Cell Sites on DNR Towers
Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties, As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end. Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn. Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider. I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works. We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more. If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org <mailto:netops@hamwan.org> Nigel HamWAN
This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year? Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org <mailto:netops@hamwan.org>
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto... Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad < dskyllingstad@harbornet.com> wrote:
This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET
On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing listPSDR@hamwan.orghttp://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do? On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad < dskyllingstad@harbornet.com> wrote:
This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET
On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing listPSDR@hamwan.orghttp://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
It seems we're being forced to decom 3 more sites. Does anyone have storage space available for all the equipment coming down? I don't. --Bart On 10/19/2021 8:35 AM, John D. Hays wrote:
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com> wrote:
This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET
On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
I have some space in my shop, but I'm in Bellingham. Steve N8GNJ On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:18 AM Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
It seems we're being forced to decom 3 more sites. Does anyone have storage space available for all the equipment coming down? I don't.
--Bart
-- Steve Stroh stevestroh@gmail.com Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com (new) Twitter - @zeroretries
Sounds like the gobmint doesn't want people to communicate in the future. I suggest setting up on the highest private land and or building. Break out those topographical maps. KE7LEF cuidate - hablamos pronto take care - talk soon Rob On Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 11:22:16 AM PDT, Steve Stroh <steve.stroh@gmail.com> wrote: I have some space in my shop, but I'm in Bellingham. Steve N8GNJ On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:18 AM Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
It seems we're being forced to decom 3 more sites. Does anyone have storage space available for all the equipment coming down? I don't.
--Bart
-- Steve Stroh stevestroh@gmail.com Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com (new) Twitter - @zeroretries _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying. 73 de, Dana Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/> Proud Member of: [Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7D9FC.B9949F30]<https://www.nena.org/> [Logo Description automatically generated] <https://radioclubofamerica.org/> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do? On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto... Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year? Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties, As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end. Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn. Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider. I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works. We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more. If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org> Nigel HamWAN _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr -- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr -- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
The new legislative session starts in January. Contact your Washington State legislators now. https://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/ On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 08:42 Dana Hanford <Dana@thesalesgroup.com> wrote:
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11 th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
*Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD*
*Vice President / Partner*
*The Sales Group, inc.* *MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES* 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com
Proud Member of:
[image: Logo Description automatically generated] <https://www.apcointl.org/> <https://www.nena.org/> [image: Logo Description automatically generated] <https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
*From:* PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> *On Behalf Of * John D. Hays *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM *To:* Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> *Subject:* Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad < dskyllingstad@harbornet.com> wrote:
This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET
On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org
Nigel
HamWAN
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
--
Thanks,
Jamie Owens
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
--
John D. Hays Kingston, WA
K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Lee, KI7SS, is the ARRL legislative person for this district Bruce, WA7BAM Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 8:58 AM, John D. Hays<john@hays.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 ( <https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.500%20Amateur%20radio%20repeater%20stations%20%E2%80%94%20Legislative,in%20disaster%20relief%20and%20search%20and%20rescue%20support> https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now. Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers. Stephen W9SK From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying. 73 de, Dana Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 <http://www.thesalesgroup.com/> www.thesalesgroup.com Proud Member of: <https://www.apcointl.org/> <https://www.nena.org/> <https://radioclubofamerica.org/> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org <mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> > On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org <mailto:psdr@hamwan.org> > Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do? On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com <mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com> > wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto... Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com <mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com> > wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year? Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties, As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end. Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn. Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider. I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works. We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more. If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org <mailto:netops@hamwan.org> Nigel HamWAN _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr -- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr -- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
Stephen and John, thanks for your responses. It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed. Dana From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now. Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers. Stephen W9SK From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying. 73 de, Dana Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/> Proud Member of: [Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do? On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto... Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year? Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties, As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end. Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn. Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider. I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works. We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more. If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org> Nigel HamWAN _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr -- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr -- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
Contacting legislators seeking their advice on how to handle this situation will likely win more respect for the individuals and the amateur radio community in general. Approaching the Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is the protocol that will likely be advised. Being elected, she does not report to the Governor, but the DNR budget is under legislative control. There are other factors in play here: 1. DNR staff violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05. 2. DNR staff violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, RCW 42.30.035 (no minutes) and RCW 42.30.060 (development of their new "standards"). 3. Ineptitude on the part of the DNR staff in missing windows where they had the opportunity to approach the legislature with updated reimbursement requests under RCW 79.13.500. 4. Violation of lease terms by the DNR staff regarding notification and remedy periods. Steve Dana Hanford wrote on 11/15/21 9:41 AM:
Stephen and John, thanks for your responses. It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed.
