Ultimate Definition of Land Surveying

I believe the referenced thread and published article is misrepresenting what is occurring in Idaho and maybe some other states. I cannot say for certain, but usually articles such as this originated from some concern that would under normal circumstances be considered valid, but in cases such as this venture into completely irrelevant territory that results in nothing more than hyperbole.

While I understand that licensees may become concerned when talks of revising a definition of the practice is proposed, it is always wise to look further into the circumstances that drove the parties to take such action. I know for a fact that the Idaho Board ventured into this proposal primarily due to the fact that they recognized that their current definition differed from the definitions in many of the other states, and yes it differed from the recommended model that NCEES publishes. Many of the other states have current definitions that are not limited to "just" boundary surveying. And many of these jurisdictions require some variation of "broad based" experience, including boundary surveying, to initially qualify for licensure.

These definitions, state or NCEES model, have been around for many, many years and some people are just not recognizing that.

I find it odd and disconcerting that the published article used an analogy between "Chad and a neighbor" that involved BLM surveyors to prove a point pertaining to concerns related to the dilution of boundary experience when the analogy referenced individuals that are general exempt from the noted criteria and licensing anyhow. Nothing in Idaho's actions would have any impact on what BLM does.

And then, the article proceeded with disparaging remarks about newcomers to the land surveying industry that just so happen to have a land surveying degree and university professors that usually are pretty highly educated that just so happened to come from another country where a different language was spoken.

Idaho's Board Members (and Executive Directors) attend meetings each year with a couple of hundred other representatives from the other licensing jurisdictions where NCEES policy is discussed, haggled, argued, etc., all of which may have indirect or direct impact on the individual state laws, and it's articles such as this that make it difficult for land surveyors to be taken seriously by other professionals when arguing their points. Valid or otherwise.

I believe if the publishers of this article wish to be taken seriously, they need to refrain from mischaracterizing the intents of other parties and definitely seek all the knowledge they can on the subject prior to issuing a public statement only in the hopes of driving up readership.

Ric, here are the facts. I have been very involved in this situation from the beginning. In fact, I have been an advocate of changing the definition of surveying in Idaho since it was “modified” in 2011 to its current form.

This process was spear-headed by the ISPLS (Idaho Association of Professional Land Surveyors) not the licensing board, starting approximately 2 years ago. Once the process was moving, the licensing board was asked to work in conjunction with the ISPLS to help move it forward to completion. To the best of my recollection this is the first time the ISPLS has been intimately involved in a major change in legislation and/or administrative rules.

In March of 2014, a “Strategic Communications Plan” was presented and approved by the Board of Governors (BOG) of the ISPLS. This plan outlined the process, the goals and strategies, key messaging, etc. From the plan as presented and approved in March:

The three main reasons for this change are:
1 Land surveyors are asked to use their professional license to sign and seal work that is currently outside the legal definition of land surveying. When this happens, land surveyors are put in a position of sealing work they are not authorized by code to perform.

3 Most surrounding states now have laws that are more inclusive of the work land surveyors perform. Idaho does not. This is a barrier to interstate and international licensure mobility, as the intent of the model law is to have similar provisions in each state.

This plan was presented in June 2014 to the BOG, and then many of the different chapters of the ISPLS.

However, sometime during the process of informing our members, building support, and assisting members in providing information to members of our state senate & house, the reasons for the proposed change in definition changed to:

1 Land Surveyors are called upon by Idaho Statute to safeguard the life, health, and property of the general public. Under the current law, Land Surveyors are only licensed to work on property boundaries yet are asked by their clients to sign and seal work that they perform which is not authorized by code.

3 The States surrounding Idaho have recognized the need to protect their public by revising the definition of land surveying to better reflect what surveyors are called upon to do in their states and to recognize the experience and judgment of a licensed professional land surveyor.

Please note the significant change in the second listed reason for change. At no point in the process (until apparently at Chad’s chapter meeting) was the lowering of requirements for licensing boundary surveyors ever presented as a reason for the change in the definition of surveying. If this had been identified as a reason to change the definition of surveying, I (and I assume many Idaho surveyors) would have been vigorously opposed to this attempt to lower our standards to entice more students into the profession. This intent to lower the standards was confirmed at our recent BOG meeting by the current surveyor member of the licensing board.

While many agree that Mr. Erickson’s methods and timing could have been better, it certainly has raised awareness of the current situation.

