[roc-chat] Re: Launch site.

  • From: Brian Morilak <brian.morilak@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:10:09 -0700

I'm not sure aboht the rest of you, but this whole undertaking has been
HIGHLY educational.  I've learned more about United States land
classification in the last month than I have at any other point in my
life.

Check this out: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html#ca
If you click on the California PDF, and zoom in close to our area, you can
see what I can only describe as a CHECKERBOARD of alternating
private/public square miles of land.  I believe our little square group is
directly below the "C" in "George AFB (Closed)"  I am willing to
confidently assume that a signficant portion of the people of our nation
have absolutely NO IDEA whatsoever that our land is classified in such a
diverse way.  Look at Nevada!  It's like 99% Public land!

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ken Curran <rocket1dog@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>     Cool your jets there.  Why then does the BLM rep say otherwise?
>
>
>
>
>  *-------Original Message-------*
>
>  *From:* David Erbas-White <derbas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date:* 5/10/2012 3:43:20 PM
>  *To:* roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [roc-chat] Re: Launch site.
>
> 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 <wedgeoldham@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Date:* 5/9/2012 6:54:13 PM
> *To:* 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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: