quartz
Cave Dweller
breakin' rocks in the hot sun
Member since February 2010
Posts: 3,340
|
Post by quartz on Jun 8, 2016 1:00:57 GMT -5
Gee Jean, sorry you have never been to Hawaii, beautiful place. I got to spend an hour-and-a-half there while on my way to an all expense paid one year tour of sunny South Vietnam, compliments of the U.S. Army.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Jun 8, 2016 12:55:00 GMT -5
WTF??!?! California Department of Public Recreation is up to something....
Just heard about this today, received a link to East County Magazine online. Something I'm passionate about...international objection sent: To whom it may concern, I am writing to object to the proposed prohibition. Whilst I recognise the need to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources, I am concerned at the wider loss of freedom to US citizens. Open access to natural spaces offers one thing that board-walks and marked trails (that must be strictly kept to) cannot - the sense of freedom. I consider this to be an essential part of a healthy society. 'Freedom' is at the heart of the US foundation story, and subsequently baked into the nation's self-identity. This action would erode this, one of the very root American ways. One other thing that should be preserved is the freedom of access. The prohibition would effectively remove this. The UK has recently gone in completely the opposite direction, creating Open Access Land www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam after the Kinder Trespass of 1932. Of course this does not remove the rights of landowners; it doesn't remove the responsibility of those entering that land. Many of the natural and cultural resources are already protected by laws. Passing more laws that cannot possibly be policed sustainably is effectively pointless. Of course there are examples of the downside of leaving trails, some more significant (and one recent example) than others. However, I consider it is everyone's right to be able to roam on land; learn how to navigate off-trail and part of this is almost a necessity, to get lost and learn how to recover from getting lost. It is important cultural heritage to learn how land evolves and is eroded; the lives amongst the landforms; learn to walk without trace, learn to trace where others (including wildlife) have walked. Imagine for a moment a world where every photograph, every other painting is taken from the fourth bend of trail 23: creativity is stifled. Consider the world as it is, with the freedom to step off the path: myriad points of observation: infinite views. Yes, there is a need for different interests to co-exist. This can be achieved through education and establishing and culturing respect for different interests. Consider someone intent on damaging our heritage at the cost of breaking a law? Would they really be deterred by a law restricting the route? Imagine, if one should trip and fall / step off the path: legislatively they would be criminalised. One presumes there are insufficient resources to fence the paths to prevent such trip-hazards. Trails reduce erosion, but so also does diffusing the erosional effect. I would encourage trails to be formed and discourage stepping from them. I have followed many formal trails, respecting the sensitive wildlife, just a foot's width away. I have walked many trails where erosion controls have been implemented and stayed on the stones, though my knees have asked for softer ground. I have brought up my children in the same way. I've also brought them up to leave the trail head and step into wilderness, cognisant of the risks and benefits (many of each) of doing so. So many times we have come down off the mountain with more litter than we took. This land does not need more laws. If it needs greater respect, then target your resources to education. Seed, nurture and encourage respect and your proposed new laws will echo upon empty need like the canyons. metalsmith, thank you for your input! If they gave bonus points for eloquence, your comments should receive extra credit! I also submitted my comments, although I will admit that they were somewhat rambling. Time constraints and being unable to properly focus (due to being so upset by this, as I am sure many are!), did not allow me to give it my best. Thank you to everyone that submitted comments, it has afforded us a public hearing (see below).
An update - This is from the Anza-Borrego Foundation webpage at www.theabf.org/ca-state-parks-proposes-trail-use-restrictions
A public hearing has been requested by a couple of user groups - so there is a hearing planned for San Diego on June 22, 2016 from 6-8pm – location yet to be determined. We will send that announcement around when we get more information. It will be interesting to see how much advance public notice is given once that location has been determined. Chances are, they will hold it in a location far away from the affected areas (Ridgecrest is a favorite location of state bureaucracies, keeps only the most determined from attending). I don't see how they can possibly allot only two hours for said meeting. NOT UNLESS THEY ALREADY HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP TO JUST SHOVE THIS PROPOSAL DOWN OUR THROATS, DESPITE PUBLIC COMMENTS!!
