Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kingman Reef Should Be Deleted  (Read 4089 times)
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« on: November 24, 2012, 02:26:38 PM »

Kingman Reef was added to the DXCC list under jurisdiction of the US Navy, and that changed years ago (2008 I think) - when the reef was changed to be under US F&W jurisdiction, and by decree of the Bush Administration - that it be part of a National Marine Sanctuary. This means that the reason it was "grandfathered in" has expired and no longer is valid.

Correct me if I am wrong.

73,

Rich
KY6R
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 899




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2012, 02:49:38 PM »

Think I saw this before??

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,83921.0.html
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2012, 04:13:23 PM »

Yep - and no one can get permission to land on Kingman Reef - not now or ever. Scarborough has a greater chance of being activated. Navassa has a greater chance of being activated. plus - neither of these had a "jurisdiction change".

I'm actually a "super optimist", but this one has me saying the word "never". And I would sign up and pay good money to go to Kingman Reef is it could be activated.

I'd love to be corrected on this one . . . I never did get a good answer on the jurisdiction change and then when I did my DXCC Sleuth piece on the entity - why the 2000 K5K Team had to have a lawyer intervene to get permission that was at first granted and then revoked as they were sailing on their way there.

Palmyra has a much better chance of being activated because it is under the Nature Conservancy jurisdiction. When the jurisdiction changed from US Navy to US F&W for Kingman and Navy to Nature Conservancy for Palmyra, the "distance rule" between Palmyra and Kingman Reef no longer applied. They are too close to each other.

The rule that had them grandfathered in has expired for Kingman. Palmyra probably still qualifies to be on the list as it is far enough away from Hawaii.

If you want to see something odd - go to Flickr and search for Kingman Reef - and you will see divers who go there (probably illegally) and take pictures of the spit of shells - and of them diving in the reef - which I understand has the equivalent "cache" as a DXCC Entity does - but for diving. I think its called a Gold Site or something.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 05:12:17 PM by KY6R » Logged
W6GX
Member

Posts: 2313




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2012, 05:53:27 PM »

From the USFW website.

Visiting Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Kingman NWR is managed as a no-take marine protected area and is closed to the public. The Service does permit research and biological surveys on the refuge to further the understanding of the natural resources and to improve the management of these natural resources on the refuge or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge access is managed through the issuance of a Special Use Permit when the activity is deemed compatible and appropriate with the purposes of refuge establishment.

Here's a journal about a visit in 2005 by one of the oceanography research teams.  If there's a chance then it would be one of those research/ham expeditions.

http://sio.ucsd.edu/lineislands/journal/0825/

73,
Jonathan W6GX
Logged
N6PSE
Member

Posts: 497


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2012, 05:58:40 PM »

The latest show stopper is that they won't allow generators or fuel on the reef. Same with Johnston island.  Pretty hard to run a DXpedition without power.
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2012, 06:14:19 PM »

Solar trickle charged auto batteries with 100 watts from each rig?

Logged
W6GX
Member

Posts: 2313




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2012, 06:59:49 PM »

The latest show stopper is that they won't allow generators or fuel on the reef. Same with Johnston island.  Pretty hard to run a DXpedition without power.

What about propane generators where there's no chance of fuel spillage?  Propane also runs cleaner from an air pollution perspective.

Solar power could work but it would take a lot of panels and batteries to satisfy the electrical demand from a large scale operation.  I imagine the minimum demand would be something like 5-7kw.

73,
Jonathan W6GX
Logged
AF5C
Member

Posts: 123




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2012, 07:09:45 PM »

They could set up one station and have Gilligan pedal the stationary bicycle really fast.

John AF5CC
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2012, 07:27:08 PM »

I'll ask my old boss, Larry Ellison if he would buy these islands so we can have DX-peditions again  Grin
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2012, 05:06:22 AM »

Of course - I would MUCH rather have it activated than deleted. I have heard from several people lately that they have tried to get permission for Kingman Reef, but its pretty much impossible.