Dana
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
Stephen W9SK
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/>
Proud Member of:
[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org>
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org>
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Steve - WA7PTM Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:44 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers Contacting legislators seeking their advice on how to handle this situation will likely win more respect for the individuals and the amateur radio community in general. Approaching the Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is the protocol that will likely be advised. Being elected, she does not report to the Governor, but the DNR budget is under legislative control. There are other factors in play here: 1. DNR staff violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05. 2. DNR staff violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, RCW 42.30.035 (no minutes) and RCW 42.30.060 (development of their new "standards"). 3. Ineptitude on the part of the DNR staff in missing windows where they had the opportunity to approach the legislature with updated reimbursement requests under RCW 79.13.500. 4. Violation of lease terms by the DNR staff regarding notification and remedy periods. Steve Dana Hanford wrote on 11/15/21 9:41 AM:
Stephen and John, thanks for your responses. It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed.
Dana
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
Stephen W9SK
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/>
Proud Member of:
[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org>
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org>
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Carl, it seems you may have an idea of how this is to be done "properly", please share those specifics with us. Stephen W9SK -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of carl@n7kuw.com Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:03 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Steve - WA7PTM Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:44 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers Contacting legislators seeking their advice on how to handle this situation will likely win more respect for the individuals and the amateur radio community in general. Approaching the Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is the protocol that will likely be advised. Being elected, she does not report to the Governor, but the DNR budget is under legislative control. There are other factors in play here: 1. DNR staff violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05. 2. DNR staff violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, RCW 42.30.035 (no minutes) and RCW 42.30.060 (development of their new "standards"). 3. Ineptitude on the part of the DNR staff in missing windows where they had the opportunity to approach the legislature with updated reimbursement requests under RCW 79.13.500. 4. Violation of lease terms by the DNR staff regarding notification and remedy periods. Steve Dana Hanford wrote on 11/15/21 9:41 AM:
Stephen and John, thanks for your responses. It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed.
Dana
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
Stephen W9SK
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/>
Proud Member of:
[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org>
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org>
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
I have no better idea than what has already been suggested - work with the legislature to find a solution. I do know that there are ongoing efforts by several in the emergency management community to look into this. What that might result in I do not know. Individuals contacting their legislators, but in a positive - look how much this could benefit everyone in a disaster - perspective, without trying to find fault or place blame, is important. However, the issue of hams versus DNR is not a new one - this has been going on for decades and seems to flare up from time to time when a new person responsible for the sites comes on board - or when financial reviews and audits show the deficit of (so called) lost income. And that is because there always seems to be some quantity of ham equipment in the buildings, and on the towers, that aren't specified in the lease. Imagine you own an apartment building, and you rent an apartment to one person. But there is only one key for the entire building that opens all the apartments. Then he lets some of his friends use some of the many empty apartments, without charging them rent. That is how DNR sees this (and what some hams have done). His lease does not give him that authority, it very specifically identifies the one apartment he is allowed to use. Now, let's take this analogy one step further. You don't own that building, you just manage it as one of many buildings someone else owns. So the person in that apartments asks you if he can let a friend use one of the other apartments for a while, and you say yeah, that's okay, but only one person, and only for a while. You haven't obtained permission from the owners to do this. So the plot sickens (I prefer that to thickens). Now the ham at the site who let his friend come in feels he has done nothing wrong, he got (unofficial) permission. Eventually the building owners figure out what is going on, and kick out all of the tenants who don't have actual leases. And the guy using the free apartment becomes homeless, contributing to yet another and different problem (in this analogy, the loss of important emcomm capability). I know folks who have had equipment on DNR sites for decades, and I've have been on and off those sites many times. I've seen, first hand, how some of this has happened. I've also seen the tenant who complies with the specifics of their lease and never let a friend share his space (at the cost of some so called friendships). And, personally, the loss of Gold is costing me my HamWAN connection - it is the only site I have line of site to. Carl -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:15 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers Carl, it seems you may have an idea of how this is to be done "properly", please share those specifics with us. Stephen W9SK -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of carl@n7kuw.com Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:03 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Steve - WA7PTM Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:44 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers Contacting legislators seeking their advice on how to handle this situation will likely win more respect for the individuals and the amateur radio community in general. Approaching the Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is the protocol that will likely be advised. Being elected, she does not report to the Governor, but the DNR budget is under legislative control. There are other factors in play here: 1. DNR staff violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05. 2. DNR staff violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, RCW 42.30.035 (no minutes) and RCW 42.30.060 (development of their new "standards"). 3. Ineptitude on the part of the DNR staff in missing windows where they had the opportunity to approach the legislature with updated reimbursement requests under RCW 79.13.500. 4. Violation of lease terms by the DNR staff regarding notification and remedy periods. Steve Dana Hanford wrote on 11/15/21 9:41 AM:
Stephen and John, thanks for your responses. It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed.
Dana
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
Stephen W9SK
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/>
Proud Member of:
[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org>
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org>
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:03 AM <carl@n7kuw.com> wrote:
While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW
Carl, please be careful not to present statements as fact that may be untrue. HamWAN has a history going back many years of helping leaseholders fill out the required paperwork to remain compliant with DNR when they have requested to connect their site to HamWAN. Tom KD7LXL
Tom, I was in no way trying to disparage HamWAN, or it’s Board or Netops, all of which I am a supporter. However, the history of amateur radio and DNR sites, which goes back many years before HamWAN existed, has been a rocky one at times, and nobody can argue that hams (and I am not pointing a finger at any specific person or group) have been problematic with respect to DNR site occupancy over the years. People today, in trying to identify ways to move forward, do need to keep that history in mind. I know a number of people are working to try and find a resolution to this that can benefit amateur radio going forward. I hope that is successful. Unfortunately, it will take time, and it does not appear that leaving systems installed (even if turned off) is something DNR is willing to consider at the moment. Has anyone approached them with that suggestion – shut the systems down but leave the hardware installed pending some future resolution? That way, possibly, you could avoid having to do re-installations. Carl, N7KUW From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Tom Hayward Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:46 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:03 AM <carl@n7kuw.com <mailto:carl@n7kuw.com> > wrote: While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW Carl, please be careful not to present statements as fact that may be untrue. HamWAN has a history going back many years of helping leaseholders fill out the required paperwork to remain compliant with DNR when they have requested to connect their site to HamWAN. Tom KD7LXL
Everyone, To the original point about lobbying activities. HamWAN discussed the potential for lobbying, and we believe it’s likely valuable as a longer term activity. It does not address the short term requirement DNR has placed to remove gear from the sites. To Carl’s point below, no the DNR is not willing to let the gear sit at the sites unpowered pending some future undefined resolution. They have asked us to remove the gear as expeditiously as possible, which we are doing our best to comply with. Obviously we may run into issues with the oncoming winter, and they have expressed understanding about those limitations and may be willing to work with us on that, but only so far as to have the gear removed at the earliest opportunity in the spring. DNR’s budget allocation from the legislature aside, DNRs new policies on amateur leases regarding the total number of leases and the amount of gear per lease make HamWAN a tough sell on DNR sites going forward. I’m not going to say ’never’, but I’m not holding my breath that this will be fixed in any sort of ’near term’. To the points with regards to the relationships with amateur groups/individuals and DNR historically, yes, this is roughly what brought us here today. We (HamWAN) have been at these sites at the invitation of various leaseholders, whom needed to update their leases with DNR as appropriate. Unfortunately in several cases that did not happen, which brought us to the situation presently underway, and will make us reconsider these sorts of indirect agreements in the future, even if it means impacting growth opportunities. We are pursuing other options at different sites, and we’ll see what ends up working out, but it’s too early to say anything for sure. Nigel
On Nov 15, 2021, at 1:06 PM, <carl@n7kuw.com> <carl@n7kuw.com> wrote:
Tom,
I was in no way trying to disparage HamWAN, or it’s Board or Netops, all of which I am a supporter. However, the history of amateur radio and DNR sites, which goes back many years before HamWAN existed, has been a rocky one at times, and nobody can argue that hams (and I am not pointing a finger at any specific person or group) have been problematic with respect to DNR site occupancy over the years.
