California Surveyors Forums

Hi Lance,

I curious, what was the impetus behind amending the qualifications to include pre-licensed individuals? I understand the educational standpoint and certainly support additional education on the matter. Just wanted to know what has driven this change.

Thanks
Ric

So regular surveyors and the BLM manual of surveying and/or special instructions are no longer adequate to survey federal lands?

I read a article some time back, I think it was titled "surveying on the river" and the surveyors were living on a boat while surveying land for Alaskan natives, anyway, IIRC the boundary pipe accuracy was something like within 5 ft.
I guess that takes some real special classroom training.

Native allotments in remote AK is a whole different kind of surveying, and can't be even remotely compared to the surveys that CFedS trains for. NAs are original surveys of (usually) 160 acre independent tracts with no underlying PLSS (or any other system) to tie to. The accuracy depends on the location and the methods which could be used.

In some cases, corners could not be terrestially traversed to, and in the days before GPS, the most viable method was to use helicopter mounted inertial systems. The crew would drop a bean bag made of bright pink "pennant cloth", and using a sort of bombadier's sight, the helicopter would hover over the bean bag while inertial data was collected. A "corner move" would be calced from the bean bag to the corner location, and a crew would be dropped off with the mon, the tools to set it, a staff compass and tape. If a bear hadn't come along in the meantime and tore it up, the crew set the staff compass over the bean bag, set direction and taped off the distance to the corner location. If a bear did tear it up (a not uncommon occurrence as I've been told), the crew would do their best to discern where the bag had been dropped and proceed as if it were still there. Under such conditions, I'd say +/- 5' is pretty good.

The CFedS training focuses a lot on title and retracement. It provides knowledge that a lot of "regular" surveyors think they have, but actually don't know squat in a lot of cases.

A lot of "regular" surveyors, since the problem on the licensing exam they took gave them a scenario in which they were told certain corners were "lost", and were required to determine the location of the re-established corner by either single or double proportion, are only aware of those mathematical techniques and those used for dividing a previously undivided section. They are totally unaware of the contents of the other 9 3/4 chapters contained in the Manual.

CFedS was developed because the Bureau of Indian Affairs was, in many instances, hiring surveyors of dubious knowledge of PLSS retracement/resurveys, and sometimes of dubious qualification as surveyors. Being Federal authority surveys, in some cases a state license was not required. It was quite apparent that some manner of training was needed to ensure that these federal authority surveys were performed by qualified individuals.

There are so many "regular" (and some BLM) surveyors that think that the only way to survey a section is as if it had never been divided before and screw them up so bad that, IMO, it is good training for all surveyors to have.

Perhaps if enough LSITs take this training, the State PLS exam can begin to get a little deeper than just testing on the math and focus a little more on evaluation of evidence.

Nahhh. That would just fire up the whiners about how unfair the exam is and how the rest of us are just trying to protect our market share. Funny how no one ever talks about how unfair it is to the unsuspecting landowner who ends up with a screwed up survey by someone who passed because the cut score on an already reasonably easy exam was lowered to 50% in order to pass 25% of the people who took the exam. but now I'm heading off on a tangent to a different discussion...

A lot of "regular" surveyors, since the problem on the licensing exam they took gave them a scenario in which they were told certain corners were "lost", and were required to determine the location of the re-established corner by either single or double proportion, are only aware of those mathematical techniques and those used for dividing a previously undivided section. They are totally unaware of the contents of the other 9 3/4 chapters contained in the Manual.

CFedS was developed because the Bureau of Indian Affairs was, in many instances, hiring surveyors of dubious knowledge of PLSS retracement/resurveys, and sometimes of dubious qualification as surveyors. Being Federal authority surveys, in some cases a state license was not required. It was quite apparent that some manner of training was needed to ensure that these federal authority surveys were performed by qualified individuals.

Typical govt solution, don't fix the contracting issue, pass a new law that costs surveyors more money.

To me this is just a step towards having to have various certifications (GPS, Boundary traverse, Const staking, etc) to do what we do now.
A year or so ago the State Water board was wined and dined into making the preparation of SWPPPs a special CE certification, expensive and requires renewal every 2 years. Overrode our State CE/LS board.

The State LS test could never test for a totally competent surveyor and they never tried to. I have not seen one, but from what I hear and how it is administered I feel the new tests will result in less competent surveyors than we have now. Then academia will scream that we need 4 year degrees (A masters is being considered for CEs) and continuing education. Won't solve the problem but will send more money to the academia coffers.

