I think that's a great point. Surveyors would never choose this course of action alone. I have to wonder what the motivation is for a licensed surveyor to want to remove boundary surveying from the requirements. This is good for construction companies, engineers and design build firms...not surveyors. If you have a board considering these type of changes, I suggest you push hard for a board made up of surveyors only.
I'm going to need a link of some sort, because I haven't heard anything about Tennesssee removing the experience requirement.
IN PA there is a movement to crack down on unlicensed persons or entities doing non-boundary work, like GIS data collection, for example.
An out of state company was recently fined and issued a cease-and-desist order for doing power pole inventory for an electric co-op.
PA Department of State Docket 0017-47-11
What is interesting if you read through it is that each side had expert witnesses testifying as to whether using GPS measures angles, distances, etc, and neither "expert" really knew what they were talking about.
I am not sure about the balance of the country, but in California I regularly see several trades using the equipment which was traditionally "surveying" equipment for construction layout work. For example, nearly every grading contractors in Southern California has machine control and a grade checker with an RTK system. The land surveyors lost the rough grade staking many years ago. Today, we have plumbers, electricians. underground utility marking companies and pressure line i.e. water contractors laying out their own stakes and in some instances, mapping. The technology allows them to do the work and the liability is manageable-evidenced, in part, by the fact I am not doing expert work for claims. Never mind that California has these practice items defined by statute as "surveying" and/or "engineering". In California, we have laws that prevent the sale of equipment to those not licensed to use it. What do you suppose a grading contractor is going to do with an RTK set? Only one thing, surveying (as defined by California law). Same for electricians, plumbers, architects etc. The law does not prevent the purchase or wide spread use of the equipment for "surveying".
If there is a constituency trying to create two licenses (first I recall hearing of it)-why not keep one license for boundary, platting, legal descriptions, geodetic control and let go via deregulation the work that is already being done by those not licensed to practice? Construction staking is no longer exclusive to the practice of surveying in our state. Once the drones get through the licensing phase of the FAA the surveyors will no longer being doing base mapping topography for design. Good bye aerial mapping companies (most of which (locally) are not owned by land surveyors anyway).
I think the land surveyors may be trying to round up the volunteer fire department after the house has been burned to the foundation - a week ago. It isn't that I support the current state of affairs for the land surveyors, but I believe we're a day late and dollar short-licensing laws will not change that. As I stated, in California we have clear statutes defining the practice of land surveying, yet a lot of the staking I see is completed by unlicensed tradesman. Consequently, I am finding that the construction contractors are more familiar with the technical project specifications and better able to deliver the "survey" work than the surveyors they have hired (I am in a position to see this). In other words, the contractor better understands the "surveying" work than the licensed surveyors they have hired.
DWoolley
PS. Thank you to Brian from Siskiyou County for the welcoming to the forum awhile back. I appreciate it.
I would say that the reason a surveyor should have boundary experience is that almost all work a surveyor does is tied to some boundary. Stakeout is done on a property, Control is placed on a boundary, Design needs to related to property lines, Topography is tied to boundaries...etc etc. Your example might be one of a few areas not usually tied to a boundary. But most Geodetic surveys that are not tied to boundaries are done by the government and they do not need a license anyways.
Dave:
I do agree with you but This grabbed my eye:
"In California, we have laws that prevent the sale of equipment to those not licensed to use it."
Is that a typo or am I reading it out of context and missing some sarcasm?
Utah has a structural PE. It requires 4 years more experience and another test after you get the initial PE. I think a PE can design up to three stories, 4 stories and beyond requires a structural PE (I sure it's more complex than this).
I think that is how the surveyor license should be. At 4 years additional professional experience in land boundaries you could verify the experience and take another test and get a land surveyors license.
I'd go for that. Just deregulate all survey work except boundary stuff. It's out of the corral anyway, it's not going to be roped in.
The other option is a surveyor license and then an advanced land surveyor license after the proper experience and knowledge is demonstrated after working as a licensed surveyor for 4 years (total time on boundaries).
As far as the definition of what land surveying is that thing is pretty broad wishful thinking. Sure it includes all the stuff that surveyors do but is it really meant that everything there should require a license. Heck, you could read these and think it required a surveyors license to measure and cut a 2 x 4.
Removal of Boundary Experience Requirement - Missouri
> [ . . . ] In fact the newly redesigned/formatted State specific exam is so boundary/USPLSS heavy that the current pass rate is only in the 30-40% range.
