ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Professional Geologists, No Licensure Required in Colorado
ASTROBLEME
post Jan 11 2018, 11:11 PM
Post #1


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



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;

PG Definition

Our state should impose a licensure process in order to assure accountability and responsibility of P.G. practitioners. 2c.gif

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Jan 12 2018, 02:37 AM
Post #2


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



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.
QUOTE
Architects - 12-25-301. General provisions. The regulatory authority established by this part 3 is necessary to safeguard the life, health, property and public welfare of the people of this state and to protect them against unauthorized, unqualified and improper practice of architecture.

QUOTE
Engineers - 12-25-101. General provisions. In order to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote the public welfare, the practice of engineering is hereby declared to be subject to regulation in the public interest.

I am a licensed Professional Land Surveyor and a Professional Geologist in the state of Colorado. The requirements for obtaining a license as a PLS in Colorado consist of education, experience and examination. The requirements for being a Professional Geologist in Colorado consist of education and experience requirements. The powers that be have determined that licensure is not required for geologists. Many geologists will acquire certification in one or more disciplines of geology. Professional societies often provide the certification which can be more onerous that a licensing route. In other cases like California, a geologist can first become a licensed Professional Geologist and then obtain state certifications in Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology. A "simple" PG is forbidden from practicing in those two subdisciplines without the state certifications.

All 50 states require architects, engineers and surveyors to be licensed. It appears from the initial post that 20 other states side with Colorado in not having a requirement that geologists be licensed.

Mr. Tonko, If you really believe that this should be changed, I suggest that you contact the Colorado Geological Survey and get their insights regarding why Colorado decided to only require education and experience requirements for Professional Geologists. Or, perhaps you should consider petitioning your state senator and/or state representative to get the law changed. In my view the education and experience requirements are better than no requirements which would allow anyone with no formal training or professional experience to pronounce that they are skilled geologists.

Edit to add: I hope that GeoMatt weighs in with his opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cameron
post Jan 12 2018, 06:03 PM
Post #3


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 28-December 17
Member No.: 139,419



Edit: totally missed the point. Just ignore this post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Jan 12 2018, 10:21 PM
Post #4


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



[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)


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Jan 14 2018, 12:45 PM
Post #5


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



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. GAAP 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 registration board in Arizona. 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 recent example 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Jan 14 2018, 01:55 PM
Post #6


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



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


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Jan 14 2018, 04:10 PM
Post #7


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



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.
"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Jan 14 2018, 05:24 PM
Post #8


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Jan 14 2018, 03:10 PM) *
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.
"?


Gene,

I started the thread here because Professional Geologist is defined under Colorado Statute...a state law. Thank you for the suggestion as to where to file complaints.

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Jan 15 2018, 10:58 PM
Post #9


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Jan 14 2018, 03:10 PM) *
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.


I didn't mean to step on your cord Gene. The folks down at New Mexico School of Mines in Soccorro would probably disagree with your assumption about who is a geologist but I'm not sure the Sandhill School of Geology would recognize the credentials of such a small unknown school as Soccorro. Besides I'm just a visiting geologist there these days.

This being an open forum and the discussion being about Professional Geologists and Registration and me having direct experience in Geology and in the law (Stanford) and Horticulture (Cal State Fresno) I felt some comments on those subjects, their relationships and my direct extended experience with them might present a slightly different perspective to the subject.

I see you hooked on the geologist thing and it appears you took it personally. It certainly wasn't intended to be personal so please forgive me if my perspective offended you. That was never my intent. I have since become aware that you have been discussing geologists on another thread. I was unaware of that discussion and I was not attempting to influence that discussion with my previous post in this thread.

I know that geologists like to rely on their extensive knowledge and use of the hard sciences in their profession and some even seem to conflate that practice and use as being geology science. It's a flexible language.

I don't know when you went to school but back in my days Tectonic Plate theory was very controversial. I'm sure you can think of other Hypotheses that were struggling on the edge of Theory back then. Most have since passed from favor. Without ever being capable of demonstrating a proof Tectonic Plate theory is now taught as established "science" and the foundation of Geology. I guess democracy passes for scientific method these days. It worked for psychiatry so why not geology?

Please take note that I am not challenging Tectonic Plate Theory itself. I am only pointing out the fallacy of founding a science on a recent unprovable theory when the "science" itself has historically relied for it's foundation on several other theories that are no longer in favor. Heck even the name Geology is being discarded in favor of "Earth Sciences" to more accurately reflect the range of hard sciences that form this field of study.

As far as understanding the thoughts of Geologists I'm guessing you missed the part of my post where I admitted publicly that "I work with a lot of geologists"? Strangely not one of them has taken personal offense at my thoughts on the science of Geology. Maybe working closely and depending on my judgement and knowledge to help them puts them more at ease and open minded when that subject comes up.