People today, in trying to identify ways to move forward, do need to keep that history in mind. I know a number of people are working to try and find a resolution to this that can benefit amateur radio going forward. I hope that is successful. Unfortunately, it will take time, and it does not appear that leaving systems installed (even if turned off) is something DNR is willing to consider at the moment. Has anyone approached them with that suggestion – shut the systems down but leave the hardware installed pending some future resolution? That way, possibly, you could avoid having to do re-installations.
Carl, N7KUW
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Tom Hayward Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:46 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:03 AM <carl@n7kuw.com <mailto:carl@n7kuw.com>> wrote:
While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW
Carl, please be careful not to present statements as fact that may be untrue. HamWAN has a history going back many years of helping leaseholders fill out the required paperwork to remain compliant with DNR when they have requested to connect their site to HamWAN.
Tom KD7LXL _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Nigel, Well said. All, I'm glad you all are ready for action. I would like to offer that all of you stand behind your local affected group with your support. Please let them lead the way. I can tell you that a bunch of halfcocked unknowledgeable hams contacting the DNR and their state legislators isn't the right approach. Monte Simpson and Mark Thorp are aware and working this issue. This is bigger than HAMWan. Let's just say, there are burnt bridges right now. We've lost the trust of our partners. Let's calm down, get our ducks in a row, and rebuild the relationships. Right now Nigel and team need help with recovering their gear. 73 (Ham radio way of saying Best Regards), Jamie Hughes WA7JH Public Information Officer, KCARC Repeater Committee Chair, KCARC Public Information Officer, ARRL - Western Washington Section Email: PR@kcarc.groups.io<mailto:pr@kcarc.groups.io> Phone: (360) 340-8886<tel:+13603408886> Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club<http://www.kcarc.org/> PO Box 2268 Silverdale, WA 98383 [cid:image009.png@01D7DA2F.5683B830]<http://www.kc7z.org/> [cid:image003.png@01D7DA2E.49BAAB00]<https://twitter.com/KCARC_KC7Z>[cid:image004.png@01D7DA2E.49BAAB00]<https://www.facebook.com/kitsaparc/> [cid:image005.png@01D7DA2E.49BAAB00] <https://www.instagram.com/kcarc_kc7z/> [cid:image006.png@01D7DA2E.49BAAB00] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-6bwlaDGhoM4MnnDSvGnA> [cid:image007.png@01D7DA2E.49BAAB00] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kc7z/> [cid:image008.png@01D7DA2E.49BAAB00]<https://smile.amazon.com/ref=smi_ext_ch_80-0589655_dl?_encoding=UTF8&ein=80-0589655&ref_=smi_chpf_redirect&ref_=smi_ext_ch_80-0589655_cl> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Nigel Vander Houwen Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:34 PM To: PSDR Mailing List <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers Everyone, To the original point about lobbying activities. HamWAN discussed the potential for lobbying, and we believe it's likely valuable as a longer term activity. It does not address the short term requirement DNR has placed to remove gear from the sites. To Carl's point below, no the DNR is not willing to let the gear sit at the sites unpowered pending some future undefined resolution. They have asked us to remove the gear as expeditiously as possible, which we are doing our best to comply with. Obviously we may run into issues with the oncoming winter, and they have expressed understanding about those limitations and may be willing to work with us on that, but only so far as to have the gear removed at the earliest opportunity in the spring. DNR's budget allocation from the legislature aside, DNRs new policies on amateur leases regarding the total number of leases and the amount of gear per lease make HamWAN a tough sell on DNR sites going forward. I'm not going to say 'never', but I'm not holding my breath that this will be fixed in any sort of 'near term'. To the points with regards to the relationships with amateur groups/individuals and DNR historically, yes, this is roughly what brought us here today. We (HamWAN) have been at these sites at the invitation of various leaseholders, whom needed to update their leases with DNR as appropriate. Unfortunately