While 29 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico require professional geologists to have a Professional Geologist (P.G.) license, Colorado does not. The state certainly has an interest in protecting citizens, government entities and companies from unethical and/or incompetent practice.
Here's a link to what Colorado requires;
http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/land-use-regulations/professional-geologist-definition/
Our state should impose a licensure process in order to assure accountability and responsibility of P.G. practitioners.
ASTROBLEME
I suppose that one could ask a similar question regarding why other professions should be licensed professions, e.g. wildlife biology. To answer your question, it is the Colorado General Assembly's responsibility to determine which professions are licensed professions in this state. Their criteria has nothing to do with assuring, "accountability and responsibility" of a profession. The criteria established in Colorado for the professions that are licensed are that the Legislature has determined that the public health, safety and welfare must be protected.
For example, here is the preamble to the Practice Act for Professional Land Surveyors
TITLE 12
Professions and Occupations
ARTICLE 25
Engineers, Surveyors and Architects
PART 2
Surveyors
12-25-201. General provisions. In order to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote the public welfare, the practice of professional land surveying in Colorado is hereby declared to be subject to regulation.
The preambles to the Practice Acts for Engineers and Architects are worded slightly differently but convey the same reasoning for licensure.
Edit: totally missed the point. Just ignore this post.
[quote name='Gene Kooper' date='Jan 12 2018, 01:37 AM' post='47952']
I suppose that one could ask a similar question regarding why other professions should be licensed professions, e.g. wildlife biology.
Gene,
How fortunate that you would ask that specific question about wildlife biology professionals. Please let me take this opportunity to add to the discussion and assist everyone with getting a better understanding for that profession.
After graduating from Colorado State University with a Wildlife Biology degree, I continued with my studies and earned several post graduate credits while completing an internship. I then successfully competed to be hired into a State of Colorado professional position managing several Wildlife Areas. That work experience qualified me for the highly competitive training academy with the Colorado Division of Wildlife ( now know as Colorado Parks and Wildlife). There were more than 1,200 applicants for 13 positions available in that academy and the selection process took 18 months. It was a blessing that I was accepted into that academy and it presented an opportunity to pursue my childhood dreams of becoming a "game warden". The training academy lasted a year and was very rigorous but the experience, licenses, certificates and other credentials obtained during that course work became very valuable to achieving my future goals. When I graduated from the training academy, I had earned certification that authorized me to perform such duties as were delegated by the Governor of Colorado as a state certified peace officer. I was then promoted to a District Wildlife Manager position and served in that capacity for the next 15 years in southern Colorado. My family and I are very proud of that! I still continue to draw on those lessons learned decades ago for day-to-day living.
Over the following years, I completed numerous other higher education courses that qualified me to perform duties as a scientist/researcher for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. I retired from that certified professional position a couple of years ago and now work on my family's company projects full-time.
ASTROBLEME (aka Mr. Tonko)
Generally degreed professions are self certifying and self regulating. If you went to a good school, got good grades, interned with known professionals and have good work references you are good to go. One can realize their dream to become a game warden or a Horticulturist without asking permission from any government board. It's really all about the ability to get hired and then having the knowledge and experience to carry out the job in a timely manner while meeting or exceeding the clients expectations and getting paid. Those who can't rise to those standards really don't have much of a chance of succeeding as an individual in their chosen profession but may find themselves working under another professional or gaining supervised public service employment.
The habit of legislators to attempt to regulate professionals is fairly recent in this country. I think you will find that with the exception of the legal and medical guilds self regulation most States licensing requirements are often random, changing and maybe not what you thought a license or registration was all about. Part of the reason for that is because professionals actions in relation to their profession can only really be judged by by other professionals in the same field.
The courts will give credence to a professional opinion as long as there is no contrary professional opinion being offered. That's why as a matter of law professions are self certifying and self regulating. If there is a general consensus in a profession on what a proper method or procedure is the rest of us are pretty much stuck with that version.
As long as a profession is capable of maintaining an association that sets standards and represents the majority of a profession they can also, as a group, become the legal standard for the profession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles_(United_States) is a good example of that model. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants sets the legal requirements for accounting - not your legislators.
Choosing geologists out of all the professions can be a real minefield when you are discussing certification. You are aware that geology isn't a science? ALL of geology is based on best knowledge opinions and theories. While one oil field or mineral deposit has a specific set of control mechanisms that may be well understood there will be no other oil field or mineral deposit with exactly the same set of control mechanisms. Even practical geology is all about skill and the ability to produce results. Geology rhymes but it doesn't repeat.
