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: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Your Thoughts on the Future of the DXCC Program  (Read 4706 times)
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2013, 02:30:55 PM »

Would this island qualify for deletion under the current DXCC rules?

http://www.yv0.info/dean/dean.htm

73,
Jonathan W6GX

If its under the minimum size rule it might . . .

Is BS7 also questionable in terms of whether it meets the size requirement?  Does anyone review this stuff on a regular basis?

73,
Jonathan W6GX

The deal with BS7 is that it was "grandfathered in". The reason they grandfathered in so many when they re-wrote the rules in 1998 or so - is that if they didn't, they would have lost a ton of entities. There are many entities on the list that wouldn't be entities today if all had to adhere to the current rules.

The rules were re-written almost because of BS7 alone. That one was so hotly contested - it got really controversial.

There were three major re-writes in DXCC history - after WWII, sometime around 1970 - after the Don Miller lawsuit against the ARRL - that was dropped, and then in 1998 - this time due to the BS7 debacle.
Logged
W6GX
Member

Posts: 2326




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2013, 02:32:55 PM »

I believe the DXCC needs stability and one cannot just delete a country because there is little or zero possibility of activating it.  I don't have P5 and what's the challenge if P5 is off the list?

73,
Jonathan W6GX

If there is a slight probability and it is an existing DXCC entity it should stay on the list but if there is ZERO probability of activation what is the purpose of keeping it on the list?  Zero means no chance.

If the USFWS issued a press release on Monday that said no human's would ever again be allowed on Johnston Island that island should come off the DXCC list.  If another administration put pressure on the USFWS and changed the rules it could always be put back on the DXCC list. They have already done that with Southern Sudan. I worked them in the late 80's or early 90's, they were deleted, and now they are back on the list. Why couldn't that happen with an island under USFWS jurisdiction?

73,

Chris/NU1O

I don't like the idea of removing a country based on projected activity. I don't think anyone could predict the future. 7O is a good example.  If 7O were not on the list the dxpedition wouldn't have happened, right?  USFWS rules are put in place forever. Lastly, it would be a disservice to those that worked a rare entity that is now off the list due to lack of projected activity.

73,
Jonathan W6GX

Logged
W6GX
Member

Posts: 2326




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2013, 02:46:07 PM »

Would this island qualify for deletion under the current DXCC rules?

http://www.yv0.info/dean/dean.htm

73,
Jonathan W6GX

If its under the minimum size rule it might . . .

Is BS7 also questionable in terms of whether it meets the size requirement?  Does anyone review this stuff on a regular basis?

73,
Jonathan W6GX

The deal with BS7 is that it was "grandfathered in". The reason they grandfathered in so many when they re-wrote the rules in 1998 or so - is that if they didn't, they would have lost a ton of entities. There are many entities on the list that wouldn't be entities today if all had to adhere to the current rules.

The rules were re-written almost because of BS7 alone. That one was so hotly contested - it got really controversial.

There were three major re-writes in DXCC history - after WWII, sometime around 1970 - after the Don Miller lawsuit against the ARRL - that was dropped, and then in 1998 - this time due to the BS7 debacle.

Thanks.

Personally I'd rather not see any entities get deleted.  If there's uncertainty around deletion candidates then no one would try to activate them.

Jonathan W6GX
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2013, 02:50:13 PM »

I believe the DXCC needs stability and one cannot just delete a country because there is little or zero possibility of activating it.  I don't have P5 and what's the challenge if P5 is off the list?

73,
Jonathan W6GX

If there is a slight probability and it is an existing DXCC entity it should stay on the list but if there is ZERO probability of activation what is the purpose of keeping it on the list?  Zero means no chance.

If the USFWS issued a press release on Monday that said no human's would ever again be allowed on Johnston Island that island should come off the DXCC list.  If another administration put pressure on the USFWS and changed the rules it could always be put back on the DXCC list. They have already done that with Southern Sudan. I worked them in the late 80's or early 90's, they were deleted, and now they are back on the list. Why couldn't that happen with an island under USFWS jurisdiction?

73,

Chris/NU1O





It gets really weird with some of these - sometimes it takes an unraveling of several rules to delete something.

One example is that it change jurisdiction - like transfer of control from US Navy to US F&W. The second is minimum size rule, third is distance from another like entity.

Kingman Reef is one that meets all of these, and Arne, Chairperson of the DXAC told me that he thought it was clear enough that the ARRL would not even have to ask the DXAC to study this.

