Your response, like the others you've posted, are unfortunately riddled with misinformation and self-serving judgments. Who are you to decide how much flying is enough flying? You haven't a clue, nor does it in any way affect our ability to comply with the use permit at the Rim. Do you really believe we are disconnected from the users at the site? Our Hat Creek Rim website has had 76,000 visitors? Believe is or not Roger, the vast majority of users are very happy with the way things are at the Rim (except for the negativity).
Your attitude is at the heart of the dilemma at Hat Creek Rim. Instead of focusing on what is best for the site and the users there, you attack us, or policies, whatever YOU feel like finding fault with.
Where were you in 1996,97,98,99,2000,01,02? Not a negative word was communicated nor was the Forest Service inundated with "opinions" about the way things are at Hat Creek Rim. And here's the shocker, Roger, it was our small club with 4 members on the Hat Creek Committee making the hang gliding decisions and following the requirement of the Use Permit. A permit that the Forest Service required in 1996.
Hmmm, what changed?
In 2003 Page Perrin quit the club and his position on the Hat Creek Committee. He then promptly promised another club the use permit. It's that simple Roger. You can twist the truth all you want but that is what is at the core and that is the source of all the BS at Hat Creek Rim. A handful of doubter and detractors are committed to finishing what Page started in 2003 - our elimination from the site.
It's all documented Roger. And you, in all of you uninformed wisdom, want to address petty unrelated matters and sling backhanded insults towards us.
Who wouldn't have something to say about the unimaginable behavior of those responsible for leaving the #1LZ in the deplorable condition found in 2008? Name one site that extended an invitation to the CSG to hold their party in their LZ. It was a mistake to go public with their mess, and we've apologized for that, but having been ignored trying to deal with it on a local level (all documented, Roger) we felt we had no other option.
In closing, I wish things were different. Our small club, our committee members, the Forest Service, the USHPA and the pilots who use the site are all ready for peace and harmony to return to the site. The ball is in your court... We are willing to compromise and implement change with any group that earnestly wants to work together towards that goal.
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓
« Back to index
Responses are not allowed!
Create your own free message board!