Just seems odd to me that after 17 years; and at least 175 launches that "this" has become a problem. Why now? On May 9, 2012 6:49 PM, "David Erbas-White" <derbas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/9/2012 5:05 PM, Allen H Farrington wrote: > > Allen, first off, thanks to you (and the rest of the Board) for all the > great effort and work that you put forth on behalf of ROC. The following > rant is in no way directed at anyone in ROC, or associated with ROC, I just > have to get this off my chest... > > In looking at your attached maps, it appears that three of the four > 'squares' that make up Lucerne Dry Lake have been purchased by private > parties. WTF??? This area has been held by BLM, in trust for the public, > for decades, and has been used for recreational purposes for as long as I > can remember. When, and how, did the BLM get it in their heads that they > could/should sell these lands to private parties? When/where were any > hearings held for interested public members to comment about how keeping > these lands public serves a PUBLIC benefit? > > I've been pissing/moaning for years about how the decline of the > educational system has been degrading our culture. I've been equally > pissing/moaning about how governmental regulation has been doing the same. > But now, on top of this, we see this type of handling of public lands? > > I'm so made I could... I could... well, I was going to say "spit," which > is what my grandmother would have said, but somehow it just doesn't seem > harsh enough... > > David Erbas-White > > > For everyone interested, here is the actual plot of where the traditional >> ROC range head is. We will issue more later but rest assured that we're >> trying hard to minimize the change to the membership. This change was >> prompted to keep most of our recovery area on the BLM "square" of land >> (#26) thus limiting our incursions into privately held land. We're trying >> to minimize our incursions on the private land in order to prevent the need >> for insurance certificates, permission, etc… (per NFPA& CA law, not BLM >> rules) for launching operations. >> >> Based on what we're planning, other than getting to the range head, there >> should be no changes to our camping or OHV policies. >> >> > > -- > ROC-Chat mailing list > roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > //www.freelists.org/list/**roc-chat<//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat> > >