Now - there is also a clause that has something to do with the reason it was grandfathered and put on the list in 1998, and that's where I get lost. I am a computer programmer - and the logic with the DXCC rules starts reading like an endless loop here.

I asked Bill Moore about Kingman Reef - and he said they will be looking into it.

So - there is that one clause that I just don't understand.

I do know that they are being very careful - because some of these - if they are deleted could start a snowball effect on others.

If you go back and read all of the old QST's - there were several times someone wanted to add a clause where if something wasn't activated in "N" years, that it was removed from the list. That never flew.

Sometimes I think they should just have medallions like they have stickers. You are eligible for a plaque when you hit 300, then you get medallions when you get each 5 increments.

I think I felt like I "made the grade" more at 300 than I do now with 331. I'd almost rather see something like the "300 Club", and from there - your bragging rights are attending the DX conventions where they do the "Last Man Standing".

When I go to Visalia and see a guy standing with 375 entities or more - that's when I drop to my knees and yell "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!" . . .

And that 375 includes a ton of deletes - but you know what - they worked em'! You can take an achievement away - so I think the Delete idea is still silly - but maybe needed because if a country splits in 2 or 3 or more - then you'd have to delete the originals and add in the new ones - especially since some of the prefixes are re-assigned and still used. It could get really confusing I guess.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 02:53:48 PM by KY6R » Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2013, 03:05:13 PM »

I believe the DXCC needs stability and one cannot just delete a country because there is little or zero possibility of activating it.  I don't have P5 and what's the challenge if P5 is off the list?

73,
Jonathan W6GX

If there is a slight probability and it is an existing DXCC entity it should stay on the list but if there is ZERO probability of activation what is the purpose of keeping it on the list?  Zero means no chance.

If the USFWS issued a press release on Monday that said no human's would ever again be allowed on Johnston Island that island should come off the DXCC list.  If another administration put pressure on the USFWS and changed the rules it could always be put back on the DXCC list. They have already done that with Southern Sudan. I worked them in the late 80's or early 90's, they were deleted, and now they are back on the list. Why couldn't that happen with an island under USFWS jurisdiction?

73,

Chris/NU1O





In California, our ex-Governor "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown was very much into the environmental laws - the main one CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). My wife is a CEQA expert and works for URS, a large construction firm. She said that droves of people are hired by companies who want to build to create documents that will help get projects going. They have to jump through many hoops.

When Jerry Brown was mayor of Oakland, he had to fight CEQA to try to improve Oakland and revive it through building and making it a livable place. He actually did a really great job.

From that he learned there needs to be balance - and an overhaul of CEQA could happen. One of the best things they have done in the Bay Area is take old abandoned industrial sites and renovate and create what is called "Infill Housing" - thus revitalizing an urban wasteland.

Environmental law and access rights can change as quickly as they did - to make these places virtually inaccessible. Heck - maybe one day the US Military will have to rebuild bases in the Pacific - and all of a sudden you will see all of these active again.

Now - getting to anything in the "Roaring 40's" - that's a different story . . . the expense of that is just staggering these days - and I don't ever see it getting cheaper - unless Bouvet Becomes a Beach Resort Destination!

Even there - maybe the deal will be - go find a major corporate sponsor or scientific "mission" ? ? ? ? ? ?

time will tell.

I think the biggest changes will come when the Baby Boomers get up there in age and stop DX-ing. Its a numbers thing.
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2603




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2013, 03:33:55 PM »

USFWS rules are put in place forever. Lastly, it would be a disservice to those that worked a rare entity that is now off the list due to lack of projected activity.

73,
Jonathan W6GX

Are you certain of that?  The USFWS is an agency of the federal government. They can't make a law.  The only way to make a law is to start with a bill in the House, both House and Senate agree on it, and finally the president signs the bill into law.

From administartion to administaration I'm constantly seeing changes in agency policy depending upon the political views of the party in power.

I think it would be entirely possible for one administration to say no more people on island XYZ and for the following administration to reverse that policy.

73,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
WB3CQM
Member

Posts: 116




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2013, 03:46:23 PM »

I also have a list of those that should be deleted. To me the JOKE of all JOKES is working NYC UN building for a new one. Give me a break!

My solution to Johnson Island and the rest is real simple . Amend the rules and   let a boat or ship anchor within the distance of this USFW off limit island that is allowed. Then you NEVER have to delete this off limit island. But hey if you guys and gals want to delete it -go for it -

If I know in my mind that no one will ever be allowed to set foot on Johnson Island , But yet I can work a DX expedition 500 yards off the coast of Johnson I would still be happy with the contact.

