Jump to content

New park policy


acpdnat
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

It always surprises me when some appointed "official" runs around claiming they are going to make rules for everyone else. This is a public park. Do they forget what "public" means? It is the public who should decide any rules for that park, not someone who sits behind a desk all their life dreaming up rules for everyone else. What saddens me is how few people realize that they themselves should be, and are, the rule makers for themselves. I for one refuse to live in a police state. This is America. You spit on the flag every time you let someone make a rule for you, the rule-maker doubly so.

 

"Authority isn't something someone else has. It is something that you have freely, foolishly and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self."

 

ANYONE who allows or uses the threat of fear to control you is no better than terrorists. People who make policies from fear are the terrorists themselves. They have done exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do.

 

Wow, talk about going wildly off tangent.

 

I put my faith in park directors/departments to keep those public spaces kept up to public use standards. There are reasons for regulations and none of them have anything to do with terrorism or knee-jerk reactions out of fear. Those regulations are meant to preserve these green spaces from abuse. I would hate to see a park that is free from oversight of a public official.

 

While I don't agree with a decision to not allow geocaching in a public park, it isn't the park manager who made that call. It's the people who abused the system...caching after posted hours, littering, trampling through flowerbeds, damaging property...who decided that fate.

 

Yes I agree! There are rules for a reason, and those who abuse them ruin it for everyone else. I hope that by establising this policy now, with the public's involvement, we will avoid this scenario.

Link to comment
It is the public who should decide any rules for that park, not someone who sits behind a desk all their life dreaming up rules for everyone else.

Uh... OK. I'd hate to think that any system has devolved to the point where those who actually have the knowledge, training and experience, (such as park management), are allowed input on the use of the park whose responsibility they've been tasked with. Surely Josephine Public, soccer mom extraordinaire, who has never set foot in a park, has a much better handle on how these things should be run... Or not... :anibad::P

 

I for one refuse to live in a police state. This is America.

So, are you promoting Anarchy or Democracy?

Historically, neither system has been shown to be effective.

I'm assuming that's why the founding fathers of our nation built it as a Republic.

Link to comment

Uh... OK. I'd hate to think that any system has devolved to the point where those who actually have the knowledge, training and experience, (such as park management), are allowed input on the use of the park whose responsibility they've been tasked with. Surely Josephine Public, soccer mom extraordinaire, who has never set foot in a park, has a much better handle on how these things should be run... Or not... :anibad::P

 

<OT>

 

Sort of like how people who have never had kids tell people how to raise kids...

 

</OT>

Link to comment

 

Yeah, so don't go around making up rules that single out geocachers or others, for 'special' treatment, just because they might happen to have a GPSr device in their hand.

 

I think you can make a distinction between a rule of where caches can be placed and a rule about where people can walk when holding a GPS.

 

That in deed could be true. Let me know when you see a park that has done that, will you?

Link to comment

It always surprises me when some appointed "official" runs around claiming they are going to make rules for everyone else. This is a public park. Do they forget what "public" means? It is the public who should decide any rules for that park, not someone who sits behind a desk all their life dreaming up rules for everyone else. What saddens me is how few people realize that they themselves should be, and are, the rule makers for themselves. I for one refuse to live in a police state. This is America. You spit on the flag every time you let someone make a rule for you, the rule-maker doubly so.

 

"Authority isn't something someone else has. It is something that you have freely, foolishly and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self."

 

ANYONE who allows or uses the threat of fear to control you is no better than terrorists. People who make policies from fear are the terrorists themselves. They have done exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do.

 

Wow, talk about going wildly off tangent.

 

I put my faith in park directors/departments to keep those public spaces kept up to public use standards. There are reasons for regulations and none of them have anything to do with terrorism or knee-jerk reactions out of fear. Those regulations are meant to preserve these green spaces from abuse. I would hate to see a park that is free from oversight of a public official.

 

While I don't agree with a decision to not allow geocaching in a public park, it isn't the park manager who made that call. It's the people who abused the system...caching after posted hours, littering, trampling through flowerbeds, damaging property...who decided that fate.

 

Yes I agree! There are rules for a reason, and those who abuse them ruin it for everyone else. I hope that by establising this policy now, with the public's involvement, we will avoid this scenario.

