Getting Involved

I was told early on in my career that the Land Surveyor was generally speaking held in high regard within the community.  This was probably true in a time when most of the country was illiterate.  I have noticed that the average land surveyor want to live in amenity.  They don't want to be noticed unless somebody is giving them money.  Unfortunately this is a terrible business model. 

I was in a fraternity while at NMSU.  The fraternity was not you typical "Animal House" environment.  We had to maintain a minimum GPA, and had to participate in philanthropy.  This experience was excellent although at the time I didn't know why.

When I moved back to Springerville, I began working to build a business.  In this area word of mouth is THE primary source of advertisement.  I also began to see a need for involvement.  Primarily my involvement was in interests that my daughters were/are tied to.  Little League Sports; dance; cheer; School etc.  As I began to get involved I realized that people were starting to notice I had moved home and the phone started to ring.  Then the Community leadership started seeking me out for advise on land issues.  Long story short; being involved in your community is the best way to advertise and get recognized as a professional and businessman.  Sitting in the office and wondering why the phone isn't ringing is not going to do it.  Placing adds in the newspaper or phone book with everyone else won't separate you from the pack.  Community involvement does.  Getting out there and using the deductive reasoning skilled gained from our experiences and applying them in the community outside of surveying gets you noticed.  Being a grouchy hermit does not.

My 2 cents anyway.

The Land Surveyor

As a matter of practice I have prepared legal descriptions for clients so they could use that legal to execute a deed of some sort.  Normally they would go to the title company and they would prepare a courtesy deed for a fee.  They would not guarantee title unless a policy was sold.  Then up here at least they stopped doing courtesy deeds.

So the natural progression was for our clients to begin to ask me.  At first I thought it was way out of my expertise to do so.  However I am beginning to see that I might be mistaken. Before anyone freaks out try to follow me.

This is how I operate; During the course of a survey; I do as much deed and survey research I can find.  I do the field work.  I draft the plat.  I record the plat.  If my client asks for a deed to be prepared why can't/shouldn't I do it?  I have done the research, I have prepared the documents the deed relies on, what's the issue?  Liability?  Where is it?

 The fact of the matter is that in the past it WAS the land surveyor that prepared deeds for people.  Land Surveyors are the only people uniquely qualified to do so.  If our profession is to gain prominence we have to get beyond measurements.  The key to our profession is the land.  Planning, Tenure, Stewardship, and Ownership.  Land Surveyors have all of the tools to be a one stop shop to address all of the a fore mentioned.  Yet most amongst us are scared to take this on. 

I live in a small town of around 4000 covering 12 square miles.  Most everyone in town will call my father or myself with questions about land.  Where is the flood plain? How many acres? Can you pull the tax records? Can I get a copy of my deed? can I get a survey? Can you go over my title policy with me?  My point is they all come to us.  Most of the time this type of stuff is at no charge.  But we do a lot of trading up here so a favor can go a long way.  The big picture here is that when it comes to land issues in our area they all look to their local land surveyor.  this is where our profession prospers. Only those who fixate on measurements and gizmos get wrapped up in the way technology is dissolving our chores.

So in closing I don't and will not advocate practicing law.  However preparing deeds is a task uniquely tied to land surveying and as a matter of practice most attorney's lack the expertise to understand deed preparation.  Therefore I don't think it is beyond our purview to do so.  

The Concept of Minimum Control

Think back to high school geometry.  Two pints define a line, three points or elements define an arc.  This is basically the concept of Minim Control.  I have discussed in previous posts about my frustration with my bretheren surveyor whom believe that every survey starts at the section corner.  My hat is off to Brian Dalager and his efforts to bring the surveying profession GDACS.  However I am sure that Mr. Dalager is sharing a similar feeling as Alfred Noble.  How could something so powerful be so destructive?  Well like any tool; if used improperly it can be dangerous.

The concept of minimum control is simple.  If you are attempting to replace a lost property corner you calculate your way in from THE CLOSEST acceptable evidence that controls the calculated position.  Think about lot surveys.  If your missing a lot corner you don't replace it be surveying your way in from the sections corner that controls the subdivision (or at least you didn't until GDACS made it possible).  It was normal procedure to up and down the street adjacent to the lot and look for monumentation.  Or in many cases the best available evidence of the lot corner's location.