in several cases that did not happen, which brought us to the situation presently underway, and will make us reconsider these sorts of indirect agreements in the future, even if it means impacting growth opportunities. We are pursuing other options at different sites, and we'll see what ends up working out, but it's too early to say anything for sure. Nigel On Nov 15, 2021, at 1:06 PM, <carl@n7kuw.com<mailto:carl@n7kuw.com>> <carl@n7kuw.com<mailto:carl@n7kuw.com>> wrote: Tom, I was in no way trying to disparage HamWAN, or it's Board or Netops, all of which I am a supporter. However, the history of amateur radio and DNR sites, which goes back many years before HamWAN existed, has been a rocky one at times, and nobody can argue that hams (and I am not pointing a finger at any specific person or group) have been problematic with respect to DNR site occupancy over the years. People today, in trying to identify ways to move forward, do need to keep that history in mind. I know a number of people are working to try and find a resolution to this that can benefit amateur radio going forward. I hope that is successful. Unfortunately, it will take time, and it does not appear that leaving systems installed (even if turned off) is something DNR is willing to consider at the moment. Has anyone approached them with that suggestion - shut the systems down but leave the hardware installed pending some future resolution? That way, possibly, you could avoid having to do re-installations. Carl, N7KUW From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Tom Hayward Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:46 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:03 AM <carl@n7kuw.com<mailto:carl@n7kuw.com>> wrote: While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites. This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else. I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly. Carl, N7KUW Carl, please be careful not to present statements as fact that may be untrue. HamWAN has a history going back many years of helping leaseholders fill out the required paperwork to remain compliant with DNR when they have requested to connect their site to HamWAN. Tom KD7LXL _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.hamwan.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpsdr&data=04%7C01%7C%7C0c425fbd01374f47a9ef08d9a88816ff%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637726124931361545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=VnfzjBZRAg3NYcq7peiyJ8JoGIF1vhNjY6arQPKTQQ4%3D&reserved=0>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/15/21 5:34 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
To the original point about lobbying activities. HamWAN discussed the potential for lobbying, and we believe it’s likely valuable as a longer term activity. It does not address the short term requirement DNR has placed to remove gear from the sites.
Nigel, I think you may have misstated this. I believe you mean members of HamWAN are personally reaching out to elected officials, not that HamWAN is going to be engaged in lobbying, correct? - -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEaESdNosUjpjcN/JhYTmgYVLGkUAFAmGVN6cACgkQYTmgYVLG kUCPkQ/+OdSU13t58TPo21SVPO20+wVtdMgyhG267EMosRKktS6i15LdTawV6x1f +eZdJ8pvDMEXMwrVV3pGGuSb7/m6raw778BvRzeYAuZUbsCtL8ACNiPZqU6/mUwS eDY4CzRi7fr9dbzMl+e8uXrC4USGMUf46MKgo4S+ylDCVCzWfM8AZrvadAKXB8Ni tfWd8MTz9Xi+fZGnKpt/el5ZiEtaiKUGwCD7RES56F2/Yt1GHi81Ekg0k/Bghk1v HaVIoWkd9zOqkJgA5lldtNj7V/9EkakqRjTr4C2leeLZtB4/Rb9FYCSsznik3QtO 5NQuEdNlctxWu3VnmOq+qGEQRXI7pOAeNTVGBiONDcKADL8m3gjN8+ZVlz2bpAxb F5pjgfDx38AfcULN8jHZqxNzQGfMUBPm4Hyh2kBFoBkda563ZJhRUjtjmYuYDrNq okrIluZfSmJm5Oa3zWqOXOSaVqEYOtY8BpkR2RaLwjBpzbRFJWxYGsR3+53JU6My wzIrciFtBK0ec45Nc13Vo2gIcf/+cwKIGtPKVHC9Ex3Ie+TVfF1fv8Obdldf697+ 8xAFbDvL6PuMQ/i2Luqrwfq4Xb2ufydKFKACb/2Y0uQ8nbZtcZTYFZGqqr5HVbpA MD8BsdlxebxIpw4Bq9qjs5L1o252fSLYy34Kl6MYa7L4ZjgBldQ= =vrwj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Correct, thank you for noticing, considering the overloaded use of the term. Nigel
On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:11 AM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 11/15/21 5:34 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
To the original point about lobbying activities. HamWAN discussed the potential for lobbying, and we believe it’s likely valuable as a longer term activity. It does not address the short term requirement DNR has placed to remove gear from the sites.