 

Right on Dude!! :P

Link to comment

It always surprises me when some appointed "official" runs around claiming they are going to make rules for everyone else. This is a public park. Do they forget what "public" means? It is the public who should decide any rules for that park, not someone who sits behind a desk all their life dreaming up rules for everyone else.

 

(remainder of rant deleted)

 

This is why parks have to have rules, and "the public" doesn't get to make up their own rules:

 

The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968. The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

Link to comment

Just two recent threads:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=239581

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=239420

 

And all the posts in this thread that have "rules" that demand you can't camo your cache, you can't walk off a trail to ensure there is no well-worn path because the "park board" are too f'ingly stupid to realize why that's true, that it must be transparent, with the equally stupid suggestions that you must "register" your cache with some park-circus clown, etc.

 

I give it about another 2 years before you are all labeled as terrorists by the paranoid psychotic control-freaks of the world and you'll just sit there going "Awww... was fun while it lasted, but big-brother told me I can't play anymore. Boo hoo."

 

I thought I'd do you a favor by reminding you that there's no law where you need to give up your rights to enjoy your pastime. Don't bend over and kiss anyone's (backside) that wants to make laws nor rules.

 

If only the fear-monger, paranoid-psychotic, control-freaks would put it in perspective. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than from a terrorist. And that more people have died from car accidents in the last year than from all terrorist activity in the last century. But no, then how could they use the "terrorist" excuse to change your behavior and make you obey them?

 

Fools.

 

(potty mouth language removed by moderator)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

Not being snarky or sarcastic here, but genuine. Keo1, I seriously recommend therapy for your extreme reaction regarding usual and customary exercise of authority.

 

- Zurfco

I recommend more than therapy for someone that doesn't comprehend the following: "Authority isn't something someone else has. It is something that you have freely, foolishly and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self."

Link to comment
If only the fear-monger, paranoid-psychotic, control-freaks would put it in perspective.

 

Perhaps you should look in the mirror and repeat those quoted words back to yourself. But, I'm not sure I want to argue with someone who won't let little things like logic and common sense get in the way of his thinking.

 

Back on topic, having a park director who openly seeks out geocachers and their advice is a good thing and it's something we should embrace, not scorn. With physical geocaches pretty much not being allowed to be placed in National Parks, we can use local and state parks to demonstrate that geocaching is not detrimental to the environment and ecosystem. That might open the doors again to placing caches in National Parks. That's a GOOD thing.

Link to comment

Not being snarky or sarcastic here, but genuine. Keo1, I seriously recommend therapy for your extreme reaction regarding usual and customary exercise of authority.

 

- Zurfco

I recommend more than therapy for someone that doesn't comprehend the following: "Authority isn't something someone else has. It is something that you have freely, foolishly and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self."

 

 

Keo1... I'll side with you. Your "Authority" quote is dead on. The more you visit this forum the more you'll be able to pick out the trolling "sheep" flamers. I think this forum has more flamers than the gamer forums I used to read. And the sad thing is that people in here are adults not punk kids. OR are they?

Link to comment

there's a necessity to having some kind of use guidelines for public spaces.

 

what will happen when your unrestricted right to enjoy a wilderness environment runs up against my unrestricted right to play loud music and take target practice on my empty beer cans?

 

if the land manager wishes to allow both activities, they can plan ahead of time to put your quiet zone over THERE so it won't bother me. that's a much better approach than waiting until i get annoyed because you wander into my shot.

Link to comment
... a much better approach than waiting until i get annoyed because you wander into my shot.

For the vast majority of humanity, not necessarily. :P

 

It doesn't start with laws nor rules. It starts in the home with instilling your children with respect for all others and respect for nature. With those two things alone there's no need for any laws nor rules. I, for one, don't abide by playing babysitter for those that haven't done their parenting jobs correctly, so now they have to hang signs all over the world and dumb the world down to the level of their infants. Nobody pays me enough to be their babysitter.

Link to comment
... a much better approach than waiting until i get annoyed because you wander into my shot.

For the vast majority of humanity, not necessarily.

 

It doesn't start with laws nor rules. It starts in the home with instilling your children with respect for all others and respect for nature. With those two things alone there's no need for any laws nor rules. I, for one, don't abide by playing babysitter for those that haven't done their parenting jobs correctly, so now they have to hang signs all over the world and dumb the world down to the level of their infants. Nobody pays me enough to be their babysitter.

 

ok, wander into my shot.