According to one person, who posted on the East County Magazine website ( www.eastcountymagazine.org/comment/35823#comment-35823 ) -
Submitted by craig s. maxwell on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 12:53
Spoke with a State park official today who assured me that this law's intended only to protect the most vulnerable park areas (roughly four parts of Cuyamaca and eleven in Anza Borrego). We shall see. Eleven areas in Anza-Borrego, yet they are opposed to this nonsense being proposed by Parks and Recreation...
From the ABF webpage -
Anza -Borrego and their Rangers are doing a superb job protecting the natural resources in that park. We don't need misguided bureaucrats telling them how to do their job.
Yes, I am still pissed!!!
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Jun 8, 2016 13:00:03 GMT -5
Gee Jean, sorry you have never been to Hawaii, beautiful place. I got to spend an hour-and-a-half there while on my way to an all expense paid one year tour of sunny South Vietnam, compliments of the U.S. Army. Thanks, Larry. An hour-and-a-half in Hawaii, and overseas travel, too? You lucky dog, you! Just kidding about that. Vietnam was no walk in the park. Thank you for serving!!
Living only ten miles from the Mexican border, I have been to Mexico numerous times. Mostly Tijuana, but also Tecate, Ensenada, etc. But not since all the drug cartel violence. And now you need to have a passport to get back into the country! No thanks, will just spend my money here, lol.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Jun 10, 2016 16:50:14 GMT -5
Another update:
Received this from DPR via email -
Okay, so they have set a location that is not in BFE, they've even let us know in a timely manner (email received yesterday 6/9/16). I am still trying to wrap my brain around a two hour meeting, though. Really? They think they will be able to hear "all comments, objectives, and recommendations regarding the proposed action." Yeah, right.
Objectives? I think they must have meant "objections." I believe they already have their minds made up, and are just going through the motions.
A very hastily thrown together proposition, I personally want to see it go down in flames!!!!
So, twelve days until the public hearing in San Diego. If anyone needs more information, I will try to provide the most recent info as the time draws nearer. I actually have plans for that evening, but I will try my best to get to that meeting. If nothing else, at least I have a little time to put together a better worded argument. Whether I were to speak or not, it seems they also want it in writing.
Jean Bradley
|
|
|
Post by nowyo on Jun 14, 2016 22:43:43 GMT -5
Just saw this thread-hope you can shut the fools down at least for a little longer. Thanks for posting about this.
Russ
|
|
metalsmith
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 1,537
|
Post by metalsmith on Jun 15, 2016 15:47:50 GMT -5
Another update: Objectives? I think they must have meant "objections." I believe they already have their minds made up, and are just going through the motions.
A very hastily thrown together proposition, I personally want to see it go down in flames!!!!
So, twelve days until the public hearing in San Diego. If anyone needs more information, I will try to provide the most recent info as the time draws nearer. I actually have plans for that evening, but I will try my best to get to that meeting. If nothing else, at least I have a little time to put together a better worded argument. Whether I were to speak or not, it seems they also want it in writing.
Jean Bradley FYI please feel free to use anything I wrote and entered to this thread. Copy it, edit it, hack it up or ignore it .. whatever helps. Print it out and enter on the record with my apologies, I won't be able to make it to the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Jun 15, 2016 15:54:42 GMT -5
I will do that, metalsmith . The (2 hour) meeting is a week from today.
You are excused for not attending. Do you wish me to write you a note explaining why?
It is unusual for them to have the meeting held in an area that the issues are pertinent to. They like to hold meetings up in Ridgecrest, CA, many miles north of here. Then profess shock when the attendance is not so great...
Many people I've spoken with have already given up on this, say it's a lost cause, can't fight city hall and all that. We'll see.
Thank you for taking the time to write your comments. I think it is good to get a perspective from people everywhere, not just here in the states.