I believe that this proposed change could be salvaged and appropriately enacted, while still preserving the high standards for licensing (I would hope we can all agree that this is an appropriate and an honorable goal). However, if all this “hyperbole” can prevent some regrettable mistakes from being made (i.e., lowering standards for licensing boundary surveyors), it is probably worth it. I would like to see the ISPLS and the IBPEPLS step back, re-evaluate where we are at, identify what the goals actually are, re-build support for a well thought out plan, and try again next year with statutory (and rule) language that will achieve our desired results.

All very good information and similar to what Keith (and some Board members) mentioned when they first brought it to our attention. If I recall correctly,this was also discussed during WestFed meetings. I'm glad to see you involved and appreciate you posting the information. Awareness among the land surveying community is a very good thing. It just needs to be communicated correctly and advocated for/against in an appropriate manner.

> Awareness among the land surveying community is a very good thing. It just needs to be communicated correctly and advocated for/against in an appropriate manner.

I couldn't agree more. Most importantly, this needs to be handled by ALL involved in an honest, open, above-board, and professional manner. Please feel free to drop an email/phone number if you would like more information, I'm always willing to take time & talk surveying with anyone. As you know, to fully understand most "controversies", one needs to get more than one side of the story .........

I have been doing my best to keep my responses productive and respectful. In that vein I have a few questions.
Has anyone asked Keith or Nate where the change in points came from and how it was adopted? Has anyone asked Glenn if he was stating a personal opinion or proposing something? By all accounts it was the former.
I completely agree this should be handled above board and in a professional manner. Had a few phone calls been made a lot of drama and embarrassment could have been avoided. I will be the first to step up to valid threats to our profession. That does not include un-vetted assumptions.
My .02, Tom

I did not make any "unvetted assumptions". I was at the meeting. I heard who said what, how it was said, and the context in which it was said. No formal proposal or motion was made, I've never said or assumed there was. The board member stated what he would support and the reasons for doing so. If he (or anyone else) now wants to modify, edit, back-track, or clarify what was said, I'll be the first to listen and acknowledge such.

Like you, I am still gathering information so that I can determine where I may go from here, and have the supporting facts to back it up. I can say this though, any successful attempt to water down the requirements to acquire licensure for boundary surveying in Idaho, in my opinion, would be a grave detriment not only to our profession, but the public in general.

My 'assumptions' comment was directed squarely at the way this issue blew up. There should have been a few calls before anyone else got involved. You and I are on a much closer page than these threads show...

"I cannot say for certain, but usually articles such as this originated from some concern that would under normal circumstances be considered valid, but in cases such as this venture into completely irrelevant territory that results in nothing more than hyperbole." By Ric Moore

According to a dictionary and Wikipedia, "Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."

This definition is in agreement with my understanding of the phrase "not meant to be taken literally." Although the referenced article in American Surveyor isn't necessarily my writing style, who am I to judge? Samuel Clemens? Actually, I have read the article twice - two times more than most land surveying articles available to me.

Pontificating with fancy words, especially when used inappropriately such as the use of the word hyperbole, is no different than your public critiques of the author. If such articles, any articles for that matter, are effective in selling more magazines, I see that as a benefit to the profession. American Surveyor has taken quite a business chance by writing specifically to land surveyors and I appreciate that effort. We see "competing" magazines revolve almost entirely around technology in an effort to broaden their market. I have seen enough LiDAR bridge scans to last a lifetime. Yes, I hope American Surveyor continues to sell magazines, lots of magazines. Without them, there are few other magazines exclusive to land surveying. Every writer, as with every surveyor, cannot be their level best in every instance. I raise my cup to the authors of the article in question. Of the several hundred articles written industry wide each year, how many generate the follow-up discussions we've seen here?

"Awareness among the land surveying community is a very good thing. It just needs to be communicated correctly and advocated for/against in an appropriate manner." By Ric Moore

Many surveyors are without the benefit of a formal education; however, this does not mean they cannot contribute to a discussion or that they cannot wholly generate meaningful discussion. Content and context, this is what drives conversations. In the instant example, I find the redefining of "land surveying" and the rewriting of the proposed purposes of the redefinition in Idaho quite compelling.

Grammar, two dollar words and sentence structure-less hyperbole- may be more pleasant to sensitive readers, but it will always be second to the three Cs of concept, context and content. A distant second. "Appropriate manner" Really? And who is to be judge of that? Self appointed or self anointed?