Nigel, I think you may have misstated this. I believe you mean members of HamWAN are personally reaching out to elected officials, not that HamWAN is going to be engaged in lobbying, correct?
- -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEaESdNosUjpjcN/JhYTmgYVLGkUAFAmGVN6cACgkQYTmgYVLG kUCPkQ/+OdSU13t58TPo21SVPO20+wVtdMgyhG267EMosRKktS6i15LdTawV6x1f +eZdJ8pvDMEXMwrVV3pGGuSb7/m6raw778BvRzeYAuZUbsCtL8ACNiPZqU6/mUwS eDY4CzRi7fr9dbzMl+e8uXrC4USGMUf46MKgo4S+ylDCVCzWfM8AZrvadAKXB8Ni tfWd8MTz9Xi+fZGnKpt/el5ZiEtaiKUGwCD7RES56F2/Yt1GHi81Ekg0k/Bghk1v HaVIoWkd9zOqkJgA5lldtNj7V/9EkakqRjTr4C2leeLZtB4/Rb9FYCSsznik3QtO 5NQuEdNlctxWu3VnmOq+qGEQRXI7pOAeNTVGBiONDcKADL8m3gjN8+ZVlz2bpAxb F5pjgfDx38AfcULN8jHZqxNzQGfMUBPm4Hyh2kBFoBkda563ZJhRUjtjmYuYDrNq okrIluZfSmJm5Oa3zWqOXOSaVqEYOtY8BpkR2RaLwjBpzbRFJWxYGsR3+53JU6My wzIrciFtBK0ec45Nc13Vo2gIcf/+cwKIGtPKVHC9Ex3Ie+TVfF1fv8Obdldf697+ 8xAFbDvL6PuMQ/i2Luqrwfq4Xb2ufydKFKACb/2Y0uQ8nbZtcZTYFZGqqr5HVbpA MD8BsdlxebxIpw4Bq9qjs5L1o252fSLYy34Kl6MYa7L4ZjgBldQ= =vrwj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Yes - 501(c)(3)s can advocate, but not lobby. Individuals can do both. On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 9:18 AM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com> wrote:
Correct, thank you for noticing, considering the overloaded use of the term.
Nigel
On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:11 AM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 11/15/21 5:34 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
To the original point about lobbying activities. HamWAN discussed the potential for lobbying, and we believe it’s likely valuable as a longer term activity. It does not address the short term requirement DNR has placed to remove gear from the sites.
Nigel, I think you may have misstated this. I believe you mean members of HamWAN are personally reaching out to elected officials, not that HamWAN is going to be engaged in lobbying, correct?