The dirty little secret is you can't locate and monument a boundary without seeing it.  GIS based calculations are great tools for establishing search areas.  THEY ARE NOT boundary determinations.  Calculating search areas be using GIS and GDACS is a great place to start.  However I am seeing more and more the these are being used as the solution.  Evidence on the ground will rule the day.  Calculations to the Nth decimal place will only prove you are EXACTLY wrong.   

Well I guess....

its time for me to consider whether or not there is any point to striving to make the land surveying profession any better.  Apparently I was under the mistaken belief that the purpose of a professional organization was to promote the betterment and development of the profession.  I guess what we are really supposed to do; is have meetings and discuss stuff so we can feel better about ourselves without actually doing anything.  Silly me.....

Philosophical Dilemma

There has been a lot of back and forth about revising the minimum standards.  There has been a great deal of effort made to revise the ABSMS by a group of surveyors from all over the state.  Their efforts are to be applauded.  The current standards leave much to be desired and were an attempt to fix a problem they weren't equipped to fix.

I have begun to think that maybe minimum standards for our practice is the wrong approach.  Maybe we should think about a "Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Private Land within the State of Arizona".  Much like the template of the BLM Manual.  I envision it to be structured like this:

Chapter 1 - Authorities
                     State Board of Technical Registration Rules and Statutes
Chapter 2 - County Subdivisions
                       County Subdivision Statutes
 Chapter 3 - City Subdivisions
                       City Subdivision Statutes 
Chapter 4 - Dependent Resurveys & Independent Resurveys
                        Subdivisions
                        Public Land Survey System
                        Tracts, Mineral Claims, Special Surveys
Chapter 5 -  Platting
                         General requirements for platting
                          County Recorder Requirements
Chapter 6 - Field Notes / Legal Descriptions
                          General Construction of legal descriptions
                          
Chapter 7 - Easements and Right of Ways
Chapter 8 - Control Surveying
Chapter 9 - Topographic mapping
Chapter 10 - Definitions
Chapter 11 - Index of Case Law.

Wouldn't a manual serve our purpose to educated better than a "minimum standard"?

Lesson Learned

Being Chairman of APLS has taught me something.  Even the best of intentions can be resisted if the other side feels shut out.  I have come to realize that APLS is NOT structured for all of its members to agree on everything.  No matter how bad I want us to.  So from this point forward I am not going to hammer my opinion.  I will offer my point of view and if you agree so be it if you disagree so be it.  If you want to talk about it we can.  However I won't be arguing to change any point of view.  I will simply offer mine and listen you to yours.

Surveying Stuff......

I have been spending the last 2 months marking and posting national forest boundary.  I love this work.  Being out in the woods; the physical exertion; and the recovery of 100 year old HES corners.  On one particular job the Boundary was a considerable distance inside a landowners fence.  So we made contact and myself and the landowner looked for the HES corner.  She kept looking around the fence and I crawled into a manzanita and there it was.  I cleared the brush and showed her the chiseled "WC 8 HES ...." on the face of the sandstone.  She became very angry.  After several minutes of discourse she ask me to vacate the property.  So we did. As we were leaving she said and I quote "F#$%ing rocks; I thought surveyors used satellites";  I am still laughing about that.

Merry Christmas ALL. 

When to ignore a monument accessory

I have been working on several posting jobs for the forest service.  I have been noticing something in the Payson area that I did not expect.  The bearing trees when measured from side center or face (more on that later) do fit the record call.  The BT is there the stone is there; the bearing and distance is questionable. 

So when I move to another HES corner; the stone is missing.  There is a fence corner an one of the BT's of record.  Also the HES was subdivided.  First I checked the BT to the fence corner and it was close.  Within a trash can lid.  The lot corners I recovered all pointed to the fence post with a probable area of about a quarter.  Well the answer was obvious;..........................

I used to be of the frame of mind that the manual was gospel and there was no deviation.  Here lately I have discovered that subsequent lot corner may be a better accessory than a bearing tree.

 More about the side center vs. face of blaze.  In some circles this oddity is well known. Most surveyors under 50 don't know that in many parts of Arizona; mineral surveyors were also contracting with the forest service and GLO.  In so doing it is not uncommon to find bearing trees on HES corners that are measured to the face of the blaze.  This is the rule for mineral surveys; however for PLSS work; the side center is the rule.

In my case neither worked so I noted it and moved on...