I have a two dollar word for you Mr. Moore, tergiversation. Used in sentence. Ah, what I wouldn't give for articles or written authorities opinions which are given to tergiversation.

Merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing you in 2015.

DWoolley

Chris Erickson:

Many years ago, I found Legislators in Idaho to be quite accessible. Once, while walking through the rotunda in the Capitol Building, we had someone ask if they could be of any assistance. This man found out we were from out of town and invited us up to his office. If memory serves me correctly, he was the Lt. Governor at the time - Butch Otter.

In my experience, one approach to the licensing issues has been to frame the importance of licensure around the history of the surveyor. In California, surveyors were licensed in 1891, 40 years before engineers. There is no need to embellish the surveyor's role in the settlement of America. Mentioning Presidents who were surveyors and, particularly in your neck of the woods, mentioning Lewis and Clark is nice opening.

Americans are, by their very nature, tied to the land. In my opinion, this is even truer in states like Idaho. The stability of our land title system, together with our natural resources, have been credited as our wealth as a nation. (The Mystery of Capital by Economist Hernando De Soto). Land surveyors are instrumental in maintaining the stability of this land title system.

In the past, the land surveyor made a living through his/her understanding of and ability to measure. Many surveyors have spent their entire career measuring line and grade. Arguably, this is engineering in most every jurisdiction. The surveyor happened to have mastered the skill of establishing fixed works on the ground along the way. The yesteryear need for highly trained measurement staff (with the ability to read plans) to perform this work has dissipated due to our technical evolution. Nevertheless, surveying itself has changed little with the advent of technology. The law we rely upon to establish boundaries is ancient, stable and relatively unchanged.

Although new technology has certainly created tremendous efficiencies, surveying work and work product has remained relatively unchanged for the boundary surveyor. This is the understanding and purpose of licensure, nicely wrapped in the blanket of public protection. Looking back over the last 15 years, there are no shortages of examples of deregulation causing tremendous harm to everyday Americans. These examples are easily transferable to the idea of redefining the practice of land surveying, effectively deregulating the fundamental aspect-boundary.

I recommend that you put aside contemporary texts and draw inspiration from the last chapters of a book by Montana Land Surveyor Tiny Tillotson. The book name escapes me at the moment, but it reads similar to Legal Principles in Boundary. He discusses, at length, model law, circa 1960 or 1970, long before there was a NCEES model law. I recall that he was a proponent of the boundary surveyor.

I would be willing to assist in writing, rather, editing and providing reference material to support the language which will protect the public in Idaho by insuring boundary establishment is paramount and is key to the preservation of land title, the land tenure system, property rights, civil stability and the nation's infrastructure. We cannot allow the public to be put at risk by watering down the land surveyor’s responsibilities, allowing the unqualified to practice (framed as barrier to entry) and/or accommodating measurers or technology.

DWoolley

Brian Allen:

The idea that folks will practice in their area of competence is complete nonsense. Tell the Idaho Board Rep, it has been proven that incompetent people do not know they are incompetent. Quite the opposite, an incompetent person actually has an illusory superiority, creating a blind spot he/she is unable to recognize exists, much less assess, as an area of competence. For a good read on this phenomenon, look up The Dunning-Keuger Effect. Ask your Board Rep how that fits into his understanding of folks working within their area of competence.

Good grief.

Happy Holidays to all.

Legal Principles of Property Boundary Location on the Ground in the Public Land Survey States by Ira Tillotson. I knew the man! Well, I least our class of 1974 Land Boundary Surveyors out of Flathead Valley Community College met him at the 1974 survey conference in Helena, Montana. I follow his footsteps in surveys in the Kamiah, Idaho area.

Ira and his book are the origins of my survey renegade-ship. It was he that put the abhorrence of proportioning into me when he stated, "Field Notes are not what the GLO surveyor did, they are not even what he said he did, they are what he was told to say". After later performing original Township surveys in Alaska and going through the write and review process for the Field Notes, I can state that Ira is 100% correct.

Your letter and offer are cherished and remembered. Though I won't be invited to the writing session, Brian Allen probably well.

There is a Township in Santa Clara County resurveyed in the 19th Century by one of the Hermanns.

The County Surveyor has his actual field notes. The GLO Notes are typical but he didn't do it like that, not even close. He set up on high hills and used stadia and radial methods to tie things in. The GLO Notes are just a sort of narrative map similar to a modern survey that doesn't show your control points.

That's dynamite. Can you give us any more leads or sources?

Calibet in sua arte credendum est.

Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre