I've heard several times that "most members won't use a dark-sky site". I wonder; the evidence seems to the contrary. Many SLAS members go to dark sites quite frequently so I have a hard time believing that a dark site would go unused. During warm weather this list is mostly a message board for the Wedge or Wolf Creek, or other remote sites all over the state. While I personally am not currently an active observer, my recent (last few years) attendance has actually been more at the remote locations than SPOC or other suburban star-parties. What folks want in a remote site are a few conveniences and a bit of security. The issue is whether enough clubbers want to commit club money to a remote property purchase or lease, and that is easily determined by a vote. I have to admit to ignorance on this. Has the entire membership ever been polled, or has it always been informal queries at meetings of the percentage who attended that night? If a subset of members got together and formed a co-op to purchase or lease a remote site outside of SLAS, would the membership at large feel offended or ostracized at not having access-on-demand of their own dark site? Would it lead to a duplication of efforts? Good visual astronomy requires a dark site; that is indisputable, so the issue simply must be re-examined from time-to-time by any urban-based club, as time goes by, members come-and-go, interests shift. Discussion should never be considered a waste of time or a reason to roll ones eyes. Back to my cave, thanks for your time. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com