When it comes down to it no one cares I have DXCC-CW no#777 or rather I work 100 or 340 . It only means something to me !

I my self could care less if I die and never work P5 IF  They Never Activate P5 , otherwise I would be upset ::lol:: After all I got BS7H on the wall. ( I sure don't want that one deleted ) ::smile::

73 JIM



Logged
KE8G
Member

Posts: 151




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2013, 03:54:28 PM »

I guess I really don't understand the "disservice" being done to someone who worked a country and then have it deleted.  Did the person not work the country?  It's not like that QSO is completely removed from memory; like wiping a disc clean.  The contact was still made, information exchanged, so it happened.

I have worked quite a few countries that no longer exist, I do not feel slighted because they were removed from the DXCC list.  I worked them, I have them confirmed, so I am satisfied.  I guess this is just another area in DXing that I have a difference of opinion.

But, I do have to say, I respect all the comments being made, even if they are not in line with my thinking!  That is the great thing about these forums.

73 de Jim - KE8G
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2013, 04:02:15 PM »

I also have a list of those that should be deleted. To me the JOKE of all JOKES is working NYC UN building for a new one. Give me a break!

My solution to Johnson Island and the rest is real simple . Amend the rules and   let a boat or ship anchor within the distance of this USFW off limit island that is allowed. Then you NEVER have to delete this off limit island. But hey if you guys and gals want to delete it -go for it -

If I know in my mind that no one will ever be allowed to set foot on Johnson Island , But yet I can work a DX expedition 500 yards off the coast of Johnson I would still be happy with the contact.

When it comes down to it no one cares I have DXCC-CW no#777 or rather I work 100 or 340 . It only means something to me !

I my self could care less if I die and never work P5 IF  They Never Activate P5 , otherwise I would be upset ::lol:: After all I got BS7H on the wall. ( I sure don't want that one deleted ) ::smile::

73 JIM





The funniest thing about the program is how when it started in 1937, they simply looked at an IARU countries list and said - that's it. They even worried about how much space a DXCC list would take up in QST - so they limited it. I really like the first article by Clinton DeSoto . .

They did one wacky thing and tried to then make the zones in each country count as an entity. That failed though - and they didn't adopt it since many countries only had one zone!

And at the time - US possession - islands didn't even have call prefixes, so they couldn't be "countries".

But, in 1938, the FCC assigned prefixes to US Island Possessions. Many of these were all part of the US Guano Company or something or other - and I am sure their marketing phrase said something about the quality of their "Good Sh*t" . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

That crap led to a clambering to all of a sudden go from pure "countries" to "entities".

Which means DX-ers got clever trying to add in new entities right from the start.

The charm in the program to me is all of the back stories on how these entities became entities. Its a strange brew for sure - and one that I think would be really tricky to unravel and try to make 100% logical.

It is logically illogical . . .
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2603




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2013, 04:18:42 PM »

I also have a list of those that should be deleted. To me the JOKE of all JOKES is working NYC UN building for a new one. Give me a break!

My solution to Johnson Island and the rest is real simple . Amend the rules and   let a boat or ship anchor within the distance of this USFW off limit island that is allowed. Then you NEVER have to delete this off limit island. But hey if you guys and gals want to delete it -go for it -

If I know in my mind that no one will ever be allowed to set foot on Johnson Island , But yet I can work a DX expedition 500 yards off the coast of Johnson I would still be happy with the contact.

When it comes down to it no one cares I have DXCC-CW no#777 or rather I work 100 or 340 . It only means something to me !

I my self could care less if I die and never work P5 IF  They Never Activate P5 , otherwise I would be upset ::lol:: After all I got BS7H on the wall. ( I sure don't want that one deleted ) ::smile::

73 JIM
When I got my KH3 card it was from John Bartlett, KH3AE. John sent me a QSL for a 20 year old QSO, he included a photograph of the island, and he said I was very fortunate to have worked it because the USFWS now has jurisdiction over it and there will never be hams operating from the island again.

From his QRZ page here is a little info about John:

"Operator John was the Resident DOE Site Manager for Johnston Atoll Base Operations 1990-93."

"Operator John was also the custodian for the official Johnston Island Radio Club Station KJ6BZ until shortly before the Island was decommissioned and returned to the native bird population in 2003."

I think his credentials speak for themself.  If John says the island will not be activated again I assume he knows what he's talking about.

73,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2603




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2013, 04:23:00 PM »

The funniest thing about the program is how when it started in 1937, they simply looked at an IARU countries list and said - that's it. They even worried about how much space a DXCC list would take up in QST - so they limited it. I really like the first article by Clinton DeSoto . .