I guess I was lucky to have apprenticed under some of the best surveyors in Orange County. When I started surveying I took all the night school courses I could. In the last 15 years I have offered to pay my apprentices tuition and books if they got a C or better, haven't spent a dime on that yet. I guess they feel their knowledge will come with their coffee and donut every AM.

E_Page wrote:The CFedS training focuses a lot on title and retracement. It provides knowledge that a lot of "regular" surveyors think they have, but actually don't know squat in a lot of cases.

A lot of "regular" surveyors, since the problem on the licensing exam they took gave them a scenario in which they were told certain corners were "lost", and were required to determine the location of the re-established corner by either single or double proportion, are only aware of those mathematical techniques and those used for dividing a previously undivided section. They are totally unaware of the contents of the other 9 3/4 chapters contained in the Manual.

CFedS was developed because the Bureau of Indian Affairs was, in many instances, hiring surveyors of dubious knowledge of PLSS retracement/resurveys, and sometimes of dubious qualification as surveyors. Being Federal authority surveys, in some cases a state license was not required. It was quite apparent that some manner of training was needed to ensure that these federal authority surveys were performed by qualified individuals.

There are so many "regular" (and some BLM) surveyors that think that the only way to survey a section is as if it had never been divided before and screw them up so bad that, IMO, it is good training for all surveyors to have.

I'm not sure I could of said it any better Evan. The CFedS course is a fantastic learning tool for PLSS surveys and the history of Federal Trust Lands. I think its a course most surveyors should take especially the people that don't have those years of experience doing PLSS surveys. I know i'm grateful that I went through the program and have a broad general foundation for doing these types of surveys... A lot more than what I had by just taking the "test"!

E_Page wrote:Perhaps if enough LSITs take this training, the State PLS exam can begin to get a little deeper than just testing on the math and focus a little more on evaluation of evidence.

Nahhh. That would just fire up the whiners about how unfair the exam is and how the rest of us are just trying to protect our market share. Funny how no one ever talks about how unfair it is to the unsuspecting landowner who ends up with a screwed up survey by someone who passed because the cut score on an already reasonably easy exam was lowered to 50% in order to pass 25% of the people who took the exam. but now I'm heading off on a tangent to a different discussion...

The test will never get too deep... It's only there to test for minimum competency... Nothing more! The exam was never unfair, and never will be those are just the whiners that take 15 tries to try and pass an exam where you only need 50% to pass!

land butcher wrote:Typical govt solution, don't fix the contracting issue, pass a new law that costs surveyors more money.

Where's the new law? This is just another certification that shows people who have taken the advanced training provided by BLM. Which I can personally say is well worth it.

land butcher wrote:In the last 15 years I have offered to pay my apprentices tuition and books if they got a C or better, haven't spent a dime on that yet. I guess they feel their knowledge will come with their coffee and donut every AM

Maybe you need better apprentices! All the people I know continually are taking classes, seminars or additional learning on their own to stay up to date and expand their knowledge...

Go Evan, Go Josh Go

Beware LSITs! The $1,200.00 is just the down payment on this certification. Expect to spend approximately $250.00 each year on the Continuing Education courses which you can only purchase through CFedS.

The training is excellent, but you can borrow any current CFedS’ training program (unless the CFedS is a jerk) and get all the benefits of that training and many of the quizzes (with the exception of the exams and certification) with none of the costs.

I highly recommend the training, but each person should carefully weigh whether the certification is worth it, both short term and long term.

I think it is probably a good thing they opened this up to LSITs, but why stop there? Why not let any interested person get the benefit of the education and the examinations proving their knowledge of the subject matter.

I thought the use of the euphemism of "Pre-licensed" was interesting. Is that standard nomenclature in the world of licensing agencies? I thought anyone who was "pre-licensed" was "unlicensed".

I’m really looking forward to all the complaints from "post-licensed" CFedS about "pre-licensed" CFedS painting themselves as “Certifiedâ€￾. What’s the penalty if they do? I don’t see one in the memo or the announcement.

By the way, what exactly are these new entities? CFedSIT? No, they aren’t in training, they’ve completed the training and passed the certification exams.
Maybe CFedS in waiting? CFedSIW? How about PCFedS for Pending CFedS?
It would have been nice for the CFedS Panel to give some guidance on that, but I suppose they’ll get to it eventually.

