Reefs?


tonydicenzo
 

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)


Andreas Junge
 

Kingman Reef already has been deleted in 2016:


73, Andreas, N6NU


On Sep 19, 2020, at 7:12 AM, tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)


Dick
 

Blenheim was deleted in July 1975, Geyser in Feb 1978 and Minerva
in July 1972.

Kingman Reef may already be under water.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of tonydicenzo <kx1g@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2020 7:12 AM
To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...>
Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Reefs?
 
Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)


bmanning
 

If my notes are correct Kingman Reef, KH5K, was deleted March 29, 2016.

Bruce NJ3K

On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 07:12:17 -0700, tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

-- 
Bruce A. Manning


W0MU
 

Until we get another ice age that takes all the water away? 

On 9/19/2020 8:12 AM, tonydicenzo wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)


Ria, N2RJ
 

Kingman was deleted for a different reason. Specifically, due to
administration changes it became closer to the parent entity.

Ria
N2RJ

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:23 PM Andreas Junge <andreas@...> wrote:

Kingman Reef already has been deleted in 2016:

http://www.arrl.org/news/kingman-reef-kh5-deleted-from-dxcc-list

73, Andreas, N6NU


On Sep 19, 2020, at 7:12 AM, tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)



Ria, N2RJ
 

The rule says:

"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the
surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of
this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two
surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100
meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the
connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a
chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any
island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered
in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part
2 of the criteria.


As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no
longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not
required.

Ria
N2RJ

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)


W3UR Bernie McClenny
 

That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.

Bernie McClenny, W3UR

Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)
The Weekly DX (2001-2020)
How's DX? (1999-2020)

Two week trial -
http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/
https://twitter.com/dailydx
410-489-6518

On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

The rule says:

"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the
surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of
this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two
surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100
meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the
connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a
chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any
island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered
in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part
2 of the criteria.


As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no
longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not
required.

Ria
N2RJ

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)




Ria, N2RJ
 

Hi Bernie,

I referenced that rule because the general rule for deletion is this:


5. Deletion Criteria

a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the Entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List. “


For BS7, the rule says that it is deleted if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Therefore it would seem that we are stuck with it until it is voted off the list. 


However this rule means that other entities that were added because they qualified under previous rules can now be deleted if they no longer qualify. So if an island was added because it was 100m and not under water at high tide, and now (for whatever reason) it’s under water at high tide it no longer qualifies and should be deleted.


73

Ria

N2RJ 





On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM W3UR Bernie McClenny via groups.arrl.org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> wrote:
That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.



Bernie McClenny, W3UR



Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)

           The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

           How's DX? (1999-2020)



Two week trial -

http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/   

https://twitter.com/dailydx

410-489-6518



> On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

>

> The rule says:

>

> "Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the

> surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of

> this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two

> surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100

> meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the

> connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a

> chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any

> island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered

> in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part

> 2 of the criteria.

>

>

> As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no

> longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not

> required.

>

> Ria

> N2RJ

>

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

>>

>> Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

>>

>> Here's a starter list

>>

>> 1M  - Minerva Reef

>> 3D2 - Conway Reef

>> BS7 - Scarborough Reef

>> KH5K - Kindman Reef

>> OJO - Market Reef

>> VK9M - Mellish Reef

>> Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>> Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>>

>

>

>

>

>
















Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
 

Not to worry Ria. Mr. Trump says climate change is a hoax so there should be no rising sea levels and no deleted entities as a result. I know I will sleep better knowing that. Steve, NN4T

 

From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8:41 AM
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Reefs?

 

Hi Bernie,

 

I referenced that rule because the general rule for deletion is this:

 

 

5. Deletion Criteria

a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the Entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List. “

 

For BS7, the rule says that it is deleted if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Therefore it would seem that we are stuck with it until it is voted off the list. 

 

However this rule means that other entities that were added because they qualified under previous rules can now be deleted if they no longer qualify. So if an island was added because it was 100m and not under water at high tide, and now (for whatever reason) it’s under water at high tide it no longer qualifies and should be deleted.

 

73

Ria

N2RJ 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM W3UR Bernie McClenny via groups.arrl.org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> wrote:

That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.



Bernie McClenny, W3UR



Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)

           The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

           How's DX? (1999-2020)



Two week trial -

http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/   

https://twitter.com/dailydx

410-489-6518



> On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

>

> The rule says:

>

> "Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the

> surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of

> this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two

> surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100

> meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the

> connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a

> chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any

> island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered

> in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part

> 2 of the criteria.

>

>

> As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no

> longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not

> required.

