Another criminal idiot in the National Parks

agesilaus wrote:
What percent of Maryland is owned by the Federal Government, darned little is my guess. You don't even have a major park, not that there is room for one. Some western states are over 80 percent Fed and they have a real cause for unhappiness.

For the record I now live in AZ and the answer is near 80 percent for here. I've visited twelve National Parks over the years, and at one time Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequioia were weekend trips for us multiple times per year. And, having lived in six states on both coasts, folks in MD and other places wtihout public land need to understand the issue and have a right to an opinion. We are a mobile society and of all places rv.net should understand that.

I don't hear many locals in AZ complaining about 80 percent public land, just politicians wanting more tax revenue. Public land is what makes this a great place to live.

I'm not against fees and uses that raise money to support management in fact I think our national parks are way too low of an entry fee. $20 for 7-14 days or whatever it is is a steal. I think that can easily triple to $20/3 days and be a drop in the bucket to a family vacation. I don't have a problem with a BLM permit fee or other reasonable revenue options. I'm not in favor of locking out public lands.

shelbyfv wrote:
Western property, with the exception of Texas was all owned by the Federal government (all of us) prior to granting the privilege of statehood. Folks who live in Western states have no more right to determine the use of Federal land in their states than citizens who live in other parts of the country. This is well established.

All current states other than the original 13 were owned by the US government at one point or another. Is 80 percent of TN now owned by the feds? Or any other state east of the Mississippi? Your point makes little sense especially considering the 10th Amendment. I see nothing in the US Constitution that permits the government to own land. If you do let me know where it is.

Western property, with the exception of Texas was all owned by the Federal government (all of us) prior to granting the privilege of statehood. Folks who live in Western states have no more right to determine the use of Federal land in their states than citizens who live in other parts of the country. This is well established.

What percent of Maryland is owned by the Federal Government, darned little is my guess. You don't even have a major park, not that there is room for one. Some western states are over 80 percent Fed and they have a real cause for unhappiness.

Public land is an issue that doesn't get enough attention and is now a thread drift but important. Lot's of movements to sell public land (aka BLM and other Federal land) or give it to states. The states do not allow the same public access or affford the same conservation principles to land that Feds do.

fj12ryder wrote:
^^^^Yeah, I've seen way too many dirt bikes and ATV's tearing up fantastic riding areas, and then being barred from them, simply because they didn't seem to be thinking about how badly they were trashing the trails.

Pedal powered mountain bikes were also banned because the powers-that-be deemed it easier to just ban everyone rather than the ones doing the actual damage. Not too hard to understand how ATV's and dirt bikes have such a bad image.

It is sort of like what is happening with Hydrocodone, many of the serious users of Opioids for fun were and are encouraged by DRs that do not pay attention to what they are doing and big pharm companies that know about excessive prescriptions by those MD's. Now those of us that really need them of and on can't get them because it is easier to stop the legitimate sale of pain relievers than stop the people who are making big bucks through allowing abuse.

DutchmenSport wrote:
Oh wait! That person pays his taxes, so that means he's now "entitled" to destroy "his" land, since it belongs to him now!

Oh wait! That person is on subsidized income, so that means they are now "entitled" to do whatever they want on government land, since, actually ... they are ... well ... paid by the government!

Oh wait! They are "illegals".So that means they are now "entitled" to drive there. After all, does it matter if they occupy space in the middle of New York City or the middle of the Salt Flats! They're illegal, so they are entitled!

Oh wait! That person is living off the grid, believes laws and government don't apply to them. If nothing applies to them, they are "entitled" to do whatever they want, since they don't recognize civil law to begin with!

Oh wait! .... Some people just don't give a D***!

You forgot:

Oh Wait! I am a business that's "entitled" to get all my raw materials for next to nothing or free so I can turn a huge profit off all this "useless" gov't land.

Fortunately, the damage from this incident should heal relatively quickly, but for a few years now it's going to detract from the enjoyment of many visitors.

Sadly, there are just enough idiots out there that this sort of stuff happens all to often. Ignorance, stupidity, or just plain bad intent, it's hard to say.

There has been a lot of talk about what is the punishment for environmental violations. In particular, the two kids that set the Gatlinberg fire. For my two cents worth, they should be imprisoned for life, and every week, they should be taken and made to clean the graves of those they killed.

In the late 1940s after land had been purchased for Big Bend NP, the locals were permitted to continue grazing their cattle on park land for several years. Previously they had limited their cattle to a number that was more or less sustainable. After the land had been sold and they knew their grazing privileges would be limited, the locals brought in thousands of additional cattle. In just a couple of years of excessive use, they damaged the grasslands to the point that they have yet to fully recover. There is a long and sordid history of local exploitation and abuse of the public land that belongs to us all. So sad....