As to Ric's question about the impetus, I'll speculate and say that the number of people signing up for the program has been disappointing, so they are opening it up to help drive revenue. From the same memo noted above:
"The CFedS Certification Panel projects a 10-percent increase in net program revenue per year with this revision."
If I recall correctly they were expecting to have a thousand CFedS by 2010, but even now in late 2012 we only have around 580. Hard to maintain a national program with those numbers.

According to some conversations I've had with other CFedS, there is also the case of the "Tribal Surveyor" who will not get his or her State license, but can pass the LSIT. Now they can benefit from the training and apply that to their work on the Tribal lands. Wins all around.

Propst - Thank you.

High cost for something every licensed surveyor has some training in and now UNLICENSED surveyors can say they are qualified to do BLM surveys.

Another govt knee-jerk solution that makes things worse instead of better.


Young surveyors - keep your eyes and ears open as this form of cancer can spread to many forms of land surveying. Academia needs the money.


Josh Tatman nice to see your business can afford the horrendous cost of this "training".


A true professional knows his limitations and knows what books to read to expand his knowledge of aspects of his profession he does not do on a regular basis. Having to be forced to take CE courses or obtain special licenses is not reflective of a Profession.

A example of govt intervention.

Everyone knows how our K-12 education systems have gone from local control to Federal control and "No Child Left Behind" was started about 10 years ago.

Today's news stated that recent SAT scores are the lowest in 40 years. Yea, that govt intrusion really works.

land butcher wrote:High cost for something every licensed surveyor has some training in

some training in.... Studying the PLSS for the LS exam isn't exactly any comparison to what the comprehensive training the CFedS program covers. Besides no harm done in anyone taking additional training... Unless you think you know everything and have nothing else to learn. IF so, you should just keep your blinders on and fingers in your ears.

land butcher wrote:and now UNLICENSED surveyors can say they are qualified to do BLM surveys.

Anyone that says that is wholly wrong. They have the additional training and expertise that gives them the knowledge for PLSS and Federal Trust surveys but just because you have the training doesn't magically give you the ultimate knowledge. Besides you really think Unlicensed surveyors are going to be in abundance taking this? We can't even get Licensed Professionals to quit bickering about the program.

land butcher wrote: Young surveyors - keep your eyes and ears open as this form of cancer can spread to many forms of land surveying. Academia needs the money.

Land butcher, if you would like to keep your head in the sand, keep it there! Changes will happen, despite you not seeing the advantages.

land butcher wrote: Josh Tatman nice to see your business can afford the horrendous cost of this "training".

Regardless if a business paid for it or not, I saw the use and resource for the program and would of taken it otherwise. A professional doesn't necessarily stop just because their boss won't pony up the money so they can gain additional knowledge.

land butcher wrote: Having to be forced to take CE courses or obtain special licenses is not reflective of a Profession.

I don't see anyone forcing the program or continuing education on anyone??? Any competent person is going to know about that when they sign up for the program. Where's the specialized license??? This is just a Certification!

You have a similar view as I do. I commend you on your PROPER understanding of the role of education and the professional.

If you do not have specialized knowledge and training, what separates you from the lay public. If you do not have something more than an oversized ego and a distorted attitude of over inflated self worth to offer, then what is it exactly that you have to offer the public?

Maybe Josh and DMI should read post #11.

Josh. What I was referring to was not whether a business paid for it or not I meant how many surveys a year are required for that cert cost to be justified. Just common business sense.

As for where my head is, Wait until you HAVE to have 6 or 8 certs just to do what you do now. Anyone with any reasonable knowledge of history knows that once one of these types of certs gets approved they proliferate like rabbits.

Again, due to govts poor choice of surveyors (low bid wins) we have some unneeded new rule that excludes Licensed Surveyors from bidding on these jobs.

I said what I meant. I do not need to read any other post that suggest the lowest common denominator is the way to advance the goals of a PROFESSION.
MY SUGGESTION to you is that you carefully and calmly re-read Josh's comments and spend more than 2 seconds thoughtfully considering what he has to say. Or not it is a free country and folks are allowed to remain ignorant. if they like.

some ranndom thoughts:

yup $1200 and the cost of CE's is pricey.
are you goig to use it in CA, probaly not.
is it good training, most likely.
are you a better surveyor each time you educate your selve, most likely.
There are other western states were this is a much needed training to deal with a regional issue and were if you have this certification you will probably use it.
I will agree, we each need to continue to learn. Is the cost of this progrram worth it for a CA PLS, mmmm.