>

> Ria

> N2RJ

>

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

>>

>> Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

>>

>> Here's a starter list

>>

>> 1M  - Minerva Reef

>> 3D2 - Conway Reef

>> BS7 - Scarborough Reef

>> KH5K - Kindman Reef

>> OJO - Market Reef

>> VK9M - Mellish Reef

>> Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>> Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>>

>

>

>

>

>












 


Joel Harrison <w5zn@...>
 

It is much more complicated and harder to vote an "island" off the DXCC list than it is to actually vote "someone" off the island!!!   :-))))

73 Joel W5ZN

On 2020-09-22 08:40, Ria, N2RJ wrote:

Hi Bernie,
 
I referenced that rule because the general rule for deletion is this:
 
"

 

5. Deletion Criteria

a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the Entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List. "

 

For BS7, the rule says that it is deleted if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Therefore it would seem that we are stuck with it until it is voted off the list. 

 

However this rule means that other entities that were added because they qualified under previous rules can now be deleted if they no longer qualify. So if an island was added because it was 100m and not under water at high tide, and now (for whatever reason) it's under water at high tide it no longer qualifies and should be deleted.

 

73

Ria

N2RJ 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM W3UR Bernie McClenny via groups.arrl.org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> wrote:
That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.



Bernie McClenny, W3UR



Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)

           The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

           How's DX? (1999-2020)



Two week trial -

http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/   

https://twitter.com/dailydx

410-489-6518



> On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

>

> The rule says:

>

> "Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the

> surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of

> this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two

> surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100

> meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the

> connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a

> chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any

> island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered

> in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part

> 2 of the criteria.

>

>

> As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no

> longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not

> required.

>

> Ria

> N2RJ

>

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

>>

>> Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

>>

>> Here's a starter list

>>

>> 1M  - Minerva Reef

>> 3D2 - Conway Reef

>> BS7 - Scarborough Reef

>> KH5K - Kindman Reef

>> OJO - Market Reef

>> VK9M - Mellish Reef

>> Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>> Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>>

>

>

>

>

>
















Tony KX1G <tony.dicenzo@...>
 

Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later. 

it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.

worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are 
preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. ) 

it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. 


I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed. 


KX1G

 


W3UR Bernie McClenny
 

Yes agreed if any islands that were added after the BS7H rule (100 meter high tide) no longer meet that criteria then it should be removed.

We are stuck with BS7H (as we are with all DXCC Entities) until it no longer meets the DXCC criteria that got it on the list at that time.

As for the islands (entities) that were on the list prior to the 100 meter high tide rule - there is no standard. Until it happens I see no reason to go down that road.

Bernie


Bernie McClenny, W3UR

Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)
The Weekly DX (2001-2020)
How's DX? (1999-2020)

Two week trial -
http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/
https://twitter.com/dailydx
410-489-6518

On Sep 22, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

Hi Bernie,

I referenced that rule because the general rule for deletion is this:



5. Deletion Criteria

a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the Entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List. “

For BS7, the rule says that it is deleted if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Therefore it would seem that we are stuck with it until it is voted off the list.

However this rule means that other entities that were added because they qualified under previous rules can now be deleted if they no longer qualify. So if an island was added because it was 100m and not under water at high tide, and now (for whatever reason) it’s under water at high tide it no longer qualifies and should be deleted.

73
Ria
N2RJ




On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM W3UR Bernie McClenny via groups.arrl.org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> wrote:
That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.



Bernie McClenny, W3UR



Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)

The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

How's DX? (1999-2020)



Two week trial -

http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/

https://twitter.com/dailydx

410-489-6518



On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:
The rule says:
"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the
surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of
this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two
surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100
meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the
connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a
chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any
island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered
in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part
2 of the criteria.
As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no
longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not
required.
Ria
N2RJ
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:
Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?
Here's a starter list
1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)















bmanning
 

I know how you feel. I need 11 to get to the top. 2 to get on the honor roll. As I look at the list of 11 most have not been on the air for many years. Turkmenistan EZ, Amateur radio has unlawful since 1996, if my memory is correct. I have not worked a new one for many years now. So if someone built a super station today, and set in front of the radio 24 hours a day, there is no way to get to the top. I keep checking to DX announcements in anticipation of one of the 11 will show up. Now before someone accuses me of wanting the HR without working for it, I was licensed in 1972, and started working for DXCC in the late 80's. I do have 9 band DXCC and DX Challenge stands at 1963, all of this with 100 watts CW and wire antennas. The problem I have is of the 11, only one has been on the air in the past 10 years. So I feel that a new Amateur can get DXCC but getting to the HR or Top of HR is impossible for the foreseeable future.

Why is it so hard to take a entity off the list? I an entity has laws that do not allow Amateur radio, take them off the list. If there is a disagreement as to possession of an island, take them off the list. At least do this so folks can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Okay that's my 2 cents worth.

