with either of them, but I am pretty sure I would walk away with my tail between my legs 😉 )

Scott Ellis, post: 413103, member: 7154 wrote: After reading some of the questions posted on here about needing help to solve a boundary issues, I would say 50% seems about right to me

ouch

but, do we know the actual status of those that ask the n00bie questions?

I've seen too much havoc caused by Land Surveyors resubdividing sections in the face of decades of settled boundaries messing everything up. There is no good reason for it other than absolutely blind and strict adherence to principles that exist within a large system of principles that are being misapplied.

It helps to put down the magnifying glass and step back to distinguish the Forest of boundary law from the trees. The possible answers are often close together so I can't say it's 50% or not but I was never personally given a real training in applying legal principles, the training was read this little thin book then do what it says. The Surveying books are very dry and technical. Appellate Opinions tend to be much more alive with a broad range of facts about who did what, when, what were their positions with respect to the properties, etc. That is much more important than a bare rule which says do this or else.

Dave Karoly, post: 413118, member: 94 wrote: I've seen too much havoc caused by Land Surveyors resubdividing sections in the face of decades of settled boundaries messing everything up. There is no good reason for it other than absolutely blind and strict adherence to principles that exist within a large system of principles that are being misapplied.

It helps to put down the magnifying glass and step back to distinguish the Forest of boundary law from the trees. The possible answers are often close together so I can't say it's 50% or not but I was never personally given a real training in applying legal principles, the training was read this little thin book then do what it says. The Surveying books are very dry and technical. Appellate Opinions tend to be much more alive with a broad range of facts about who did what, when, what were their positions with respect to the properties, etc. That is much more important than a bare rule which says do this or else.

I agree Dave. In fact, from my personal experience, I'd say Mr. Lucas is being quite generous with the 50% figure. Yes, quite a few surveyors may end up with the correct answer, but few are able to articulate the legal principles behind their decisions.

Scott Ellis, post: 413103, member: 7154 wrote: After reading some of the questions posted on here about needing help to solve a boundary issues, I would say 50% seems about right to me

Weren't you commenting in a previous thread about how easy public lands surveys are?

I've found sharing knowledge and participating in the policies that govern the Profession to be more productive than whining about lack of knowledge and bad policy. Just sayin...

roger_LS, post: 413121, member: 11550 wrote: Weren't you commenting in a previous thread about how easy public lands surveys are?

I was commenting in another thread that Surveying in a PLSS system is easier than a Metes and Bounds State, and it does seem most of the questions asked on here are about the PLSS system.

Brian Allen, post: 413120, member: 1333 wrote: I agree Dave. In fact, from my personal experience, I'd say Mr. Lucas is being quite generous with the 50% figure. Yes, quite a few surveyors may end up with the correct answer, but few are able to articulate the legal principles behind their decisions.

My favorite is the Paradox of Too Much Information with respect to disagreeing with procedure. One of my predecessors, Walker, was a very good surveyor and I've found his work to be amazingly accurate in difficult terrain (better than at least one of his successors). The department acquired some aliquots in the middle of a Railroad section which are all surrounded by the grantor and their successor, a timber company. There is some USFS in the adjoining sections. Walker surveyed the section, found 7 non-original and unknown origin corners and restored the southeast corner by a call to a ravine to the north and single proportion east-west (oh my gawd). A certain government agency came along and accepted the other 7 unknown monuments (can't prove they are wrong) but rejected Walker's monument because of wrong procedure LOL. They set another monument to the north by double proportion (the right way) theoretically shoving our aliquots monumented by Walker north. I left them where Walker left them the capped pipes are still there and they are obvious. The timber company has signs obviously on the Walker monumented lines (no Federal interest is involved because we don't touch the exterior section lines).

Peter Ehlert, post: 413110, member: 60 wrote: ouch

but, do we know the actual status of those that ask the n00bie questions?

i always assumed, i guess, that most of us acquired the socratic method seemingly inherent to this profession. i know i've asked questions on here (and elsewhere) that, at face value, would paint me as rather daft. and many times i have basic answer framed, but asked purposefully basic questions for the sake of advancing discussion. i usually respond to posts assuming the same.

plus it's easier to get away with most things when people do actually assume you're a moron.

flyin solo, post: 413125, member: 8089 wrote: i always assumed, i guess, that most of acquired the socratic method seemingly inherent to this profession. i know i've asked questions on here (and elsewhere) that, at face value, would paint me as rather daft. and many times i have basic answer framed, but asked purposefully basic questions for the sake of advancing discussion. i usually respond to posts assuming the same.

plus it's easier to get away with most things when people do actually assume you're a moron.

I really enjoy the threads where people bring up issues for discussion. The more I learn the less I know sometimes. The gradient boundary thread was really great; Kent patiently answered my dumb questions. There is no way I would have a clue how to survey a gradient boundary because I don't have the practical experience but the subject is really interesting.

similar thought i've had: i've gotten to the point where there is an inverse relationship between somebody's certainty and how much i trust what they're telling me.

flyin solo, post: 413131, member: 8089 wrote: similar thought i've had: i've gotten to the point where there is an inverse relationship between somebody's certainty and how much i trust what they're telling me.

James Fleming, post: 413092, member: 136 wrote: I know Lucas is down on the whole "expert measurer" thing; but I'd really like to see some sort of data to back up these "50% of surveyors don't know boundary law" assertions. Empirical evidence or it didn't happen.

And quoting something Curt Brown wrote in 1961 about about the low entry requirements for the profession doesn't carry much weight for me either. Anyone licensed under 1961 educational and testing requirements is most likely in a retirement home or a grave.

So they're grandfathered out?

Duane Frymire, post: 413145, member: 110 wrote: So they're grandfathered out?

Maybe........... 😉 Sure hope so.
A more relevant question is how many current surveyors were mentored by those who received their license without substantial education and proper training?

Brian Allen, post: 413146, member: 1333 wrote: Maybe........... 😉 Sure hope so.
A more relevant question is how many current surveyors were mentored by those who received their license without substantial education and proper training?

50%? 🙂

If it were 50/50 here I'd be happy. I am surrounded by expert measurers who have no clue that they have no clue regarding boundary law. I took one to task several years ago and found a drawing done 6 months later that made me feel terrible. I apparently taught him nothing!

Brian Allen, post: 413146, member: 1333 wrote: Maybe........... 😉 Sure hope so.
A more relevant question is how many current surveyors were mentored by those who received their license without substantial education and proper training?

:expressionless: watermelon watermelon watermelon watermelon watermelon....