Jean
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 15, 2016 18:03:24 GMT -5
Maybe selling the farm is not such a good idea. A hassle to keep up with, but yet a refuge. I sell products from my farm to mostly city folks. They seem high on a drug when they get out of the car and walk around in the peace and quiet. I have been in this secluded location for 32 years. Self employed and do not get out much. Surrounded by several thousand acres of timberland that has about no trails or easy access. Do what I want, make noise anytime, never lock anything, never see anyone other than friends and family. Visitors coming down the driveway.
If the adjacent land owners posted and fenced, it would feel restrictive. If i lived on a lot I would go to public lands. If they told me to stay on a 4 foot wide trail I would be furious.
The government is winning these battles. Is it a power exercise ? A domination thing ?
Sand dunes in any coastal areas are restricted from foot travel. Been that way for a long time. Such laws have been in force for years. Dune buggys started the restrictions. It kept getting stricter. Maybe the erosion issues are critical. What may be a bigger concern is liability on government lands. Legal awards may be paid out of the government money pot.
Rainbow people stay in Federal parks for the maximum allowable 30 days. Then they move to the next park. They stay near my camp in the Ocala National Forest. One year as usual there were some stragglers. Forest Service ran them off. The next day a huge forest fire. Burned 5 X 7 miles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 9:10:20 GMT -5
jamespDomination is a drug. No matter the level of government power and control are the goal. Imagine the bragging rights this little fief in the parks and recreation department has when his CV says "closed public access to nearly 100,000 sq miles of public land". Ooopsie Actually it will say "protected, in perpetuity, nearly 100,000 sq miles of public land, for the future of our society". How is my 'Orwellian' speak?
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 16, 2016 9:26:20 GMT -5
Your speech is accurate.
Law abiding citizens are easier to implement such rules.
The rich folks came down my way and started a high end resortish community in my much lower income area. Annexed their own city out in the woods and brought in a few college cops. Started ticketing old family farmers moving hay and livestock around in the area on trailers that were not up to their specs, tractors moving from field to field on public roads. Some of the bad boys got tired of it and called one of the cops out to a dirt road and shot him dead.
Not condoning their actions at all. But they were picking on hard working 'get by' people. Nit picking them to pieces. Caused a lot of anger.
The change in attitude of that police force changed drastically. I saw the change myself. And almost 10 years to this day they still leave the working men alone.
These people had been doing this for generations. Grandfather clause comes to mind. Practicality.
I do not envy the park enforcement's job where those rules get implemented. Taking tax payers rights away can lead to this type of action. One of those officers gets harmed by an angry citizen and and the game changes in a hurry.
|
|
metalsmith
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 1,537
|
Post by metalsmith on Jun 16, 2016 9:35:03 GMT -5
jamespDomination is a drug. No matter the level of government power and control are the goal. Imagine the bragging rights this little fief in the parks and recreation department has when his CV says "closed public access to nearly 100,000 sq miles of public land". Ooopsie Actually it will say "protected, in perpetuity, nearly 100,000 sq miles of public land, for the future of our society". How is my 'Orwellian' speak? Clearly you need 're-educating' Where I work, we call ourselves 'Stepford'
|
|
metalsmith
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 1,537
|
Post by metalsmith on Jun 16, 2016 9:41:27 GMT -5
I will do that, metalsmith . The (2 hour) meeting is a week from today.
You are excused for not attending. Do you wish me to write you a note explaining why? [/p
Thank you for taking the time to write your comments. I think it is good to get a perspective from people everywhere, not just here in the states.
Jean Yes, tell them I went out running, but failed to return. You don't know where to search as I don't keep to trails... You're welcome. I tried to raise a rabble on the UK Hillwalking / Climbing scene here too, but I'm afraid there was little response. I always thought many climbers were reasonably smart, but they failed to make the link between CA access and anything to do with them. This despite a local Yorkshire strong man nailing some Californian Boulder problems V14 over the page and of course these won't all be on trails.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Jun 16, 2016 11:05:44 GMT -5
I do not envy the park enforcement's job where those rules get implemented. Taking tax payers rights away can lead to this type of action. One of those officers gets harmed by an angry citizen and and the game changes in a hurry. James, that seems to be the MO of lawmakers these days. It seems they think the more rules the better. (Goes to what Scott said, power is a drug.)
