7O6T - Yemen Approved For DXCC Credit

Discussion in 'Contests, DXpeditions and Special Events' started by WA6ITF, May 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: l-BCInc
  1. K1XV

    K1XV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I seem to recall that when i was first licensed in the 1960s, there were countries that US operators could not work. That was probably academic, because I doubt any of those countries actually had any active ops on the air.

    I cannot recall ever hearing a 4X4 station in QSO with a station from an "Arab" country. Do they all have such prohibitions?
  2. KC2SIZ

    KC2SIZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Excellent advice!
  3. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't know how to say it more clearly - Neither I nor anyone else cares what Yemen allows or prohibits and neither does anyone object to ITC regulations - THAT'S NOT the issue!!!

    That the ARRL accredits thereby tacitly condoning and fostering such an operation is the issue and AGAIN, there is no doubt they would act differently had Yemen prohibited communications with the U.S. - and YOU KNOW THAT~!
  4. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Where did anyone complain about how this expedition is run?????

    I don't comprehend how some can so totally miss the point!
  5. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    ARRL's standard is 1) do you have a valid license, 2) do you have landing permission/entry permission, 3) did you abide by the terms of the license? They're not going to pick apart the ins and outs of restrictions. This is the same reasoning as to why they will not grant DXCC status to Kosovo.

    Again, if you feel so strongly about this, you should petition to have Mexico deleted from the DXCC list and any operations from Mexico disallowed because the Mexican communications authority forbids US hams from operating on contests or DXpeditions unless there is an equal number of Mexican hams present.

    I await your demand letter...
  6. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    A specious argument - the metaphor you choose is irrelevant to this issue.

    That you phrase it as a "demand" letter is curious as though you would "demand" accreditation of any operation which excluded U.S. amateurs. Would you not?
  7. KC9LGW

    KC9LGW Ham Member QRZ Page

    You are out in left field, completely missing the point. You are talking about standards for a DXpedition.

    I’m talking about standards for an entity to qualify for DXCC status or be disqualified. Once again and this is the point some just don’t understand, we are talking about the rules for a game. “Fair play is fair play”, that is all I am saying. If one person is denied the opportunity to score the point then it is only fair that no one else get it.
    Again – The ARRL created the game, controls the list, and designs the rules of play. I believe the ARRL should say if you don’t allow equal opportunity to everyone across the world to earn the point, then you are not on the list. It’s all or nothing.

    BTW: After reading some of the responses it appears that some people do not understand the concept of “Fair Play”. Have we really lost our moral compass, has honor and integrity completely left our society? When do we start doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do?
  8. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, I am not missing the point at all. Yemen forbids contacts with 4X stations. Its part of their regulations. You would say discriminatory. Mexico forbids US hams from freely operating without the the presence of a Mexican ham. Its part of their regulations. How are you absolving one but then condemning another?

    Prohibitions regarding contacting various countries have been around for years. In Southeast asia, in the middle east, etc.

    Thats' right. Its their game and they already ruled on the matter.
  9. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    How is it irrelevant? The licensing authority of both countries has set rules. Why are you condemning one but not the other?
  10. K4JC

    K4JC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't believe the ARRL is politicizing this Yemen operation at all. I don't think they even considered the political angle. As ARRL is not a political organization there was no reason for them to do so. They simply went by the established rules for recognizing a DX operation and made a decision based on that. Nothing more. It is several of the people on this board who are dragging politics in. You will not find a more ardent supporter of Israel than me, and I am furious that the Yemeni government has required 7O6T to refrain from contacting any Israeli stations. But it doesn't come as a surprise to me, and it shouldn't to you either. I'm sure our friends in 4X aren't surprised either and I am saddened that they are probably hearing S9+ signals from 7O6T but cannot work them. Perhaps someone from Israel is reading these posts and could chime in with their viewpoint. (I seem to recall a similar restriction with E4 operations, and I'm sure that if and when P5 returns to the air they will have restrictions - maybe even excluding US!)

    If you're unhappy with Yemen for excluding Israel from communications with 7O stations, the ARRL is not the organization to complain to. The DXpedition members are not the group to complain to. Your government leaders, ambassadors and statesmen are the ones to complain to. They are the people who have the wherewithal to do something (if they so choose.) We all have our political views, but ham radio is NOT where they belong.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page