clearcut, post: 433336, member: 297 wrote: Absolutely agree. Fed law doesn't limit fed surveyors to interior bdys and trumps state law.
I wonder if Ric has successfully enforced CAs law? I know it hadn't tried to be enforced during my tenure in CA BLM. I think that is still the case.
Even if state law wasn't superceded by federal law, I would venture that its history of non enforcement has rendered it desuetude.
Every time that its come up (2-3 times) during my time they complied by having a CA licensee in responsible charge. There are several surveys that I am aware that were involved in enforcement investigations and the BLM-hired surveyor was a CA licensee.
Ric Moore, post: 433376, member: 731 wrote: Every time that its come up (2-3 times) during my time they complied by having a CA licensee in responsible charge. There are several surveys that I am aware that were involved in enforcement investigations and the BLM-hired surveyor was a CA licensee.
I wanted to add that I've always had good experiences communicating and working with the staff at the CA BLM office.
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 433184, member: 12536 wrote: Too bad that one large company, based on the number of pincushions they set in my one county in one summer, is out there setting about 1,000 pincushions per year, based on the procedures they vehemently defend. Nothing I can do about it.
Your vendetta, if that's what it is, against this guy and his GPS is kind of old; assuming it's the same gripe you posted about several years ago. I find it troubling that one would go to the State Board over a difference in opinion as to where some corners fall, since both are licensed, well-educated and professional surveyors (except of course in the case of gross negligence....I guess that is what you are trying to contend here). At least you aren't naming the company. But the accusation of him/them setting "about 1,000 pincushions per year" is pretty wild in my humble opinion. If he/they are truly setting 1,000 pincushions per year, maybe you need to bring up all of their pincushioned surveys and not just the one(s) that disagree with your survey. It sounds like you told the Board specifically what was wrong with the offending surveyor's work, and he defended his work, and the board found no sufficient evidence (per Gene's post)
I remember an article from the mid-eighties, if I'm not mistaken, talking about how higher-precision instruments are promoting pincushioning by "young" surveyors. At that time they were referring more to edm-surveyors. This issue is quite older than anyone on this board, as it was well discussed in Cooley's doctrine. In my opinion, private surveyors have much more to consider in legal concerns that the federal government doing dependent or independent resurveys.
