All, A couple of items as I see it: 1) It's logical that the Forest Service is attempting to protect their natural meadows. The "no driving on meadows" stipulation seems to have beenaround for a long time. From what I have heard, we were given a temporary pass on this for setting up and taking down equipment in the past. My assumption is that the "no driving on meadows" stipulation trumps the new 300' rule. 2) It would seem the new ranger (female - name unknown - referred to by Don at the meeting) may not be as "flexible" as the previous ranger (the gentleman we have seen/spoke with numerous times in the area). Perhaps her interpretation of "the meadow" differs from the previous ranger. I don't know exactly where Don was set up but if he was partially in the meadow per the interpretation of the female ranger I can see why this was an issue for her. Per the MVUM, it would seem that this area is still open to dispersed camping. Perhaps a call to the CNF Ranger District is in order for clarification. 3) Per the Coconino National Forest website: "The new travel management rulesonly affect motor vehicle use, therefore you can still camp where you had before. In areas with the dot notation, you can drive up to 300 feet fromthe road to car camp. On routes without the notation you can park one vehicle length from the road (~30 feet) and either camp there or walk to a campsite further from the road." Yes, I agree that approximately 30' from the roadway isn't much, however, it opens up many more areas to us (includingRick Tejera's spot as mentioned in previous posts today), as opposed to only those with the 300' dispersed camping rule. Of course, thismay mean that we may have to walk further set up, and use, our telescopesbut a little exercise would do us all some good. 4) Having a few "new" or "alternate" spots is never a bad thing. Just my thoughts... Chris On 8/18/2013 12:13 PM, Tom Polakis wrote: ---- "David M. Douglass" <dmdouglass@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I responded that I knew that location, and have used it several times. It is among my favorites, and it is/was a good one, with some conditions. Among those, I said that we COULD NOT use the meadow. I think Tom did an excellent job of explaining why (the 300' rule). I had left that out. Just for the record, I do not endorse the notion that we CAN NOT use the meadow. I posted the two images to illustrate that we are very near, and maybe slightly beyond the limit. Perhaps these photos and some knowledge of the Forest Service's policycould be used to argue our case to stay at the meadow, if that's what we want. It seems like there is a lot of scurrying around to find a new site.If we're going to bother with that, I'd recommend a place that's slightly above the surrounding terrain (i.e. not another meadow), which wouldoffer better seeing, and nighttime low temperatures that are at least 10degrees warmer. I know, that's a tall order when you're trying to find a flat place for a couple dozen observers to set up. If we accept compromised horizons in every direction but south, perhaps it's doable. Tom -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list. --- Links --- 1 mailto:dmdouglass@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.