PLSO July/August 2019

2 The Oregon Surveyor | Vol. 42, No. 4 From the Editor Greg Crites, PLS Editor MESSAGE EDITOR FROM THE We need to practice as if our records will last more than 2000 years, for the sake of future generations or, in lieu of the demise of our civilization, for interstellar travelers who arrive on our planet and wonder what all the obvious evidence of civilization meant. F ollowing up on my editorial appear- ing in the last issue, I felt it was time to take the opportunity to use my recent travels in Italy as a means of em- phasizing an issue that I consider very important to our profession. I might characterize the subject as it relates to preservation of evidence, but I believe it’s deeper than that! Froman archaeological perspective, some- thing which you simply can’t ignore upon returning from a country as old as Italy, is how it seems that life there is centered around a respect for all things ancient, and not just those structures left by the Ro- mans. Our guide, while touring the streets of Rome, readily pointed out significant archaeological sites, many dating back more than 2000 years. Though I was not allowed to enter, I did get the opportuni- ty to stand at the entrance to an Etruscan tomb and gaze down a corridor of stone steps cut into the native rock formation. As much as I would have liked to enter the tomb and get a sense of how the work must have been done so long ago using such primitive methods and tools, I was prevented from doing so, thankfully, by the government’s desire to protect and preserve the structure. I don’t need to mention that I am not an archaeologist, but I am a surveyor, and most surveyors I know are very much interested in old things, particularly re- lating to boundary objects and records of their creation, so there is a significant commonality in our perspectives. Sur- veyors, needless to say, like to know the origin of monuments, especially if their provenance is questionable. When I was a practicing surveyor, nothing galled me more than searching for amissing bound- ary marker only to find an iron pipe or other type of “monument” that was not of record or even improperly described in the record. It can be maddening to sort out those inconsistencies, especially if the boundary you’re tasked with resolv- ing will be litigated. Sitting on the witness stand, you may be called upon to defend your decision to reject or accept a found monument in front of a jury who has no idea of your means, methods or rationale (something which the opposing attorney will surely attempt to leverage if it serves a purpose). They have no perspective on how you reach decisions, thinking only that because you’re working for either the plaintiff or defendant, your decision must be biased by that relationship. After all, howmany times have you been asked to change your decision on the location of a boundary line because the client (or adjoiner) doesn’t like the outcome? Whether we care to admit it or not, we live in a world based upon facts. As you know, especially with the current political climate, even facts are now considered du- bious, whichmakes our frustrationmeter enter the red zone when our acceptance of them (based upon solid evidence) is called into question, or outright not be- lieved. An unbroken (consistent) chain of evidence is fairly unassailable in defend- ing our boundary decisions, which finally brings me to the point; a good narrative can be our greatest ally when sitting on the witness stand defending our deci- sions. Some of my readers have had the experience of following in my footsteps on one of my records of survey and I’ve sometimes seen that askance look and the shoulder shrug, with perhaps even a smile, when they recall my seemingly effusive narratives describing my means and methods. Though I didn’t get overly verbose unless the situation warrant- ed, I always felt a good narrative meant thoroughly explaining myself in arriving at a boundary solution. Consequently, it was my hope that sometime in the fu- ture, when questions arose regarding a