 

if the land manager knows that he wishes to allow both experiences, it will be best to have a plan in place as to how the land will be used. my loud music and target practice are an acceptable activity, and i'm guessing that when you arrive wishing to have a quiet wilderness experience you will feel i have somehow been disrespectful instead of the other way 'round.

 

when land is opened to mountain bikes, it is good for the manager to have a policy in place as to who may cut new trails and where they may be cut, as well as whether or not he will wish for us to stay on the trails or if off-trail riding is acceptable.

 

as a visiting rider i will want to know ahead of time that there isn't a sensitive area into which i may unwittingly stray.

 

as a regular user of trail, i REALLY appreciate it when the land manager's plan expressly includes mountain bike use ahead of time so that when people write in to say "the trails would be much nicer if bikers would stay off of them", i'm covered.

 

interestingly, this comes up fairly often at a venue near my house where not only did mountain bikers build the trails to start with, but they were the ones that got the land opened up to public use in the first place.

 

land managers looking to design policy to specifically allow geocaching should be helped and encouraged. i have seen some very successful geocaching policy in a number of fine parks. what happens is that geocaches in those parks come under protection of land management and one may cache freely without concern that some zealot will come in blazing.

 

the need for laws and rules comes into play where opinions of what is properly respectful differ. in common public areas, there isn't any one proper interpretation of what constitutes other people's proper parenting.

 

more than once i have found myself riding in an area where bicycles are not welcome. this was not due to my failure to be respectful, nor to my parent's failure in raising me, but rather inappropriate sign placement and sloppy land management.

 

i am happy to confine my riding to areas where riding is permitted, if only someone will identify those areas. having no rules in public areas where reasonable people respectfully engaging in legal activities will come into conflict is just not a good idea.

 

i can think of at least one lovely and well-designed park that leave much of its space open to all use, but designates a few areas for quiet foot travel and specifically makes open some areas to bikes and some to dogs. while you may have to use discretion in where you bring your dog into some areas, there is at least one area where you may always bring your dog.

 

the aggregate effect of these lovely rules is to make at least some of the park available to all users during all operating hours. it is done surprisingly lightly and with minimal restriction. team sports, quiet foot travel (with and without dog), horse and bike traffic and multiple geocaches all coexist there; the land managers have policy encouraging multiple use while acknowledging that some uses aren't compatible with each other.

Link to comment
Just two recent threads:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=239581

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=239420

And all the posts in this thread that have "rules" that demand you can't camo your cache, you can't walk off a trail to ensure there is no well-worn path because the "park board" are too f'ingly stupid to realize why that's true, that it must be transparent, with the equally stupid suggestions that you must "register" your cache with some park-circus clown, etc.

I give it about another 2 years before you are all labeled as terrorists by the paranoid psychotic control-freaks of the world and you'll just sit there going "Awww... was fun while it lasted, but big-brother told me I can't play anymore. Boo hoo."

I thought I'd do you a favor by reminding you that there's no law where you need to give up your rights to enjoy your pastime. Don't bend over and kiss anyone's (backside) that wants to make laws nor rules.

If only the fear-monger, paranoid-psychotic, control-freaks would put it in perspective. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than from a terrorist. And that more people have died from car accidents in the last year than from all terrorist activity in the last century. But no, then how could they use the "terrorist" excuse to change your behavior and make you obey them?

Fools.

Keo1... would you mind starting a new thread with these thoughts? Not that you are off-topic or anything here... its just that, when we link to these for grins and giggles years from now, they will be much easier to find. I just hate to see a good foaming at the mouth rant get lost in a bunch of thoughtful discussion. Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

if the land manager knows ...

 

...it is good for the manager ...

 

... when the land manager's plan ...

 

land managers looking to ... of land management ...

 

... land management.

 

... the land managers have policy...

Who is this "land manager" that "manages the land" of which you speak? Nobody manages the land I walk on. We are all "land managers". No one person being in greater authority than another. You just don't get it, do you. I really shouldn't be surprised, having lived in a world of bleating herd-mentality sheep my whole life. This is no different.

 

Enjoy your game until they tell you to bend over and kiss your (backside) goodbye.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

if the land manager knows ...

 

...it is good for the manager ...

 

... when the land manager's plan ...

 

land managers looking to ... of land management ...

 

... land management.

 

... the land managers have policy...

