[roc-chat] Re: Launch site.

  • From: David Erbas-White <derbas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:43:18 -0700

On 5/10/2012 3:38 PM, Ken Curran wrote:

Yes, you are wrong.

The requirements for the permit, which includes both NAR and Tripoli insurance, as well as CA regulations in terms of California Pyrotechnic licensing, are that the permission of the landowner be obtained.

Portions of the area we have been using are NOT BLM land, thus BLM can't grant us permission. Therefore, the launch site must be fully ON BLM land, which means the site has to move.

...and before someone suggest we contact the current (private) landowners for permission, I would remind them of the aphorism about sleeping dogs...

David Erbas-White


I agree with Wedge. _/*Who*/_ has required that the Launch site be moved and on what basis is a fair question that deserves a complete answer. 'Cause isn't really an answer.
Just me, and I could be wrong.
/-------Original Message-------/
/*From:*/ Wedge Oldham <mailto:wedgeoldham@xxxxxxxxx>
/*Date:*/ 5/9/2012 6:54:13 PM
/*To:*/ roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
/*Subject:*/ [roc-chat] Re: Launch site.

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat


        


Other related posts: