Los Padres NF not using 103.5 on outputs?

[Progline]

This morning we're in Oxnard and to my surprise, when the Los Padres Forest morning weather was read on the Forest Net (170.4625), there was no CTCSS on the channel. I normally don't hear LPF from home that well, but I thought both Admin and Forest Nets were doing 103.5 as was Angeles NF, and I thought I'd programmed all my radios for this. Except, fortunately the one we brought out here.

I have no idea what hilltop they read the weather off from, but it was the "southern weather" as there was no repeat broadcast that we could hear for the other areas (if they still do that).

So, is it time to remove the CTCSS decode from my radios for the LPF? The Database does show 103.5 used still.

 

[Markb]

Form the information I have, the only Southern California forest that has or has ever had CTCSS on decode is the Cleveland. From what I recall, this was due to interference issues from south of the border.

 

[KK6ZTE]

The database is wrong as well as whoever submitted it. They don't have tone on the output and nobody in the fire service programs their radios with tones on Admin, Forest, or Service nets for the LPF.

 

[ScannerDude244]

I know they use 103.5 up here the Monterey area

 

[Markb]

The FIRESCOPE MACS 441-1 document shows 3 forests (or USFS entities) in California that use CTCSS decode on their repeated nets: Cleveland (as I stated previously), El Dorado and the Tahoe Management Unit. IOW, the official documentation for California does not list a decode tone for the ANF.

 

[iscanvnc2]

0815 LPF Forest Net conducting station morning lineup check for Ventura county.
PL 103.5 as always.

 

[oldradioguy2010]

Due to the weather here in so. cal
I have a ear on Los Padres.

DW
So. Cal

 

[Markb]

I think the bottom line here is that if whatever repeater transmits an output tone, you are free to put that in your scanner.
It is not in any official documentation, so don't be surprised if that channel goes silent at some point until you realize what has happened.

 

[iscanvnc2]

1210 Angeles NF Forest Net & Admin Net both PL 103.5. They're really busy! Brush fire & TCs.

 

[es93546]

The official R5 Frequency Guide is a bit vague on CTCSS tones on the output of repeater channels. The Angeles shows that by using simplex on the repeater channels, an input tone of 103.5 (Tone 8) is required. They also not that the simplex Service Net requires a transmit tone of 146.2 (Tone 5). For the Cleveland there is a note that Tone 8 is used on the repeater output for the Forest and Admin Nets. The Cleveland does not show their Service Net in their primary, fire channel group. The only note on the Los Padres listing shows Santa Ynez Peak is not a repeater, only a remote base and that Tone 8 is required to reach it on direct. The San Bernardino has no notes for any use of Tone 8, except it is the input tone for Black Mtn. or Peak.

When I was working for the USFS and traveling to fires and investigations in southern California it was my understanding that all of the four southern CA forests tone guarded their repeater nets and simplex of those nets with Tone 8. I remember traveling there and always noting Tone 8 on the outputs. At one point my radio (on the Inyo) did not have any tone guarding on the outputs. I suffered hearing lots of traffic from Mexico and the local forest employees did not have to hear it.

It is my understanding that the first push for putting tones on the output of NIFC command repeaters was due to the experience of using them in southern California. I've noticed some southern California incidents showing tone guarding on the tac channels as well, that is, if my less than stellar memory serves me correctly.

The Mexico traffic is, of course, illegal, both from an international radio use basis and inside Mexico as well. I don't think the amount of illegal use has been reduced. Without tone guarding down there, everyone would get pounded. All my southern California scanner programs have 103.5 on the output of all the repeater nets there. The BLM listings don't show anything for the outputs, but locally the Bishop Field Office uses 110.9 (Tone 1) on the outputs for all its repeaters. I think it is used in the rest of the BLM Central California District. After New Year's I'm going to contact the person that compiles the R5 Freq. Guide and suggest he finds out what federal jurisdictions have an output tone guard and list them. It would make programming radios for those areas a lot easier.

 

[ko6jw_2]

Everybody is wrong. The database is messed up. There is no PL etc etc. No everyone is right. Everything you know is wrong.

No folks, I sitting here within line of sight of Santa Ynez Peak, Tepusquet and Fugeroa. Within range of La Cumbre. The PL is 103.5 and it is on the output of all the repeaters I can hear. Nothing has changed. Only the inputs differ. Even the 400MHz links use 103.5.