Who is this "land manager" that "manages the land" of which you speak? Nobody manages the land I walk on. We are all "land managers". No one person being in greater authority than another. You just don't get it, do you. I really shouldn't be surprised, having lived in a world of bleating herd-mentality sheep my whole life. This is no different.

 

Enjoy your game until they tell you to bend over and kiss your (backside) goodbye.

 

let's see... if i'm walking on somebody's private property on which they have permitted geocaching, they're the land manager.

 

if i'm walking on property owned by a conservation group who has decided to allow geocaching, they're the land manager.

 

if i'm walking in a state park in which geocaching is allowed, the state would be the land manager.

 

if i am walking on a city street on which there is a geocache, the city is the manager.

 

do you somehow walk on land with no oversight or supervision, or does that exist only in your mind?

 

you want to try that tired "we ALL own the land" dodge in my yard and see how that plays out? unless you live off the grid and off of roads created or maintained by others, you are relying on somebody to manage land.

 

try getting the streets plowed by consensus, without anybody having authority over anybody.

 

--

 

"i think i'd like to try my hand at driving a plow. do you mind?"

"why, no, not at all. be my guest."

"very kind of you to leave this here large machinery out."

"not at all. it belongs to everybody. that's how we get things done here; cooperation! by the way, we're looking for someone to plow graveyard shift when it's forty below."

"uh, i think i'll be ...uh, washing my hair."

 

--

 

"excuse me, but you can't build a picnic shelter here!"

"why not? we ALL manage this land. i've decided that a nice picnic shelter would be a lovely addition to it for parties and such."

"but this is the middle of the football field."

"nobody has the authority to declare this a football field. it's public land. herd mentality."

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
or does that exist only in your mind?

Yep, you don't get it. The concept of "ownership" only exists in your own psychotic mind. I respect someone else believing in their tenuous concept of "ownership" only so long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. When they go beyond that then they no longer own what they psychotically believed that they owned.

 

Who really owns that city, that state, that country? Do tell.

 

You'll figure it out one day. Or not. Doesn't matter to me one little bit.

 

You are a fool.

 

Once I realize I'm conversing with a fool I then also realize it is pointless beyond that.

 

"Never wrastle with a pig. You only get dirty and the pig has all the fun."

Link to comment
or does that exist only in your mind?

Yep, you don't get it. The concept of "ownership" only exists in your own psychotic mind. I respect someone else believing in their tenuous concept of "ownership" only so long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. When they go beyond that then they no longer own what they psychotically believed that they owned.

 

Who really owns that city, that state, that country? Do tell.

 

You'll figure it out one day. Or not. Doesn't matter to me one little bit.

 

You are a fool.

 

Once I realize I'm conversing with a fool I then also realize it is pointless beyond that.

 

"Never wrastle with a pig. You only get dirty and the pig has all the fun."

 

i'm assuming that your are using electricity. do you manufacture your own, or is that supplied to you through use of property somebody manages?

 

and your internet connection; is that supplied to you through resources owned by somebody?

 

and as long as you're at it, are you geocaching? making use of satellites owned, placed, maintained and managed by the government?

 

your infinite rights then, do they include everybody's resources? do they extend to the point at which they interfere with other people's rights, or haven't you thought it out that far?

Link to comment
or does that exist only in your mind?

Yep, you don't get it. The concept of "ownership" only exists in your own psychotic mind. I respect someone else believing in their tenuous concept of "ownership" only so long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. When they go beyond that then they no longer own what they psychotically believed that they owned.

 

Who really owns that city, that state, that country? Do tell.

 

You'll figure it out one day. Or not. Doesn't matter to me one little bit.

 

You are a fool.

 

Once I realize I'm conversing with a fool I then also realize it is pointless beyond that.

 

"Never wrastle with a pig. You only get dirty and the pig has all the fun."

 

Oh, I get it now. You are one of THOSE people. The ones that truly believe that stop signs, speed limits, no trespassing signs, Authorized Personnel Only signs, etc. don't apply to them...only to other people. The sheep, in other words. All those pesky laws and rules infringe on your rights. That sucks to be you.

 

Here's what you can do, if you wish. Buy some land (yeah, I know...you should just be able to take the land because it's yours anyway) and post big signs that say that the land is free to use by anyone and everyone. No rules, no limits...do whatever you want. How long do you think it would be before "your" land would just be a trash riddled wasteland?

Link to comment
or does that exist only in your mind?