The atomics and chemistry behind the why of geology are sciences but geology itself is fluid and not reproducible. It would be as if animal Taxonomy were based on smell because all genetics were randomly assembled. You might be able to pin down an ancestor but you will never find a twin sibling. Geology is really that messy - which is why it's practice is virtually unregulatable in the real world. Many of our respected geologists from the past wouldn't agree with most of the current geological theories, classifications and practices. There is no unified geological classification system - each geologist users their own terms and notation when they study a geological structure.
Here's an example from the https://btr.az.gov/attorney-general-opinion-board-technical-registration-jurisdiction-over-trained-geologists. As you can see even when there is registration unless there is fraud or misrepresentation involved it's ultimately up to the profession itself to set standards.
When it comes to weights, standards and measures there is a great need for regulation. Professions like surveying, assaying and compounding really are very quantifiable outside of the profession itself. Surveyors shouldn't be able to independently determine the length of a chain and assayers shouldn't be able to reclassify elements or redefine the chemistry of a process. I don't think you want your pharmacist independently determining what drug mix to use in your prescribed medication.
Legislators are notoriously unable to make good decisions about protecting the health and welfare of the public but you as an individual can help determine just how incompetent your legislators are. In my opinion Arizona voters could do a better job and maybe pay closer attention to what their congresscritters are up to. Here's a https://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1256p.htm&Session_ID=115 from Arizona.
I don't sweat the registration issue with geologists. I work with a lot of geologists and most of the more successful ones are a bit loony. Relax enjoy the ride and listen closely to what your Colorado un registered geologist has to say. You just might learn something. Or not.
Mining Engineers are licensed in every state.
A Mining Engineer's responsibilities include overseeing mine operations, supervising mines, designing underground mines, supervising the construction of mine shafts and tunnels, designing mining equipment and training personnel.
I don't think a P.G. should be able to perform this type of work in Colorado.
ASTROBLEME
Being a simple country boy from the Nebraska Sandhills, I will make the following observation and suggestion to the both of you. Neither of you have any formal education in geology, but that appears to have not hindered either of you from proffering negative opinions about the science of geology and whether geologists should be licensed.
If either of you is really interested in the topic of whether geologists should be licensed or not, I suggest that you join a geology forum and pose the question. You will likely get a wide variety of answers from geologists there because of their varied educations and experiences, not to mention opinions from geologists that practice in states with and without a licensing requirement. Also, mining engineers are engineers and as such, are authorized to conduct tasks that include the "analysis and design work requiring intensive preparation in the use of mathematics, chemistry, physics, and engineering sciences." If Mr. Tonko believes that only licensed mining engineers can perform any of the tasks in his list, I suggest he start filing complaints for unlicensed practice with the engineering board!
I'll end my participation in this thread with a question. Why did the topic starter decide that this topic belongs in "Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc.
Discussions for Laws, Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) or subparts, as well as discussions pertaining to the Forest Service maual (FSM) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) concerning prospecting/mining."?
I agree with a lot of what is above, and disagree with a lot of what is stated above - by several posters. I'm not going to worry too much about opinions though. As the saying goes, get two geologists in a room and you'll have at least three opinions. ...or maybe its opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Not sure which is most appropriate here, but lets assume the former and not the latter for the time being.
Few comments though....
A PG license in the U.S does not matter when it comes to mining geology/resource estimation. No U.S. State Board of Geology in the is recognized by NI 43-101 or JORC, and the SEC's Guide 7 does not address this issue formally (that may change). The State Boards of Geology are not seen as regulating agencies that track the accountability of its licensees, and fail that test with respect to NI 43-101 and JORC. The only reason to have a P.G. is if you work in the public safety realm - environmental, hydrogeology, geotechnical, etc... that has a direct impact on the well being of the public, or if you just want to add some fancy initials after your name and show a little credibility (like I did). Creating a P.G. license in Colorado will not change anything required for mineral resource disclosure. And I believe this fact has been missed by Mr,. Tonko is his belief that the creation of a P.G. license in Colorado will create some level of accountability as it pertains to the issues regularly discussed on this board.
Mr. Tonko is a little off on the roles of responsibilities that should be limited solely to degreed/licensed Mining Engineers. Mine Supervision? Mine Construction? Really? Most of those things that you list do not require a P.E. stamp to perform at the highest level. In fact, most major mine design issues fall in the geotechnical realm (ie. ground control and slope stability), which a mining engineer is not usually qualified to stamp on - it would have to go through a P.E. geotechnical engineer. And design work like pit/layback sequencing only require experience, there is nothing really that technical about it.