The Mexican traffic originated when somebody brilliantly sold surplus USFS radios south of the border. They were being used by a beer distributor. A variety of measures had to be used including tone rejection. It has been resolved as far as LPNF is concerned. We learned that "over" is "cambio" in Spanish. We/are they illegal? They don't have the same band plans as we do. Who knows?

 

[Progline]

My understanding was that the 103.5 tone was indeed used to reduce Mexican traffic, and this started on the ANF, before the frequency change (when it was 171.575 for Forest Net). In the summer, the Mexican interference was strong enough to be heard here in the San Fernando Valley, much less on a Hilltop. I am not sure why yesterday's Morning Weather was on a repeater with no CTCSS output, but I double checked on a couple of radios, and it was definitely not humming a tone. What can I say?

I was unable to hear any activity on LPF today from home, but as mentioned above today's ANF was VERY busy with several TCs (cars and motorcycles) in the morning, and all with 103.5 on their outputs (see pics).

Somewhere in the archived threads here, from years ago is a discussion on this topic, which discussed the LPF going to 103.5 on the outputs.

Thanks to all who replied. I think I'll try dropping CTCSS on the LPF for the time being and see if the scanners behave, just in case.

 

[Progline]

Everybody is wrong. The database is messed up. There is no PL etc etc. No everyone is right. Everything you know is wrong.

No folks, I sitting here within line of sight of Santa Ynez Peak, Tepusquet and Fugeroa. Within range of La Cumbre. The PL is 103.5 and it is on the output of all the repeaters I can hear. Nothing has changed. Only the inputs differ. Even the 400MHz links use 103.5.

The Mexican traffic originated when somebody brilliantly sold surplus USFS radios south of the border. They were being used by a beer distributor. A variety of measures had to be used including tone rejection. It has been resolved as far as LPNF is concerned. We learned that "over" is "cambio" in Spanish. We/are they illegal? They don't have the same band plans as we do. Who knows?

Do they still read the morning weather for the north and south areas back to back?

I didn't know about the beer distributor, but I do remember that when the first channel change happened, and 171.575 went to 164.9375, they had a few months of respite, and then a DIFFERENT source of interference from Mexico occurred. Sometimes, you just can't win, I guess.

 

[mmckenna]

Sometimes, you just can't win, I guess.

Hopefully they've learned that they should wipe their radios before getting rid of them. Usually agencies only make that mistake once….

 

[AM909]

I hear fire weather at 1700L on 171.425 103.5 (and on the input 164.800 using multiple tones) Cleveland Forest Net. I also hear fire weather at 1600L on 171.475 103.5 (and on the input 168.1500 using multiple tones) San Bernardino Forest Net.

 

[es93546]

Everybody is wrong. The database is messed up. There is no PL etc etc. No everyone is right. Everything you know is wrong.

No folks, I sitting here within line of sight of Santa Ynez Peak, Tepusquet and Fugeroa. Within range of La Cumbre. The PL is 103.5 and it is on the output of all the repeaters I can hear. Nothing has changed. Only the inputs differ. Even the 400MHz links use 103.5.

The Mexican traffic originated when somebody brilliantly sold surplus USFS radios south of the border. They were being used by a beer distributor. A variety of measures had to be used including tone rejection. It has been resolved as far as LPNF is concerned. We learned that "over" is "cambio" in Spanish. We/are they illegal? They don't have the same band plans as we do. Who knows?

Back in the 80's some of the traffic sounded like taxi cabs, at least that is what my less than stellar understanding of Spanish indicated to me.

 

[rsmith7799]

Good morning Group, here is the 2021 BK Load for the Los Padres.

 

[es93546]

Good morning Group, here is the 2021 BK Load for the Los Padres.

Thanks for posting this. I don't remember when I received the last one of these.

Someone needs to tell the radio techs on the LP to update Group 17. All of the BLM frequencies are outdated. They even show the Bakersfield District, which no longer exists. It is now the Central California District and the district office is in El Dorado Hills. Bakersfield is now a field office, not a district office. Hollister is no longer a field office, it is now the Central Coast Field Office located in Marina, CA. In Group 12 the listed frequency for the Tahoe hasn't been used in 2-4 years. There might be other mistakes, I just took a quick look at this listing.

I would love to get this listing every year, right around the time it is revised.

 

[es93546]

I looked in my notebooks and had a 2020 version of the LP's channel plan. I think I may have gotten it from you! Thanks again.

 

[rsmith7799]

Good morning, when I get any updates from our Firescope meeting in Feb, I'll send those changes along to the Group along with the new LP Load