I took the class because I wanted to. I paid for it myself. I saw value in it. It is a free country people can do things because they want to do them. I read court cases on a frequent basis. I attended seminars that attract my attention. Will these activities benefit me or my clients? Am justified in pursuit of activities? Can I make this pencil put in some business plan model? I do not know. I am not certain that the SOLE reason to do A THING is because there is a direct FINANCIAL REWARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOING OF A CERTAIN THING.
For me,strictly from a corporatist capitalist vantage point, I prefer that my competition remain ignorant and not read court cases and not attend seminars and not continue on a life long education journey.

land butcher wrote:Maybe Josh and DMI should read post #11.

LB, maybe you should go re-read my post. Without speaking for Mr. Propst too much, I firmly believe where he was coming form was an educator’s point of view. What his intention was for these generally younger surveyors/LSIT’s to be trapped for the initial cost and re-occurring cost of the program. I believe Mr. Propst as a professional does see the value of this CFedS and the extensive training it provides. I believe this can be seen, since he has taken the training himself and continues to maintain the certification. Tom was also my proctor when I took my CFedS, so I feel comfortable clarifying his post.

land butcher wrote: Josh. What I was referring to was not whether a business paid for it or not I meant how many surveys a year are required for that cert cost to be justified. Just common business sense.

Correct it is common business sense… If a professional is going to let your entire professional career be driven only by your business sense, I expect to see a practitioner before the board for violations within the next few years.

land butcher wrote: As for where my head is, Wait until you HAVE to have 6 or 8 certs just to do what you do now. Anyone with any reasonable knowledge of history knows that once one of these types of certs gets approved they proliferate like rabbits.

LB, I seriously doubt that and will offer you this…. I’ll be around years from now, to say for a fact that I won’t need 6-8 or any other number of certificates to do the work now. Will you? Also theirs a difference between getting those certificates because you have too and getting them because you want to gain additional knowledge, learn to skills and stay competent in areas you may not normal work in.

Finally LB,
1. Something that I failed to mention is that a lot of the land title, boundary, corner restoration, corner identification, etc, isn’t exclusive to just the PLSS it can be brought across to all private surveys.
2. If this program is that far out in left field... How much would you spend for this amount of training? This is easily 200-300 hours of studying, learning and examinations. I'll offer you this, if you can provide me the same kind of training in similar format (pdf's, videos, quizzes, etc) I'll give you the $1200! Oh, don't forget you need to provide me bi-annual continuing education!

RAM wrote:some ranndom thoughts:
yup $1200 and the cost of CE's is pricey.
are you goig to use it in CA, probaly not.
is it good training, most likely.
are you a better surveyor each time you educate your selve, most likely.
There are other western states were this is a much needed training to deal with a regional issue and were if you have this certification you will probably use it.
I will agree, we each need to continue to learn. Is the cost of this progrram worth it for a CA PLS, mmmm.

Ram,
1. Yes $1200 is pricey but completely worth it… I don’t see how anyone can say definitely till they have looked at the material.
2. I politely disagree. I think you will absolutely use it in California. Please re-read this near the end of the week. I hope to report back with some statics on how much federal and tribal land there are in California.
3. Absolutely it is good training. I don’t think I have to explain this one further.

Without knowing my survey experience you are assuming a lot.

I have no problem with people spending their time and money to put another picture frame on their wall and more meaningless letters after their name. My issue is that someone, on the receiving end of the money, has conned a govt agency into requiring Licensed Surveyors to spend time and money to do a particular form of Land Surveying. And since they take low bid who is to say these "certified" individuals will do a better job.

As a professional it is my job to work within my expertise and/or find the book to guide me on a aspect that I am not up to speed on. Instead some unknown govt employee is saying that I am too stupid to do either of the above, and convinced others in the business that it's a fact, when in reality all it is based on is some govt employee not doing his job and allowing some con artist to implement requirements that should not exist.

Saying it won't continue is ostrich thinking. CE's now need a special cert to do SWPPPs, LS's required to have a CFedS. Trust me there people looking to make more money off more of these "special" certifications. I predict GPS and/or scanner surveying to be next followed by ALTA's.

Smack me up side the head.

I just did some research and discovered that I am arguing with some newly licensed surveyor that works for the County.

What a waste of time.