Also, overall interest in geology and mining engineering is down because young people do not want to be outside and get dirty. The want long term stability in their careers, not the cyclic nature of mining or O&G. It also, as Clay noted, requires a strong foundation in several areas (math, chemistry, physics, etc.), as all are applied. Geology requires good observation skills, application of numerous other fields of scientific study, and an ability to visualize what cannot be seen, or experienced during one's lifetime. This is why so many geologists can branch readily into other fields and disciplines, in general they are scientists with creative freedom not allowed within the more rigid frameworks of other hard sciences.
I want to apologize to Mr Tonko, whom I sure feels as though I single him out frequently. I do. But sometimes outlandish comments, claims, and beliefs need to be called out, and no one should assume that anyone's comments (mine included) are above this kind of review. (especially on the internet!).
Oh, and Clay, plate tectonics is real and proven through demonstrable evidence. I can point you to some reading if you need to brush up on the geological sciences, sounds like you could use a refresher.
Excellent considered reply GeoMatt. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective. You are an asset to this forum.
I'm still going to disagree with you on the Plate Tectonics. It's not that I don't believe in Plate Tectonics, I just avoid the discussion of religion on public forums particularly when discussing science. The problem I have is the statement that Plate Tectonics is a proven theory. If that were so it would be classed as a natural law - not a theory.
Interestingly http://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm is really more defined by philosophy (belief) than hard reality. Every respected philosophical school's definition of scientific method has a few aspects in common. The one aspect of the common method that plate tectonics always fails is the need for a control to validate the results of any experiment. Admittedly that control is an impossibility so geologists have taken to the inductive method. While the inductive method has some validity when applied to human perception or the humanities in general I find it intellectually dishonest that inductive method has been elevated to having the potential to prove theories.
I am not of the mind that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductivism can produce proof of a natural law. I have an example that might help you understand my reluctance in that regard.
We all know about Newton and how gloriously he managed to explain and "prove" the laws of motion back in 1666. He did that by the inductive method or "Baconism". He was hiding out from the plague and had a lot of time on his hands. To this day Newton's "Laws of Motion" are taught in public schools and are generally assumed by the public to be natural laws - established fact. They are credited with being the basis for many other theories and proofs.
Well those laws of motion were demonstratively wrong. Einstein used logic (not induction) and the proof gathered from the 1919 solar eclipse to put Newton's Laws of Motion on its ear. The laws of motion that were accepted for 250 years were displaced by Einstein's gravitational THEORY. How can a theory displace a natural law? It can't happen unless the natural law was accepted as a natural law without sound proof. Intellectual democracy is regularly the source of scientific belief (knowledge?). Inductivism has been accepted into geology, along with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism, as providing a form of proof where there can be no final absolute knowledge.
With my current knowledge and experience I am happy to acknowledge that Plate Tectonics is the most likely candidate for a planetary surface geology... Well except for those pesky noncomformities that don't fit into the Plate Tectonics model.
Claiming Plate Tectonics as the http://geoetc.com/evidence/ is arrogant and ultimately foolish in my opinion. Claiming it's a proven theory goes a step to far. Then again it's just my opinion. Maybe that's why I'm just visiting. Gotta go along to get along.
So we have one point of dispute. It might just be semantics but the use of language is always going to be the driver for useful productive discourse.
Thanks again for sticking around and sharing your thoughts.
In my opinion, this has been a very educational discussion, so far. I've never even thought about P.G. credentials until recently when I was subjected to personal attacks by some P.G.s targeting my postings with outrageous lies and false accusations on my "For Sale" posting. That is when I started to take a look into their credentials, associates and work product. It wasn't too hard to determine what their personal financial interests were in that matter.
A lot of material and opinions have been presented here in this thread and I'm glad to see this interaction on the forum.
Perhaps those that have the patience for all this will find something useful. I certainly have and now pay more attention to determining if people I work with hold proper licenses/certificates for their profession. I certainly prefer to deal with them over those who are "self-regulated".
ASTROBLEME (aka Mr. Tonko)
I too am a firm believer in caveat emptor.
I'd be careful with pulling a geo/mining engineer out of ICMJ. Just remember that you also get what you pay for. If you are looking to establish a multi million dollar valuation, you are going to have to spend some money in order to establish a credible resource - defensible sampling & analysis (statistically relevant) of the actual material, and a report generated by someone other than the state.
I'm up at the AME Roundup and VRIC in Vancouver this weekend, need me to get you some good consultant resumes?
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)