Yep, you don't get it. The concept of "ownership" only exists in your own psychotic mind. I respect someone else believing in their tenuous concept of "ownership" only so long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. When they go beyond that then they no longer own what they psychotically believed that they owned.

 

Who really owns that city, that state, that country? Do tell.

 

You'll figure it out one day. Or not. Doesn't matter to me one little bit.

 

You are a fool.

 

Once I realize I'm conversing with a fool I then also realize it is pointless beyond that.

 

"Never wrastle with a pig. You only get dirty and the pig has all the fun."

 

Oh, I get it now. You are one of THOSE people. The ones that truly believe that stop signs, speed limits, no trespassing signs, Authorized Personnel Only signs, etc. don't apply to them...only to other people. The sheep, in other words. All those pesky laws and rules infringe on your rights. That sucks to be you.

 

Here's what you can do, if you wish. Buy some land (yeah, I know...you should just be able to take the land because it's yours anyway) and post big signs that say that the land is free to use by anyone and everyone. No rules, no limits...do whatever you want. How long do you think it would be before "your" land would just be a trash riddled wasteland?

 

If the world worked his way chaos and anarchy would be the rule for sure.

THere is no bigger fool than he who believes all others are fools.

Link to comment
or does that exist only in your mind?

Yep, you don't get it. The concept of "ownership" only exists in your own psychotic mind. I respect someone else believing in their tenuous concept of "ownership" only so long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. When they go beyond that then they no longer own what they psychotically believed that they owned.

 

Who really owns that city, that state, that country? Do tell.

 

Nobody owns anything? Did they teach you that in jail? :P

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Just a reminder to everyone to stay on topic and not post using Personal Attacks.

 

As indicated in this post (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=238349) pinned at the top of the forum by BradW, if you have a problem with what someone has posted, report it rather than responding to it.

 

If the report button doesn't work, you can message or PM a Moderator directly.

 

Please continue the discussion ON TOPIC. Thanks and good morning to everyone. :P

Link to comment

we had the local county here set up[ cache guidlines for county parks. most every cache in the county parks is now illegal, they are not allowed to be more than 3 feet from a trail and they can not be in trees.

When the gov. gets involved the people always suffer

I think that may be more accurately stated as, "When bureaucracies get involved, the people always suffer".

After all, if the "gubment" didn't get involved, there would be no parks.

Link to comment

There's been some interesting research lately on The Tragedy Of The Commons. In fact, this year's Nobel Prize in Economics was to one of the researchers who has been working in this area.

 

She studied resources that "no one" managed, but that remained viable... such as a particular fishing area. It turns out that peer pressure replaced government regulation. This works as long as there is a tight-knit community sharing the resource. In the case of the fisherman, someone who broke the unwritten rules would have been socially ostracized. The cost of overfishing now would be not being able to get married later.

 

But when technology makes that area viable for fishing by persons who aren't local, this system falls apart.

 

The bottom line is that any shared resource MUST have someone in charge, and a mechanism to enforce the rules, or the resource will be destroyed.

Edited by GeoGeeBee
Link to comment

we had the local county here set up[ cache guidlines for county parks. most every cache in the county parks is now illegal, they are not allowed to be more than 3 feet from a trail and they can not be in trees.

When the gov. gets involved the people always suffer

I think that may be more accurately stated as, "When bureaucracies get involved, the people always suffer".

After all, if the "gubment" didn't get involved, there would be no parks.

True. I tried to tell the locals that hothing good would come from government invovlement if geocaching, but they told I did was wrong. I figure it just a matter of time before hundreds of cache are removed.

Link to comment

True. I tried to tell the locals that hothing good would come from government invovlement if geocaching, but they told I did was wrong. I figure it just a matter of time before hundreds of cache are removed.

 

You might have more influence if you learned to write proper English. "they told I did was wrong?" The rest might just be typos, but I can't figure out what the heck "they told I did was wrong" means.

 

One of my New Year's resolutions was to be less snarky. That didn't last long, did it?

Link to comment
I tried to tell the locals that hothing good would come from government invovlement

I actually assisted in government involvement. Twice.

 

The Lil Big Econ State Forest put a moratorium on geocaching, not allowing any new hides. After a couple years, I figured out their social structure and made my appeal to the right person, assisting them in getting a permit system into play. They opted for a minimalist approach, at my suggestion, and have no rules other than getting a permit. They decided the GC guidelines were sufficient for their needs.

 

Seminole County Natural Lands shut down caching all together, till a local reviewer, a local college professor and I had a sit down with them, listening to their needs. We made several suggestions, most of which were implemented, and caching is back.

 

Without our assistance, there would now be huge areas utterly void of caches.

 

The moral of the story?

 

If the "gubment" decides to intervene in your favorite hobby, and has the power to do so, help them, rather than fight them. By helping them, you get to guide things toward a finale that satisfies your needs as well as theirs.

Link to comment

You might have more influence if you learned to write proper English. "they told I did was wrong?" The rest might just be typos, but I can't figure out what the heck "they told I did was wrong" means.

 

One of my New Year's resolutions was to be less snarky. That didn't last long, did it?

 

Sometimes a post like this reminds me why it's probably a good thing that I am not a moderator here.

 

:)

Link to comment

Wow. I'm actually agreeing with bittsen. Mark this day down. :)

 

Yes, that type of comment is not at all appropriate in the forums.

 

I will again remind posters to post within the Forum Guidelines (linked here in case you forgot where they are http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules ) or DO NOT POST.

 

Here's an excerpt for clarity.

 

Here are some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

2. Foul language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family-friendly. All forum posts must conform to a family-friendly standard and contributors must act accordingly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Link to comment

Wow. I'm actually agreeing with bittsen. Mark this day down. :D

 

 

I keep saying... Everyone comes arond to my way of thinking eventually

 

:huh:

 

I am very afraid... I have been agreeing with bittsen and the guy that knows chad a lot lately...

 

I suppose... no matter how much you don't agree with someone... when they are right... they are right...

 

and you eventually come arond to their way of thinking... :)

 

Bruce.

Link to comment
If you are so worried about these travel routes being worn into the forest floor, i hope that you also plan on killing off all of the deer in the area as well, because they are an animal of routine and will leave trails all over the woods.
I personally am in agreement (basically, anyway) with you, but just as I posted in your "Too many rules" thread, these are rules made up by the park managers, not by Groundspeak.
Link to comment

Wow. I'm actually agreeing with bittsen. Mark this day down. :)

 

 

I keep saying... Everyone comes arond to my way of thinking eventually

 

:D

 

I think it's more that you keep changing your way of thinking to throw everyone off, pretty clever actually :anicute:

 

No, no no..... different people using this name, remember? 347 different ones, to be exact.

 

:huh:

Link to comment

If you are so worried about these travel routes being worn into the forest floor, i hope that you also plan on killing off all of the deer in the area as well, because they are an animal of routine and will leave trails all over the woods.

 

I see this mentioned frequently. I don't mean to get all tree-hugging-just-walked-out-the-theater-after-seeing-Avatar, but the deer are generally considered to be part of the park/forest/woods that they are in. They also tend to drop fewer Snickers wrappers and cigarette butts on the ground than most humans. The deer trails running through our property are fairly established and narrow. They tend to keep to the same trails. The park service/land owners are just trying to do the same with their established trails.

 

In my area, the problem I see often is in areas where the trail is on switchbacks winding up a hill, or trails that run across the hill (opposed to up or down) and have an embankment on one side. All it takes it a few hikers taking short cuts off the trail to really increase erosion in those areas.

 

The other point is that by limiting the areas where people are supposed to be, you make it easier to find them if they get lost.

Link to comment

There's been some interesting research lately on The Tragedy Of The Commons. In fact, this year's Nobel Prize in Economics was to one of the researchers who has been working in this area.

 

Yep, and we've all seen in the last few years the HIGH QUALITY work that is required to be awarded a Nobel prize. Some of us may not have perfect grammar, syntax or spelling. But you discredit yourself when you mention such a ludicrous thing.

 

And for the record, I am anti-BIG GOVERNMENT, not anti-government or anti-order.

Link to comment

If you are so worried about these travel routes being worn into the forest floor, i hope that you also plan on killing off all of the deer in the area as well, because they are an animal of routine and will leave trails all over the woods.

 

I see this mentioned frequently. I don't mean to get all tree-hugging-just-walked-out-the-theater-after-seeing-Avatar, but the deer are generally considered to be part of the park/forest/woods that they are in. They also tend to drop fewer Snickers wrappers and cigarette butts on the ground than most humans. The deer trails running through our property are fairly established and narrow. They tend to keep to the same trails. The park service/land owners are just trying to do the same with their established trails.

