Works for me at (domestic) airport security*. Can’t see why it won’t for park wardens!
*‘Oh - you’re carrying a suspiscious box of electronics that I don’t recognise. But you say you have a license so that’s all right then! No, I don’t need to see it.’
Worked well earlier this month with the Carabinieri in Sicily!
I disagree Ryan,
It’s the seat polishers being bad parents and infringing on the rights of people who pay part of their salary who are wrong in their response.
If there were no posted signs stating flora must not be interfered with, thereby restricting antennas in trees, then the amateur was not at fault for that.
If the signage was clear then he was an idiot
What and how he said it would be more crucial even if there was no signage. There is a difference between assertive and aggressive. Politeness is essential.
It seems he picked the wrong place and the wrong people to stand his ground. He gets a fail on Dealing with Authority 101.
Most of these people who challenge you are doing their job but if they send an adverse report upstairs then what trickles down is never nice.
In this guys situation a fine and publicity about not doing the wrong thing would have been far more effective.
Banning all amateurs is a weak managerial response and engenders contempt for the department management.
73
Ron
VK3AFW
Hi Ron,
I’d definitely like to know more specifics about what happened at the park and, as you mentioned, if there was or was not signage. @M0WIV do you have a link to a posting from that group, or the name of the FB group (there are several POTA groups). I tried to find something online, but couldn’t.
I agree, if there were no signs that is a problem with the parks people. If there were signs and the operator said “I’m gonna fight the man” and threw his antenna up there, he’s a fool.
That he was tight lipped and didn’t answer any questions or identify himself, definitely did not help the situation. I go out with a group of people once a month. A few months back we had 15-20 of us setup in a seldom used parking lot where two POTA parks meet. The rangers stopped by, talked to the person in charge, and let us stay until the end of our operational period but stated we had grown too big to continue there. Previous rangers had no issues with us there, when we were 7-10 people. Both times polite conversations were involved that included answering their questions.
For what it’s worth, I flew with my radios and a battery for the first time last month and had to deal with “enhanced screening” from the TSA. They swabbed the battery and asked what it was for. Didn’t care to see my radio or my FCC license, but I offered as part of my explanation.
Hi Ryan,
Opinions by Rangers vary from accommodating to
restrictive but often they are just opinions.
One of our SOTA peaks features a well kept park in the AZ. There is an unwritten requirement for sizeable gatherings, eg 100 pax or a bit smaller catered celebration to acquire a permit. The local Ranger tends to think if you get 10 people involved in something together you need a permit.
I subsequently checked with head office and they confirmed that 10 people wasn’t enough to require a permit. There are several car parks and 100 acres of lawn. The idea is that we should not take up too much of the park and prevent others enjoying it.
A large catered wedding with a permit would have signage warning an event was in progress.
73
Ron
VK3AFW
The FB group was “Parks on the Air (POTA)” but it looks like they have taken the thread down. This was after they locked it from further comments as quite a few folk took exception to the ban on amateur radio in the park, claiming they had a right to use radio anywhere. The admins said the issue was POTA rules say you should obey instructions from park representatives and also follow the rule of not doing anything to bring POTA into disrepute.
SOTA has a similar rule, 3.7.3.6, about bringing SOTA into disrepute.
Whilst I agree that the ham in question should have been polite and cooperative, I think we should take a step back before saying it’s just the irresponsible ones who are ruining a good thing. My personal opinion (you may disagree), is that what we have here is a case of the law being used to define, rather than just protect.
Can you explain what benefit comes from banning wire antennas, because I can’t? In fact, it’s a very simple form of determinism: the more rules that attach to any given area, the more special it must be, right? But as we know, some of these areas are not so special in a global context.
Soon, it will be local councils that want a special ‘protected zone’, so they can feel special regardless of how rare and unique their environment is in a scientific sense. Moreover, this idea of controlling access to nature feeds the desire of some people who wish to venerate nature, rather than simply protect it. People who feel sanctified by self denial get to make choices for the whole of society. Yes, be polite and cooperate, but remember, sometimes the rules are just wrong, and it’s not just us who will suffer.
73 de OE6FEG
Matt
Matt,
I am in general agreement. We seem to have too many petty rules, implemented because it seems like an easy solution to a minor problem. However if we want to be a member of society there are some rules we need to adhere by or suffer a penalty.
We have laws relating to theft because some people thought it was OK to take things from others.
There are multitudinous less obvious restrictions not originating 100,000 years ago.
We have no entry into water catchment areas because people pollute. They shouldn’t but there are enough that do that causes some SOTA peaks to be locked up.
The people who have set up radio telescopes in the outback don’t like 100 W HF transmissions popping up in their antenna field.
Our DOD get tetchy if you just walk too close to their OTH radar or their satellite eavesdropping stations. They have security who carry guns so you best not go there.
Our aboriginals have closed off some SOTA peaks and even though they are unguarded it would not be a valid actuation if you climbed over the gate and walked up and activated.
Yes we do have some reserves where human activities are restricted to a car park and picnic area with no walking in the bush. Fortunately these are few.
Throwing a wire antenna support over a tree branch in a public park has to be at the low end of misdemeanours. Being uncooperative with park officers is much worse. And that I think is how it all went off the track.
73
Ron
VK3AFW
I’m certainly not advocating breaking the rules. Indeed, I would not wish to live in a society without rules. But, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them all.