They did one wacky thing and tried to then make the zones in each country count as an entity. That failed though - and they didn't adopt it since many countries only had one zone!

And at the time - US possession - islands didn't even have call prefixes, so they couldn't be "countries".

But, in 1938, the FCC assigned prefixes to US Island Possessions. Many of these were all part of the US Guano Company or something or other - and I am sure their marketing phrase said something about the quality of their "Good Sh*t" . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

That crap led to a clambering to all of a sudden go from pure "countries" to "entities".

Which means DX-ers got clever trying to add in new entities right from the start.

The charm in the program to me is all of the back stories on how these entities became entities. Its a strange brew for sure - and one that I think would be really tricky to unravel and try to make 100% logical.

It is logically illogical . . .
Rich,

It's too bad for you there is not a big audience for this history.  You are a walking encyclopedia and could make a fortune on the topic if it appealed to the masses!

73,

Chris/NU1O

Logged
WB3CQM
Member

Posts: 116




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2013, 04:32:46 PM »

I guess I really don't understand the "disservice" being done to someone who worked a country and then have it deleted.  Did the person not work the country?  It's not like that QSO is completely removed from memory; like wiping a disc clean.  The contact was still made, information exchanged, so it happened.

I have worked quite a few countries that no longer exist, I do not feel slighted because they were removed from the DXCC list.  I worked them, I have them confirmed, so I am satisfied.  I guess this is just another area in DXing that I have a difference of opinion.

But, I do have to say, I respect all the comments being made, even if they are not in line with my thinking!  That is the great thing about these forums.

73 de Jim - KE8G

I agree with you Jim /KE8G

KY6R thanks for info and good topics posted

Chris /NU1O also thanks for info.

73 JIM

Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2162




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2013, 06:12:28 PM »

I guess I really don't understand the "disservice" being done to someone who worked a country and then have it deleted.  Did the person not work the country?  It's not like that QSO is completely removed from memory; like wiping a disc clean.  The contact was still made, information exchanged, so it happened.

I have worked quite a few countries that no longer exist, I do not feel slighted because they were removed from the DXCC list.  I worked them, I have them confirmed, so I am satisfied.  I guess this is just another area in DXing that I have a difference of opinion.

But, I do have to say, I respect all the comments being made, even if they are not in line with my thinking!  That is the great thing about these forums.

73 de Jim - KE8G

They are removed from the current list - but they are always there and they always count for your DXCC total. No, not for Honor Roll or Challenge, but they are there. Your own bit of history there in your QSL card collection. I wish I had got my license when I first got interested in radio as a young teenager. 
Logged
W6GX
Member

Posts: 2326




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2013, 06:38:18 PM »

USFWS rules are put in place forever. Lastly, it would be a disservice to those that worked a rare entity that is now off the list due to lack of projected activity.

73,
Jonathan W6GX

Are you certain of that?  The USFWS is an agency of the federal government. They can't make a law.  The only way to make a law is to start with a bill in the House, both House and Senate agree on it, and finally the president signs the bill into law.

From administartion to administaration I'm constantly seeing changes in agency policy depending upon the political views of the party in power.

I think it would be entirely possible for one administration to say no more people on island XYZ and for the following administration to reverse that policy.

73,

Chris/NU1O

I did a fat finger.  I meant to say "USFWS rules are NOT put in place forever".

73,
Jonathan W6GX
Logged
W6GX
Member

Posts: 2326




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2013, 06:52:34 PM »

I guess I really don't understand the "disservice" being done to someone who worked a country and then have it deleted.  Did the person not work the country?  It's not like that QSO is completely removed from memory; like wiping a disc clean.  The contact was still made, information exchanged, so it happened.

I have worked quite a few countries that no longer exist, I do not feel slighted because they were removed from the DXCC list.  I worked them, I have them confirmed, so I am satisfied.  I guess this is just another area in DXing that I have a difference of opinion.

But, I do have to say, I respect all the comments being made, even if they are not in line with my thinking!  That is the great thing about these forums.

73 de Jim - KE8G

I was referring specifically to countries that got deleted due to inactivity.  The deleted countries that you worked were not deleted due to inactivity.  More specifically, I was referring to P5, XZ and E3.  Imagine one day ARRL decides to delete these three countries.  If you had worked them and then see them being deleted because there's no chance for others hams to work them, do you see this as a way to level the playing field?  I would not.

73,
Jonathan W6GX
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 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!