First, they complain that people are ruining things with their ORVs. Fair enough, I know some of them do. So rather than enforce the rules already on the books (stop the people creating the damage), they pass more laws to ban ORVs from certain areas. Now the only way to get to these remote areas is to hike in. All vehicular travel restricted, including fire fighters and emergency personnel. Now they are saying that even foot travel is damaging these areas. Their solution, pass more (unenforceable) laws to restrict people's movements to designated trails. Just one more law that they will have trouble enforcing.
The final solution? Just plain close down all the parks, keep everybody out. I believe that is their ultimate goal. Total control of the peons.
Although this is currently a California issue, how long before it happens in everyone else's parks and open land? While this all may be happening in Cal. Parks and Recreation, it wouldn't surprise me if some certain Democrats in Sacramento are behind this, that there are federal ties. Senators Feinstein and Boxer have been trying to "save" everything from us. Wish I had a crystal ball so I could see further down the road, understand what their goal is?
|
|
Mark K
Cave Dweller
Member since April 2012
Posts: 2,574
|
Post by Mark K on Jun 16, 2016 11:13:27 GMT -5
Their goal?
Simple, their goal is to eff over as many taxpayers as possible while lining their pockets in the process. It is as simple as that.
|
|
Mark K
Cave Dweller
Member since April 2012
Posts: 2,574
|
Post by Mark K on Jun 16, 2016 11:20:23 GMT -5
Your speech is accurate. Law abiding citizens are easier to implement such rules. The rich folks came down my way and started a high end resortish community in my much lower income area. Annexed their own city out in the woods and brought in a few college cops. Started ticketing old family farmers moving hay and livestock around in the area on trailers that were not up to their specs, tractors moving from field to field on public roads. Some of the bad boys got tired of it and called one of the cops out to a dirt road and shot him dead. Not condoning their actions at all. But they were picking on hard working 'get by' people. Nit picking them to pieces. Caused a lot of anger. The change in attitude of that police force changed drastically. I saw the change myself. And almost 10 years to this day they still leave the working men alone. These people had been doing this for generations. Grandfather clause comes to mind. Practicality. I do not envy the park enforcement's job where those rules get implemented. Taking tax payers rights away can lead to this type of action. One of those officers gets harmed by an angry citizen and and the game changes in a hurry. When you are enforcing laws that you know to be wrong, you are an enemy of the people and should be killed as such. In the Army, one of the first things they teach you is to never obey an illegal order. By proxy, you do not give them either. "I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." This promise to obey orders is exempt from illegal orders. If the BLM people are making or enforcing orders contrary to the public good, then they are treasonous and need to be killed so as to remove them from the ability to corrupt our country permanently.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Jun 16, 2016 12:17:00 GMT -5
I'll bet you just got yourself on a watch list, Mark...
|
|
Mark K
Cave Dweller
Member since April 2012
Posts: 2,574
|
Post by Mark K on Jun 16, 2016 12:39:41 GMT -5
As a vet, I am already on one.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 16, 2016 12:43:39 GMT -5
Mark K Not many lost sleep over that killing. The apathy made a huge statement. The town named the road after the officer; I guess the town govt. has the right to name roads as they will. The group that started that development are a forward thinking liberal bunch from urban roots. This area is very conservative farming bunch. Stand behind the laws that protect their agricultural operations. Low crime straight shooter types, good examples of old school Americans. Classic case of city moves to rural, rural fought back.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 16, 2016 12:45:11 GMT -5
I'll bet you just got yourself on a watch list, Mark... Bet he would like that. Thinking revenuer in a foot trap lol.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 16, 2016 12:46:32 GMT -5
My property is in the little jut to the left of the road number 154. Me fighting annexation into Chattahoochee Hills as are my neighbors.
|
|