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 > > > > > > >