[roc-chat] Re: Launch site.
- From: "Ken Curran" <rocket1dog@xxxxxxx>
- To: <roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:53:47 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Cool your jets there. Why then does the BLM rep say otherwise?
-------Original Message-------
From: David Erbas-White
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
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:
