The league could stand to benefit financially by the decision to add Jarvis to the DXCC list, at least temporarily. I imagine there are members who have left because of one reason or another, who might be lured back just to get a new click in order to retain their #1 HR status. I would renew to get that click. Other monies would be made as well in award fees. It seems like a win win for them.
For those wondering about the maritime boundaries involved: I think the folks petitioning to make Palmyra and Jarvis discrete DXCC entities do have a point....even though that'll make the pileups for that DXpedition THAT much worse. I assume that they'd have to delete "Jarvis and Palmyra", and we'll now need to work both Jarvis and Palmyra again....
Wow, just wow! So if Jarvis is added to the DXCC list disgruntled former ARRL members would renew just to keep their #1 HR status? I was addicted to DXing for decades and lack only a legit P 5 confirmation (I have one that was not counted) for top of the HR. But that addiction has been cured. I have Palmyra/Jarvis confirmed on both CW and SSB on multiple bands. Will I work Jarvis when the new DXpedition goes live? Only on bands/modes I don't have confirmed but even that would only be for the personal satisfaction of doing it. I won't bother with QSLing and don't care to add to my "official" 7 BDXCC totals. At my age there are too many much more important things in life. If those who have left the ARRL because of the current state of League affairs renew just because of working a new entity I would find that amazing....but I wouldn't do it. And as for a new entity being a revenue generator for the ARRL I believe there are better and more effective ways of solving the League's rumored financial difficulties. A few renewals and DXCC fees are almost insignificant.
The have a minimal intrusion permit and from what I understand equipment will be on the island but most of the operators will work that equipment remotely (RIB) from aboard ship to minimize environmental impacts.
[UPDATE] – In addition to the initial info below, over on social media, a reader notes the following which sums up the situation currently. The DXAC investigated and rejected the notion that Jarvis should be separated from Palmyra. This was published in the January 2024 DXAC minutes, along with the explanation about how Palmyra and Jarvis ended up being joined. Again, there is no path for Jarvis to be a separate entity except for a rule change to accommodate it, just like what was done with Swains and Kosovo. That practice should continue to be rejected by the DXAC, PSC, and ARRL Board. However, keep in mind that there will be another ARRL board meeting in July, one month before the N5J Jarvis Island DXpedition. Link to DXAC minutes here – [it is worth a read]. As per the minutes: “Palmyra and Jarvis are not 800 km apart, so they are a single island chain country.” https://www.dx-world.net/jarvis-island-as-a-new-dxcc-entity/
Here's the relevant section of the current DXCC rules: The "another DXCC entity is in between" element is written such that only "between island and its parent" is being considered. The language is at best ambiguous when it comes to situations where a different DXCC "intervenes" between islands that make up a child island entity, or whether the "intervention" is based on land, territorial waters, contiguous waters, and/or EEZs. Looking at the maritime boundary map that I posted above...objectively, I think that rule might be flawed. ("Objectively" = I have selfish reasons that I'd prefer that "Palmyra & Jarvis" not be deleted and new entities "Palmyra" and "Jarvis" be created.)