 

In my area, the problem I see often is in areas where the trail is on switchbacks winding up a hill, or trails that run across the hill (opposed to up or down) and have an embankment on one side. All it takes it a few hikers taking short cuts off the trail to really increase erosion in those areas.

 

The other point is that by limiting the areas where people are supposed to be, you make it easier to find them if they get lost.

 

While I agree about the Snickers wrappers and other trash, I also have to point out that humans are also God's creatures.. or small "g" if you're anti-deist (sp?).

Link to comment

Yep, and we've all seen in the last few years the HIGH QUALITY work that is required to be awarded a Nobel prize. Some of us may not have perfect grammar, syntax or spelling. But you discredit yourself when you mention such a ludicrous thing.

 

The Nobel prizes in Economics and in the hard sciences are as prestigious as they have always been. The Peace prize is a political prize, as it has always been.

 

And for the record, I am anti-BIG GOVERNMENT, not anti-government or anti-order.

 

If that's the case, why would you have a problem with a locally appointed park official making policy for the users of the park? That's about as far from BIG GOVERNMENT as you can get.

Link to comment

While I agree about the Snickers wrappers and other trash, I also have to point out that humans are also God's creatures.. or small "g" if you're anti-deist (sp?).

 

Never said that we weren't. I said that the deer are a part of the park/woods/forest. I think most people can tell the difference between "damage" that the animals do trees, rocks, etc and the unnecessary damage that humans do to the same.

 

They are doing what they do because they are animals with animal intelligence. We are smart enough to know when we are causing damage to the embankment next to the trail- but because some people feel entitled to go wherever they want to, the park/forest has to make rules.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Yep, and we've all seen in the last few years the HIGH QUALITY work that is required to be awarded a Nobel prize. Some of us may not have perfect grammar, syntax or spelling. But you discredit yourself when you mention such a ludicrous thing.

 

The Nobel prizes in Economics and in the hard sciences are as prestigious as they have always been. The Peace prize is a political prize, as it has always been.

 

And for the record, I am anti-BIG GOVERNMENT, not anti-government or anti-order.

 

If that's the case, why would you have a problem with a locally appointed park official making policy for the users of the park? That's about as far from BIG GOVERNMENT as you can get.

 

I don't really have a problem with it and I don't think I ever stated that I did. I basically wanted to point out that you discrediting others just because they can't type is as silly as me discrediting you for comments about Nobel. And on that note, the economic prize is ALSO political. Oliver Williamson may have earned it but just read about last year's other winner Elinor Ostrom.

Link to comment

While I agree about the Snickers wrappers and other trash, I also have to point out that humans are also God's creatures.. or small "g" if you're anti-deist (sp?).

 

Never said that we weren't. I said that the deer are a part of the park/woods/forest. I think most people can tell the difference between "damage" that the animals do trees, rocks, etc and the unnecessary damage that humans do to the same.

 

They are doing what they do because they are animals with animal intelligence. We are smart enough to know when we are causing damage to the embankment next to the trail- but because some people feel entitled to go wherever they want to, the park/forest has to make rules.

 

True, true, I suppose. But what about the contention that humans do what they do because all humans work with is human intelligence? :D:D Maybe a slight jab but also somewhat serious... :grin:

Link to comment

Yep, and we've all seen in the last few years the HIGH QUALITY work that is required to be awarded a Nobel prize. Some of us may not have perfect grammar, syntax or spelling. But you discredit yourself when you mention such a ludicrous thing.

 

The Nobel prizes in Economics and in the hard sciences are as prestigious as they have always been. The Peace prize is a political prize, as it has always been.

 

And for the record, I am anti-BIG GOVERNMENT, not anti-government or anti-order.

 

If that's the case, why would you have a problem with a locally appointed park official making policy for the users of the park? That's about as far from BIG GOVERNMENT as you can get.

 

I don't really have a problem with it and I don't think I ever stated that I did. I basically wanted to point out that you discrediting others just because they can't type is as silly as me discrediting you for comments about Nobel. And on that note, the economic prize is ALSO political. Oliver Williamson may have earned it but just read about last year's other winner Elinor Ostrom.

I am all for GEOCACHING! I also hope you two have a great economic discussion -- via email or private messages.

 

Have a nice day.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...