73

Bruce NJ3K

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 07:47:34 -0700, Tony KX1G <tony.dicenzo@...> wrote:

Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later. 

it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.

worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are 
preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. ) 

it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. 


I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed. 


KX1G

 

-- 
Bruce A. Manning


Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
 

Hi Tony.  When I started DXing, many years ago, I was told that I would never be able to add North Korea to my totals.  There were a couple of others too.  Albania was one. Well, I have them now.  I do understand the frustration.  But, no one wants to wait for 30 or 40 years like I'm doing for Bouvet.  :))))  Every damn time they came on the air, I was in the middle of a PCS thanks to Uncle Sam. 

Don't give up.  I didn't.

Kind regards and 73,

Steve, N4JQQ, DXAC, Delta Division

On 9/22/2020 9:47 AM, Tony KX1G wrote:

Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later. 

it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.

worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are 
preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. ) 

it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. 


I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed. 


KX1G

 


Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear. Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later.

it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.

worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. )

it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed.

+ The rules governing DXCC are crystal clear: you are not guaranteed the ability to confirm QSOs with every current DXCC entity. Since the dawn of radio, DXers have been pursuing DXCC Family awards with this understanding. The willingness to pursue an award for which there is no guarantee of success distinguishes what Cass WA6AUD called "true blue DXers".

+ If you don't like the DXCC Family's Award rules, then choose an award that's more to your liking. There are plenty of alternatives.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


Tony KX1G <tony.dicenzo@...>
 

With all due respect, Dave, a love it or leave it pronouncement is not acceptable. 


governments take old laws off their books (ex: Massachusetts blue laws), so why shouldn’t DXCC.

i need need three to have worked them all. I will be patient with Glorioso.  less patient with P5, and somewhat angry that some dxers (such as russians) have multiple opportunities to work them while others have zero opportunity.  And not all all patient with BS7. It needs 5i be reviewed, and if there is no chance that it will ever reemerge, in this century at least, removed from the list.


73

tony KX1G


Ria, N2RJ
 

While I agree with you in principle, an entity that is permanently under water shouldn’t remain on the list. At least with P5, dear leader may have a moment of pity and grant a license. But if Mother Nature rises the seas so that an entity is completely submerged it needs to be completely off the list.

73
Ria
N2RJ 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:41 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below



Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later.



it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.



worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. )



it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed.



+ The rules governing DXCC are crystal clear: you are not guaranteed the ability to confirm QSOs with every current DXCC entity. Since the dawn of radio, DXers have been pursuing DXCC Family awards with this understanding. The willingness to pursue an award for which there is no guarantee of success distinguishes what Cass WA6AUD called "true blue DXers".



+ If you don't like the DXCC Family's Award rules, then choose an award that's more to your liking. There are plenty of alternatives.



        73,



              Dave, AA6YQ




















Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
 

So we want to make DXCC a game where everyone can win, hit a home run even though they aren't physically capable, score as many points in a basketball game as every other player?  You are asking the ARRL to change the rules to suit your game plan?  What about the rest of us?  We don't matter?

I would take this up with your Division Director at the very least and see what he or she has to say about it. 

Kind regards and 73, 

Steve, N4JQQ, DXAC, Delta Division

On 9/22/2020 11:57 AM, Tony KX1G wrote:

With all due respect, Dave, a love it or leave it pronouncement is not acceptable. 


governments take old laws off their books (ex: Massachusetts blue laws), so why shouldn’t DXCC.

i need need three to have worked them all. I will be patient with Glorioso.  less patient with P5, and somewhat angry that some dxers (such as russians) have multiple opportunities to work them while others have zero opportunity.  And not all all patient with BS7. It needs 5i be reviewed, and if there is no chance that it will ever reemerge, in this century at least, removed from the list.


73

tony KX1G


Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
 

Viva grid squares!  :-)




On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:04 PM -0400, "Ria, N2RJ" <rjairam@...> wrote:

While I agree with you in principle, an entity that is permanently under water shouldn’t remain on the list. At least with P5, dear leader may have a moment of pity and grant a license. But if Mother Nature rises the seas so that an entity is completely submerged it needs to be completely off the list.

73
Ria
N2RJ 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:41 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below



Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later.



it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.



worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. )



it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed.



+ The rules governing DXCC are crystal clear: you are not guaranteed the ability to confirm QSOs with every current DXCC entity. Since the dawn of radio, DXers have been pursuing DXCC Family awards with this understanding. The willingness to pursue an award for which there is no guarantee of success distinguishes what Cass WA6AUD called "true blue DXers".



+ If you don't like the DXCC Family's Award rules, then choose an award that's more to your liking. There are plenty of alternatives.



        73,



              Dave, AA6YQ