73
I think there is a bit of confusion here, National Park Authorities don’t actually own any land, yes there may be the odd bylaw, but that is mainly in the Lake District and relates to boat use and is enforced by District Councils. As for Snowdonia, “The wardens have an interesting and varied role, which includes advising the public on safe and responsible use of the countryside, liaising with landowners to help with visitor management and helping schools and community groups with education and conservation projects”.
and it goes on
"Working alongside the Estate Staff, wardens help make the National Park more accessible to the public by managing the public rights of way network, permissive paths and ‘Open Country’. This work involves erecting stiles, gates and waymarkers along with resurfacing paths and general maintenance work.
Eryri National Park Wardens have an in-depth knowledge of the geology and wildlife within their area.
They provide an important service for visitors, imparting valuable advice to walkers, climbers and tourists on how to stay safe and enjoy all that’s on offer in the Snowdonia National Park".
In short National Park Rangers or Wardens have no authority over the general public and can’t stop you from following whatever activity you are following as long as it doesn’t involve damaging the environment, they are there to advise. As I said they are not a land owner.
Note: A National Park Ranger or Warden is completely different to a National Trust Warden, remember the National Trust will be the land owner or have that particular spot in their care
Well, there is this little thing which I threw together literally just two days ago, and have asked a couple of SOTA OMs what they thought of it. It’s formatted as “outer” and “inner” pages to be printed on one A4 sheet, and in such a way that it can be duplex-printed (the light grey borders will not be printed):
I offer it here purely for the purposes of discussion and review, but if anybody would like to print it and use it then they may either use these images directly, or I can supply the Open Office document on request.
Cheers, Rob
There is a SOTA leaflet available for download from the website and it is available in several languages. It may need slight updating but the English version (at least) is current from the start of 2023.
I do have some printed versions if anybody wants one (would appreciate a UK stamped addressed envelope though)
Unfortunately that doesn’t explain what amateur radio is.
I am firmly with Fraser on this. Conflict avoidance and resolution is about people.
Wardens, Rangers, and officials of any kind are just people. They must encounter downright provocative, ignorant, and plain stupid behaviour from members of the public, and perhaps even from within their own organisation. It doesn’t take a lot for us to be friendly, courteous and respectful.
My approach has been much as Fraser outlined: I am trying to speak to me amateur radio friends, it will take me about 20 minutes, I will leave no trace, it’s just a hobby and I can pack up now if this is a problem.
I have made no reference to SOTA in any conversation on a summit until I have established that the person is genuinely interested and unlikely to object to the SOTA scheme. As Tom has said, I see no benefit in potentially hostile people or organisations becoming aware of the SOTA scheme.
73, MW0KXN Kevin
The difference is that the National Trust operates under a set of Byelaws which can be accessed on the web. Before operating on a summit owned by the NT it is well worthwhile familiarising yourself with those byelaws, particularly Nos 13 and 15.
No 13 under the heading of “camping” states “No unauthorised person shall pitch, erect or permit to remain on Trust Property any tent, booth, windbreak, pole, clothesline, building, shed, post, fence, railing or other erection or obstruction whatsoever” This on the face of it would prohibit just about any ham radio activity except using handheld gear - but byelaw 15 controls noise and if anyone complains about any noise your gear is making then you have to stop, so even handhelds need to be operated with headphones. Strictly speaking this should also apply to mobile phones! With regard to Byelaw 13 you could try the defence that the byelaw controls camping and you are not camping, but I doubt that you would have much chance of success! Basically, ham radio on NT property has to be a guerilla activity, get in, operate and get out without being caught! 
Tom has written, Fraser has written, Dave has written, I have and Kevin has just written, the issue is people management. The “I do have permission to do this I can stop now if you want. But anyway I will be gone soon” is by far the best way. It acknowledges the possible authority of any “warden” and diffuses the situation. Yes they may be and probably are in the wrong and you should explain why you can do what you want but as said many times by many people the I-can-stop-and-be-gone line works nearly all the time to let continue your activation.
Explanations of SOTA and ham radio can be interesting and helpful once the “I’m the warden and you do as I say” issue has been dealt with. However, handing a warden a leaflet saying there “10’s of thousands of us worldwide” is only going to trigger some wardens to be extra vigilant expecting hoards of hams trekking to “THEIR” summit. Or they’ll push it upwards with possibly dire consequences.
So politely point out why you do what you are doing is legal then if they still demand you stop, SUCK IT UP and leave and go elsewhere. You will not win in these circumstances and are likely to bring SOTA into disrepute (and get yourself banned) and possibly make the situation worse for everyone.
Well said Andy. I think that you have summed up the correct way to deal with this situation. 73 de Paul M0CQE.
Another very important issue is that if you have been instructed to cease operating then any contacts that you made prior to receiving that instruction cannot constitute a valid activation under the General Rules of SOTA: 3.7: “Activating a summit where permission has not been given or implied by ‘open access’ will invalidate the activation.” and 3.7.1.7 “All operation must comply with all limitations on the use of transmitting equipment that may exist for the summit.”
What if you are on open access land under the CROW Act? As discussed before this permits open air recreation.
Brian, I’m not sure you’re reading that rule correctly, or understanding it correctly. Nowhere in that rule is a time limit given, so there is no clear ruling as to what should happen to points gained BEFORE permission was withdrawn.
I think you would agree that, if permission for a particular summit had been withdrawn, say, yesterday, that an activation of that summit today would properly be considered to be invalid. I think you would also agree that an activation which had taken place two days ago - that is, one day prior to the withdrawal of permission, would not be considered to have been violated by a withdrawal of permission on the next day.
So, a day before, or 5 minutes before: any QSOs conducted BEFORE the withdrawal of permission must still be considered valid. Afterwards, no.
Just my $0.02, as always…
