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.
> In continuum of a previous blog titled "Re-definition" and the "The Fox is guarding the Hen House" article in the American Surveyor magazine, we have read that Idaho, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Washington and "many other states" are using the NCEES model law to push for the removal of the boundary experience requirement for licensure. We do not have, and would like, some input from the Mid-west on this matter.
I'm not in the Mid-West. I'm in Texas. Removing of the "boundary experience" would, in my professional opinion, be quite possibly the worst idea they've ever had. Thank GOD that Texas is such a unique animal, that it won't be an issue.
Nope, no sarcasm.
California Department of Consumer Affairs
Business and Professions Code § 128 (General Provisions)
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is a misdemeanor to sell equipment, supplies, or services to any person with knowledge that the equipment, supplies, or services are to be used in the performance of a service or contract in violation of the licensing requirements of this code.
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to cash sales of less than one hundred dollars ($100). For the purposes of this section, "person" includes, but is not limited to, a company, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or corporation. For the purposes of this section, "license" includes certificate or registration.
A violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) and by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months."
This is not a new law. For many years I have listened to surveyors bemoan the loss of work to unlicensed folks using "our" equipment. Again, throwing water on a smoldering slab. Based on the amount of equipment I see around Southern California I would bet there has been zero enforcement. I would make a bigger bet no surveyor has ever turned in a complaint.
Before anyone runs off half cocked, keep in mind the large grading contractors often employ civil engineers which are allowed to perform construction staking in California (B&P §6731). That is probably not true for the small operators, GIS folks, plumbers, electricians, underground utility folks etc.
DWoolley
Boards Do Not Write Laws, They Carry Out Laws
The Board here has Board rules which are administrative laws. the Board is usually the driving force behind new legislation. So while the Board itself doesn't make law, it does administer rules and push for legislative changes.
The licensing requirement is not there to protect the profession, it is there to protect the public. If a non licensed person can get professional liability insurance then we have a problem. We have people passing themselves off as fence layout people. They survey a property and make a determination as to where the fence goes. I have caught these guys in the act. You say you are merely staking for a fence...nope you are staking for property line identification. The ones that get hurt are the people that hire them and then the fallout spills on to the rest of us.
> California Department of Consumer Affairs
>
> Business and Professions Code § 128 (General Provisions)
>
> "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is a misdemeanor to sell equipment, supplies, or services to any person with knowledge that the equipment, supplies, or services are to be used in the performance of a service or contract in violation of the licensing requirements of this code.
!!
I had no idea that statute exists.
The two are one and the same. If your state expands the definition of Land Surveying to include photogrammetry/GIS your state will probably allow such to qualify for the experience requirement. The wording of NCEES' model law encourages this.
Mr. Erickson,
They are not. There would be a separate license for those individuals. The board is exploring regulating those professions. It would not allow them to practice boundary surveying.
There are broad statements that are being made. From my understanding, many states have similarities to the NCEES model, but do not follow it to the letter. Tennessee is NOT looking to remove any boundary surveying experience from it's licensing requirements for land surveyors.
I hope this helps explain a little better.
Perfect!
Sometimes it helps to use a metaphor. Let us say that a large number of carpenters and roofers realize that adding an Engineer's license to their resume would allow them to attract a higher class of clientele and to charge more. They organize on a national level to do so and attach themselves to FEs (Foundation Engineers). They write their model law to include framing and roofing installation under the definition of Foundation Engineering. The framing and roofing thus waters down the experience requirements for foundation design. In fact, when presented to the Engineers and State Legislators, one of the selling points is that foundation design will no longer be a required knowldege or experience because such is an obstacle to the young joining the profession of Foundation Engineers.
Some states have, and others propose, having two Engineering licenses, one for framers and roofers and the other for real Foundation Engineers. The problem for carpenters and roofers is that the dumbed-down license has too little prestige, they can not even pretend to be exclusive because the courts won't allow it.
It boils down to this, the NSPC&R (National Society of Professional Carpenters and Roofers) wants a prestigious license and not just any licensee, they want the Foundation Engineer's license and foundations be damned. They may have to accomplice this in stages but such will be the end result if they have anything to say about it, and with lobbyists and media experts they have a lot to say.
Next to be discussed is the NSOB (National Society of Butchers) who want a Doctor's license.
> Sometimes it helps to use a metaphor. Let us say that a large number of carpenters and roofers realize that adding an Engineer's license to their resume......
Obviously you didn't read what Jimmy wrote.