??
I'm only licensed in two States, early eighties tests, when 14(9%) and 40(14%) passed. The test was 2 day tough, wide ranging (celestial, control, boundary, logarithms, legals, topo, layout, photogrammetry, instrumentation, statistics, etc.) and involved blue book narrative answers "show your work".
I've pondered why pass rates have trended up over the years. The stricture concerning test difficulty has always been demonstrated competence, not pass rate; it is not graded on a curve. It's a cutoff score.
I think what has happened is applicants now have more resources to prepare directly for the test, college degrees, test prep companies (some of whom dubiously asked test takers to memorize blue book question X for inclusion in next year's classes), softening of the test questions. Whereas in the past you were on your own, buy the books, study for years, move around to get experience, attend ASCM meetings. Upon test day, I had no clue what the questions would be, so was armed with knowledge of everything under the sun. Now it's a teach for the test scenario.
Note that an applicant can retake the exam ad infinitum, which I suspect means 50-75% are sitting for their 3rd+ time. An interesting study would be how many applicants pass the first time. Maybe a 10% pass rate is 8% competent first timers and 2% is coached repeat test takers. I know PLSs who passed on their 7th+ try (that's 7 years after they gained the required experience) and it scares me how intellectually incapable they are. Don't get me started about applicants with almost no boundary experience (construction surveyors) whose employers signed off on the boundary time required.
> I'm going to need a link of some sort, because I haven't heard anything about Tennesssee removing the experience requirement.
I am bowled over with the quality and depth of the responses, most would not benefit from the puny things I can write. I'm only answering yours because you asked a direct question and deserve a response. I included Tennessee in that list because of a statement in the lower left corner of page 8 of the October, 2014 issue of XYHT, which reads, "...parties in states including Tennessee and Washington are supporting legislative/regulatory action to redefine...surveying...with regards to licensure to expand it into other fields.
At the very least, Tennessee is now being exposed to dilution of boundary surveying. However, if what is happening in Idaho is any indication, this is the NCEES Model Law, complete with attempts to remove boundary experience from licensure requirements. Yes, you've got trouble right there in River City.
> Requiring a person to have boundary experience to be able to perform a geodetic control survey is like requiring a doctor to have experience in proctology to be a neurosurgeon, or vice versa.
Actually, neurosurgeons have experience in proctology learned during four years of med school. A neurosurgeon can give you a digital prostate test no problem. Pursuit of a specialty occurs *after* achievement of MD:
"Whereas medical school teaches physicians a broad range of medical knowledge, basic clinical skills, and limited experience practicing medicine, medical residency gives in-depth training within a specific branch of medicine."
A different paradigm than the Land Surveyor's tenure track. The test hopefully covers a broad range of surveying knowledge. Unlike the medical field, once you pass the test, you can self attest you are competent in a surveying specialty. I'll admit I've drifted in to some "specialty" surveying, but only after learning all I could about it in the literature, being conservative, finding mentors, keeping my eyes wide open, and a few times backing out when I felt uncomfortable. A self imposed residency program.
> Dave:
> I do agree with you but This grabbed my eye:
>
> "In California, we have laws that prevent the sale of equipment to those not licensed to use it."
>
> Is that a typo or am I reading it out of context and missing some sarcasm?
As far as I know, you can buy any surveying equipment in California no questions. Duh, the suppliers are driven by sales. OTOH, you may be questioned when using it to deliver land surveying products, not the equipment but the product, i.e. a grading topo, boundary survey, control, et.al.
Wow. Your replies to "The Fox is Guarding the Hen House" are good stuff, far better than I can do. This is Masters level stuff. Your replies should be required reading for all who would re-define Land Surveying.
Mr. Erickson,
I have some limited knowledge on the discussions in Tennessee. Our Board is not looking at removing the requirement of boundary surveying for licensure. They were looking into the possibility of licensing photogrammetrists and GIS professionals.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion over the statement made about Tennessee.
Boards Do Not Write Laws, They Carry Out Laws
> So, no matter what a Surveying Board may think, thy cannot outthink the Law.
>
> Paul in PA
Administrative agency "rules" have the very same effect as "law". That is the case with the Board in Texas.
If you disagree, I would like to ask you if you are breaking a "rule" or "law" when entering an airport with a loaded firearm? The TSA is an "administrative agency" complete with ALJ and very little in the way of due process, much like Boards of Surveying/Engineering/etc.