Then I remember the story where the K5K team had a lawyer argue for permission to land after they had received permission by the US F&W and it was rescinded _while en route_

Campbell Island and Heard Island both have very restrictive rules and regulations about activating those islands - but they at least can be activated.

I wonder why K5D happened - and why that could be activated but Navassa, Kingman Reef and others seem to be totally off limits.

With Kingman Reef - I wonder if its unexploded ordinance or something - just seems odd that even in 2000 the Navy would have freaked out about that team landing there.

National Geographic ran a story on Kingman Reef being one of the most pristine spots left on the planet. I'm all for ecology, and if we want to keep it pristine (I can understand why the US F&W would have a "no fuel" regulation - then, maybe its time to delete it and leave it alone). I can understand why they would let divers go there but not hams.

There certainly have been way more entities added since I started DX-ing in 2001 than deleted. Here is what was added:

Swains
Montenegro
4 "PJ's"
South Sudan
Timor Leste
St. Barthelemy

Here is what was deleted:

R1M
2 "PJ's"

For a net sum INCREASE of 6 entities

There was a concern that Kingman Reef was under water - its not, but there isn't much left to set up on - that's for sure. I could see why sanitary concerns would also enter into all of this.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2012, 05:33:47 AM by KY6R » Logged
AF5C
Member

Posts: 123




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2012, 06:20:24 AM »

Timor was added before 2001.  I worked it back in 2000 and it was on the list then.

John AF5CC
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2012, 06:39:47 AM »

Timor was added before 2001.  I worked it back in 2000 and it was on the list then.

John AF5CC

Good catch - you are right.

Make that 5 added entities net total since 2001.
Logged
K3NRX
Member

Posts: 1968


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2012, 11:01:14 AM »

The latest show stopper is that they won't allow generators or fuel on the reef. Same with Johnston island.  Pretty hard to run a DXpedition without power.

Wow!...Johnston Island is off limits too?.....Man I am glad I got that one back in 1989......Seriously, though, if the government (from anywhere, not just the US) are going to go forward with clamping down on human activity on these remote places, then they should be removed from the list......The additions to the list far out weigh the deletions from it in recent history.....I personally think it's time to reassess and reconsider what the qualifications are for the DXCC list and to be a DXCC entity....my personal belief is that an entity should be solid earth....with a reasonable (sane) square foot percentage of solid terra ferma to actually walk on....PERIOD...not just a pile of pebbles or jagged rocks in the water that just happens to be X number of miles from the nearst country/island where there is civilization......

..._
_._  ._  ...__  _.  ._.  _.._

« Last Edit: November 25, 2012, 11:17:04 AM by KA3NRX » Logged
W4RS
Member

Posts: 64




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2012, 08:01:35 PM »

in the hunt for dxcc, its sorta like this. their are those who wked bs7, and those who didn't. work it when its there, worry about it later.
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2012, 06:03:54 PM »

I just found out that at high tide, Kingman Reef is under water - just like BS7.

Now I know the REAL reason why the US F&W has been hesitant to issue a landing permit. I also found that even if they do - the travel by ship there is ridiculously expensive.

Of course, BS7H was the last Scarborough Reef activation - which I worked - so I guess maybe we simply have two submerged entities on the list at high tide.

So we have rocks with scaffolds - and now coral and shells with scaffolds (HuhHuh?). Nothing new there . . . . .

http://hamgallery.com/qsl/deleted/Okino_Torishima/7j1rl.htm

How is a scaffold different from a dock - which I understand is not legal to work from - you have to be on terra firma (per the YASME book I read a few years back). Apparently, Danny Weil had one DX-pedition not accepted because he was on a dock instead of on land proper.

I'm confused . . . I guess I shouldn't ask questions . . . .
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 06:51:00 PM by KY6R » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!