Re: [IRCA] [NRC-AM] Fw: Countries new or not new?

[Russ Edmunds <wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>]

My objection to the ARRL list over the years had been that the ARRL's criteria have employed some very tenuous logic in some places, to the point that their lists were, IMO artificially enhanced. I haven't paid attention for so long ( having not had to be faced with the prospect of adding a new MW country in decades ), so I don't know how much some of that might have changed.




Russ Edmunds
Blue Bell, PA ( 360' ASL )
[15 mi NNW of Philadelphia]
40:08:45N; 75:16:04W, Grid FN20id
<wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>
FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15'
AM: Modified Sony ICF 2010 barefoot


--- On Tue, 10/19/10, Doug Smith <w9wi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Doug Smith <w9wi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [NRC-AM] Fw:  Countries new or not new?
> To: am@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: amdx@xxxxxxxxxx, irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 11:58 PM
> jrenfrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> > A couple of DXers have noted the recent changes in the
> Dutch islands in the Caribbean.  Here are some
> additional comments to muddy the water
> > further:
> > 
> > Aruba had previously moved to a separate status within
> the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so for strict country
> counters it had already become ATN and
> > Aruba as separate "countries".
> > 
> > The NRC list had long ago separated the eastern
> portion of the Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten and
> Eustacia)from ATN because of an arbitrary
> > "water separation".  By arbitrary I mean that the
> club set a standard distance - 75 miles I think - so that
> portions of a country separated by that
> > much water were deemed two "radio countries". 
> This standard distance is a pure fiction that has no basis
> in inernational law or boundaries, it's
> > just a hobby convention.  Hawaii and Alaska are
> well beyond that standard distance also, and have long been
> considered seperate "radio countries".
> > 
> > 
> > With the official change in the relationship of the
> different Netherlands Antilles to the home country and to
> one another there is some rationale
> > to add new radio countries to the list.  I don't
> have all that info in front of me (I'm out of town right
> now), but new degrees of autonomy coupled
> > with water separation creates new countries if we use
> traditional club standards.  The big philosophical
> question, though, is whether a DXer can
> > count having heard one of these new entities when the
> actual logging preceded the new arrangement.  Does a
> logging of Bonaire in 1973 now count in
> > your book as Netherlands Antilles, ABC islands, or
> Bonaire?  Questions like this have long slowed my
> effort to rewrite the NRC country list, and
> > the anticipated but uncertain changes in the
> Netherlands Antilles have been a major sticking point.
> > 
> > Only Aruba is truly independent, the other islands now
> have different shades of autonomy, as I recall, some with a
> strong link to the Netherlands,
> > and some weaker.
> > 
> > Should my logging of a station in the former East
> Germany now count as Germany or is "East Germany" still
> considered a separate radio country?  I
> > heard it earlier this year for the first time - seems
> a stretch to call in East Germany, since that country has
> not existed politically since 1990
> > or so.  But Ben Dangerfield heard it long before
> then, and it doesn't seem right to take it away from
> him.  But that leaves me unable to match
> > Ben's country total, even though we actually heard the
> very same station.  Yikes, who knew that a simple hobby
> like DXing could become such a
> > philosophical exercise!
> 
> I know there is some disagreement about this within the
> clubs, but IMHO there is a LOT to be said for working with
> the American Radio Relay League's 
> DXCC Entities List.
> 
> The ARRL maintains this list for pretty much the same
> reason BCB DXers want a list.  Hams consider it an
> accomplishment to contact many countries; we 
> consider it an accomplishment to *hear* many
> countries.  The term "country", as defined in the
> dictionary, is not particularly suited to use in the 
> radio DX context.  Places like Hawaii and Ibiza would
> never be recognized as "countries" by the State Department,
> but it makes perfect sense to call 
> them "countries" for radio purposes.
> 
> (if you're in, say, Chicago, it's a whole lot harder to
> contact Anchorage than it is to contact, say, Toronto. 
> But if you go by dictionary 
> definitions, Toronto would be a foreign country -- and
> Anchorage wouldn't be!)
> 
> The League has established criteria for adding entities to
> the list.  (they're no longer called "countries",
> they're "entities')
> 
> 1. Political entities.  UN Member States, for the most
> part.  Also, territories assigned a prefix block by the
> ITU.  (I believe Palestine is currently 
> the only physical territory to hold an ITU prefix block
> that isn't also a UN Member State.)  And overseas
> territories of a UN Member State that appear 
> on certain lists maintained by the State Department or UN.
> 
> 2. Geographic separation.  If a "country" is split
> into two or more parts by either land controlled by a
> different country, or by open water, the two 
> parts may be listed as separate "radio countries". 
> Alaska is a good example.  Politically it's part of the
> USA, but it's separated from the rest of 
> the USA by hundreds of km of Canada and even more open
> ocean.  And for ARRL purposes, Alaska and USA are two
> different countries.  Madeira vs. 
> Portugal; Ceuta & Melilla vs. Spain; Russia vs.
> Kaliningrad are more good examples.  East and West
> Pakistan, before the latter became Bangladesh.
> 
> There are specific mileages set for separation.  100km
> minimum separation by land of a foreign country; 350km
> minimum separation by water; something 
> like that.
> 
> 3. "Special areas".  Mostly, places placed on the list
> under old criteria that wouldn't qualify today.  ITU HQ
> in Geneva, Switzerland; Antarctica (the 
> whole continent is one entity); the Spratly Islands in the
> China Sea (disputed by at least four UN Member States, some
> of whom are willing to fire 
> shots); Western Sahara (independent, or Moroccan, depending
> on who you ask..); and a number of other places like St.
> Paul Island in the Gulf of St. 
> Lawrence.  (even if Quebec doesn't secede, Canada is
> three countries...)
> 
> Entities can be deleted from the list, if the criteria
> under which they were listed cease to exist.  East
> Germany no longer exists on the list; it was 
> absorbed by West Germany.  The League keeps track of
> both "current" and "deleted" countries.  If you had
> contacted the USA, England, East Germany, and 
> West Germany in 1980, you would have had four
> countries.  Today, you'd have three "current" countries
> (USA, England, and Germany) and one "deleted" 
> country.  (East Germany)  Your status might be
> listed as "3/4".  (3 current, 4 total)
> 
> The entity a contact counts for depends on when you
> contacted it.  I contacted Bonaire in 1985, and that
> contact counts as "Netherlands Antilles". 
> (which is now a "deleted" country, the criteria under which
> it was created no longer exist)  I also contacted
> Bonaire on Saturday afternoon.  That 
> contact counts as "Bonaire".
> 
> (and believe me, the shortwave ham bands have been a
> madhouse this week, with people rushing to contact the four
> new countries on as many frequency 
> bands as possible as quickly as possible -- even though
> none of these places are particularly rare or difficult to
> contact on the ham bands...)
> 
> The criteria are in Section II of the DXCC Rules on http://www.arrl.org/rules-1 .  I really think it
> would make a lot of sense to simply adopt the 
> ARRL list.  Let them handle it.  They take DXCC
> VERY seriously.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Doug Smith W9WI
> Pleasant View, TN  EM66
> _______________________________________________
> The NRC AM mailing list
> Questions? owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Now Accepting Orders for the 31st Edition of the AM Radio
> Log and
> The 21st Edition of the FM Atlas!
> http://www.nrcdxas.org for the details
> 


      

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx