[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] Lawsuits, Rights, and User Fees



Hi All,

I've been lurking around reading this mail list for
months now, but have not stepped forward with my 2
cents.  I've really enjoyed the mostly inane
discussions which occur here--such as which is better,
Tents or Tarps!  The experts here really cover things
from all angles!

I've particularly enjoyed the conversation about
having hikers place themselves in possibly mortal
danger from bear attack while they "test-out" an
experimental food storage device designed to make the
food "invisible".  I want a piece of that lawsuit--at
a manumit I get a new tent out of the deal.  Its one
thing for Joe Hicker to tell you he sleeps with his
food--It is entirely a different matter for a
commercial enterprise to encourage dangerous behavior
with experimental equipment.  I have some parachutes
that need testing...any volunteers?

Anyway, so much for my introduction.  The real point
here is that I just have to weigh in on Mr. Hummel's
musing that walking through public land is a 'right'.
"We" the people, hired the National Park Service to
take care of our land for us.  "We" have decided,
either through our representatives or by direct vote
[at some local levels], that public land stewardship
is best paid for by a combination of tax revenues and
user fees.  "We" can change this arrangement if we
wish, however at the present time; "We" decided that
Mr. Hummel and all others must pay to use the land=97and
what=92s wrong with that?  I for one like the
arrangement and don=92t mind paying either for day use,
or a lump sum for traveling large chunks of the trail.
 How is it that anyone can think that their "pet
activity" is elevated to the status of a 'right'?
I'll check my copy of the Constitution, but I don't
think I'll find it there--expressed, implied, or
otherwise.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2