I'm not sure how involved in the industry you are these days Gene but the "science" of Geology has lost interest with young people seeking an education in a professional field. Fewer schools are offering solid Geology degrees each year. This has led to an ongoing struggle with academics taking different points of view on just how to revive interest in "rocks". Here is just one of the many ongoing discussions about this problem. Notice that the professional participants in this and most other discussions have come to the common point of view that Geology is practiced through the use of "hard science" disciplines. The assumption logically and experientially is that Geology is not a "hard science" in and of itself. I'm guessing the alternative is soft science? I prefer the term "field of study" but that may be too many words to be convenient when text messaging. It's a flexible language.

Moving on to the Elephant in the "Geology is a Science" room will you even attempt to address the language deficit? Sciences have a language. Each Science builds it's own terminology that eventually becomes the agreed and established language of that science. Chemistry has a language, Physics has a language, Math has a language. Even psychiatry and humanities have languages that deal with the objects and concepts in their realm.

Now, as a Geologist, describe the geology of a typical graywacke/serpentine interface in a notational language that every geologist can recognize and concur in the details of that description. You can't and neither can any other geologist. There is no unified geologic classification language and there probably never will be. Not only is the foundation of geology built on the acceptance of unverifiable theories but the language of geology is fragmented and as individual as it's practitioners. Please don't assume that fact as amounting to a "negative opinion" of Geology on my part. Sometimes facts may seem harsh but I'm just stating a fact, not my opinion. My opinion is that the field of study sometimes referred to as geology is vast and constantly appealing to me.

I work with real life geologists and one of the first realities of each project is coming to an understanding of that particular geologist's notation. Typically associated groups of geologists have very similar notation but working with another associated group requires a new language session - sometimes even when the subject location is the same. A lot of this can often be worked out through experience and assumption but in the end the language of geology is not something you can put in a book and assume that, without further explanation, 50 years from now working geologists can know what you meant.

I understand why there isn't a unified Geology classification but it just circles back to the very nature of geologists and their work. If that's offensive to you please try to understand that to many geologists it's just an expression of a vast field of study. They take pleasure in the fact that the deposits or structures they are studying are unique in more ways than they are similar to others they could study. They prefer to define their discoveries in a manner that is self cohesive and often self referencing. To them there is more precision and depth in participating in a field of study rather than a defined science. Geologists get to be chemists, physicists and practice hard science while working in a field of study generally referred to as Geology. To my way of thinking that's a lot more interesting and invigorating that being stuck with working in an undefined "science" without a common language.

______

So that is the nature of discourse on or off the internet. You offer a point of view backed by your reasoning (and hopefully some facts) to support your point of view. I counter with my point of view backed by my reasoning (and hopefully some facts) to support my point of view. If we both commit to the discourse with honor we will eventually find we agree on some common points and perhaps disagree on some other points. We end our discourse, as gentlemen do, and consider the discourse as a whole does enrich us individually. Otherwise why engage in discourse at all?

Taking another's written point of view as being so offensive as to be worthy only of scorn and derision of the individual is not discourse. Generally when reacted to, as you just did, it's really just a veiled ad hominem "argument". Leaving the discourse without relevant reply is generally considered to be a capitulation - not a statement of self worth. Trying to trump the views of others with claims of superiority can really only devolve into "mines' bigger than yours" slap fights. Not mature, instructive or productive.

You obviously feel passionate about this subject. I could only guess why that is since you found the experience so upsetting you had to leave the discussion. I'll be a gentleman and not speculate further on your reasoning. In the meantime please consider that the internet is full of ***holes. If you don't want to be bothered by ***holes in life you might want to consider not engaging them with promises of reasonable discourse. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GeoMatt
post Jan 18 2018, 12:06 PM
Post #10


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 28-July 14
From: Evergreen
Member No.: 117,968



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. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Jan 18 2018, 04:24 PM
Post #11


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



Excellent considered reply GeoMatt. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective. You are an asset to this forum. thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

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 scientific method 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 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 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. huh.gif

Claiming Plate Tectonics as the unifying theory of geology 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Jan 18 2018, 05:54 PM
Post #12


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



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)


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EMac
post Jan 19 2018, 04:11 PM
Post #13


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 875
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



QUOTE (ASTROBLEME @ Jan 11 2018, 10:11 PM) *
Our state should impose a licensure process in order to assure accountability and responsibility of P.G. practitioners. 2c.gif


Have you changed your mind?


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Jan 19 2018, 04:52 PM
Post #14


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



QUOTE (EMac @ Jan 19 2018, 03:11 PM) *
Have you changed your mind?

Yes, I have changed my mind. thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

I've been convinced that our State wouldn't see much benefit by granting any credibility to this profession. The employer must be responsible to make a determination as who to hire or fire, not the State of Colorado.

ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal is a good source to find the experts to suit one's needs in the mining industry.

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EMac
post Jan 19 2018, 05:20 PM
Post #15


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 875
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



I too am a firm believer in caveat emptor.


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
7 User(s) are reading this topic (7 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 12:53 PM