New [to me] C.N.F. Frequency

[Alain]

For those who may not subscribe to, or be aware of this e-magazine [The Spectrum Monitor], there is an article that offers a new frequency for the CNF that our RR database does not show. [US Forest Service - Cleveland National Forest (CA) - The RadioReference Wiki]

On page # 43 of the current July issue, there is a listing of some of the logs that the author maintained while on a recent business trip.

Chris Parris' column, "Federal Wavelengths", shows 168.1500 MHz w/a PL of 131.8. There is no I.D. note attached to the listing.

Just thought you'd like to know...

 

[Markb]

The RRDB shows that frequency as the input to BDF Forest Net, FWIW.

 

[ko6jw_2]

Have you heard anything on the frequency? Random lists like you have attached are mostly useless. It could be some sort of tac frequency that was used at a major fire although it doesn't appear in any list I checked. Your list has a number of frequencies with no ID's. Frequencies in the RR database are mostly reliable. There are enough listeners out there that new frequencies get added pretty quickly.

 

[ecps92]

No, it is not useless, the Writer spent time in the area and was sharing what he captured during that visit.
It is not some random list from a regurgitation of the internet webs from the 70/80's.

With no ID, means the Writer was unable to link the freq/tone/nac back to a known user/agency.

I had in my notes 168.1500 as the possible output for CNF for an Admin Repeater network [circa 2015 notes]
it also pairs with a few other forests for both inputs and outputs

Have you heard anything on the frequency? Random lists like you have attached are mostly useless. It could be some sort of tac frequency that was used at a major fire although it doesn't appear in any list I checked. Your list has a number of frequencies with no ID's. Frequencies in the RR database are mostly reliable. There are enough listeners out there that new frequencies get added pretty quickly.