<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Any consideration given for the number of active pattern pilots in these
"Re-Districts"? You might want to contact L. Von Nostrand. If I remember
correctly he chaired the last committee on the same subject.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/1/2006 5:54:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
crock@kc.rr.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Forgot
Missouri...<BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "George Kennie"
<geobet@gis.net><BR>To:
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006
1:11 PM<BR>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] redistricting<BR><BR><BR>> Happy New
Year everybody!<BR>> <BR>> A little bit ago I got a post from Cathy
Reuther and it dealt with<BR>> the districts as currently arranged.<BR>>
I got scratchin' my head over this and felt that there were some<BR>>
extreme geographical inequities placed on some districts. I got out<BR>> my
atlas and got looking at the U.S.and marvelled at the distance<BR>> one
would have to travel in some districts to attend a contest in<BR>> "your
own" district.<BR>> In some districts the states seem to be smaller while
other<BR>> districts are composed of states that are voluminus in
their<BR>> geographical area.<BR>> One area that caught my attention is
district #2. In my estimation,<BR>> district #2 seems to have a lower
frequency of scheduled events<BR>> which appears, to me, to be a function
of the fact that the area is<BR>> too limited geographically. With a slight
expansion of their<BR>> geographical area this shortfall could be
corrected.<BR>> Anyhow................. I got studying the U.S. map and
came up with<BR>> the following reconfiguration:<BR>> <BR>> District
#1,<BR>> Me., N.H., Vt., Ma., Ct., R.I., N.Y., Pa., N.J., Md., De.
(no<BR>> change).<BR>> <BR>> District #2,<BR>> D.C., Va., W.Va.,
Oh., Ky., Tn., N.C.<BR>> <BR>> District #3,<BR>> S.C., Ga., Fla.,
Al., Ms., La., Ar.<BR>> <BR>> District #4,<BR>> Mich., In., Il.,
Mis., Ia., Wi., Mn.<BR>> <BR>> District #5,<BR>> N.D., S.D., Wy.,
Neb.<BR>> <BR>> District #6,<BR>> Kan., Co., Ok., N.M., Tx.<BR>>
<BR>> District #7,<BR>> Ut., Az., Nev., Ca., Ha.<BR>> <BR>>
District #8,<BR>> Wa., Or., Id., Mt., Ak.<BR>> <BR>> Now before you
get yourselves all in a tither and rip me up and down<BR>> for not being
all that sufficiently wound, get out your atlases and<BR>> take a look at
how the size of all of these districts compare<BR>> against each other and
you will find that in almost all of these<BR>> areas the distances required
for one to travel to it's remotest<BR>> parts appears to be quite similar
and much more equitable than the<BR>> current arrangement. Additionally,
it's possible that the proximity<BR>> effects may even generate greater
contest origination within<BR>> district confines as now one is free of the
extended travel<BR>> requirement.<BR>> <BR>> Hey, it's a quiet New
Years day around here and I had not much else<BR>> to do so I decided to
stir the pot a little,...........and besides<BR>> maybe someone can
come up with something better. Better is always<BR>>
good.............<BR>> Georgie</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>