- -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEaESdNosUjpjcN/JhYTmgYVLGkUAFAmGVN6cACgkQYTmgYVLG kUCPkQ/+OdSU13t58TPo21SVPO20+wVtdMgyhG267EMosRKktS6i15LdTawV6x1f +eZdJ8pvDMEXMwrVV3pGGuSb7/m6raw778BvRzeYAuZUbsCtL8ACNiPZqU6/mUwS eDY4CzRi7fr9dbzMl+e8uXrC4USGMUf46MKgo4S+ylDCVCzWfM8AZrvadAKXB8Ni tfWd8MTz9Xi+fZGnKpt/el5ZiEtaiKUGwCD7RES56F2/Yt1GHi81Ekg0k/Bghk1v HaVIoWkd9zOqkJgA5lldtNj7V/9EkakqRjTr4C2leeLZtB4/Rb9FYCSsznik3QtO 5NQuEdNlctxWu3VnmOq+qGEQRXI7pOAeNTVGBiONDcKADL8m3gjN8+ZVlz2bpAxb F5pjgfDx38AfcULN8jHZqxNzQGfMUBPm4Hyh2kBFoBkda563ZJhRUjtjmYuYDrNq okrIluZfSmJm5Oa3zWqOXOSaVqEYOtY8BpkR2RaLwjBpzbRFJWxYGsR3+53JU6My wzIrciFtBK0ec45Nc13Vo2gIcf/+cwKIGtPKVHC9Ex3Ie+TVfF1fv8Obdldf697+ 8xAFbDvL6PuMQ/i2Luqrwfq4Xb2ufydKFKACb/2Y0uQ8nbZtcZTYFZGqqr5HVbpA MD8BsdlxebxIpw4Bq9qjs5L1o252fSLYy34Kl6MYa7L4ZjgBldQ= =vrwj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
I think this is good advice, however, I don't think it will help to point fingers at DNR staff violations or ineptitude (whether true or not). A better approach is to define the problem and suggest remedies. This morning, I brought this up in an email to a colleague who sits on the WA State Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC). He responded that he would like to speak with a few articulate hams who are knowledgeable about this issue, as he would like to bring it to the attention of the Committee for consideration. Please contact me directly if you or someone you know would be a good candidate for him to speak with about this. Dana Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, Inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com -----Original Message----- From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Steve - WA7PTM Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:44 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers Contacting legislators seeking their advice on how to handle this situation will likely win more respect for the individuals and the amateur radio community in general. Approaching the Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is the protocol that will likely be advised. Being elected, she does not report to the Governor, but the DNR budget is under legislative control. There are other factors in play here: 1. DNR staff violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05. 2. DNR staff violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, RCW 42.30.035 (no minutes) and RCW 42.30.060 (development of their new "standards"). 3. Ineptitude on the part of the DNR staff in missing windows where they had the opportunity to approach the legislature with updated reimbursement requests under RCW 79.13.500. 4. Violation of lease terms by the DNR staff regarding notification and remedy periods. Steve Dana Hanford wrote on 11/15/21 9:41 AM:
Stephen and John, thanks for your responses. It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed.
Dana
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.5...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
Stephen W9SK
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/>
Proud Member of:
[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg@01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org<mailto:psdr@hamwan.org>> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad@harbornet.com>> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org<mailto:netops@hamwan.org>
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org>
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
DNR is also trying to get a handle on tower overloading at some sites. Les
On Nov 15, 2021, at 09:24, Stephen Kangas <stephen@kangas.com> wrote:
There is already a WA state law, RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7913.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.50...), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites). The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement. Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain. Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO. Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
Stephen W9SK
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use. I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications. It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
73 de,
Dana
Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD Vice President / Partner The Sales Group, inc. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 7641 NE North Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057 O: (206) 842-9076 C: (206) 660-7147 www.thesalesgroup.com
Proud Member of:
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites. I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates. I recall ARRL was involved as well. What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76@gmail.com> wrote: Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washingto...
Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad@harbornet.com> wrote: This is very unfortunate news. Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications. Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
Dale AH6ET
On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote: Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops@hamwan.org
Nigel HamWAN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- Thanks, Jamie Owens _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
-- John D. Hays Kingston, WA K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
participants (16)
-
Bart Kus -
Bruce Montgomery -
Bryan Fields -
carl＠n7kuw.com -
Dale Skyllingstad -
Dana Hanford -
Jamie Hughes -
Jamie Owens -
John D. Hays -
Les -
Nigel Vander Houwen -
robeby1＠yahoo.com -
Stephen Kangas -
Steve - WA7PTM -
Steve Stroh -
Tom Hayward