re: Man Banned from National Parks For Organizing 139-Person Grand Canyon Hike

quote:

---

Too late. I'm also cringing at the subservience and obedience in this thread over "official" (and amateur) precautions that are total BS.

---

Its not even about this to me. Its about you ruining shite for everyone else in the park that day.Its selfish as shite.

Similar to those crowds in Panama City for spring break. Just trashy people.

HERE is what (more like WHO) is being "protected" and "preserved" (Feral NOT "Public" lands claimed FOR elites, BY Elites, OF The Elites. To hide, use, and do with what THEY want. NO, NOT YOU, Invader-Citizen)

I would be so scared to ride those mules down.

I’ve never hiked down to the bottom but have been to GC several times. One day though I will….

How do you ban someone from entering a National Park when there are highways which cut through national parks? Is he no longer allowed to travel?

Its not about COVId its about overuse and resource management and people/visitor management

quote:

---

MileHighDraw

---

Unless you’re planning on armed revolution to take back the parks and run them how you see fit, people like you are the reason the NPS has adopted closure as a management strategy.

The Unites States government owns almost one-third (28 percent) of the entire nation. Through various agencies that include the United States Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the total owned “by the people, for the people” comes to a staggering 640 million acres of land.

Most of the federal owned land lies in the Rocky Mountains and to the West. In fact, the US government owns 47 percent of the land in the western states, (versus just 4 percent in states east of the Rockies.

The federal government’s extent of involvement and oversight in the management of western lands is far more than a conflict about grazing, water, mining, logging and other development. It is said to pit the principle of good stewardship of the land, for the welfare of present and future generations. (Is that true? For almost HALF of all land in Western US? AND extremely restrictive access) vs, "A government that governs best is that which governs least".


One Viewpoint:

A powerful, over-officious central government is required to assume authority, restrict access, punish rule-breakers (increasingly so, since "resource depletion" is said to be a growing threat (IS IT?)

Alternative Viewpoint:

Constant government intervention in all facets of life can be a problem more than the solution -- and the stated reasons for it -– be it "conservation" or "climate change" – may just be convenient cover stories at best.

So which is best? Is it one or the other? Or more of a balance of both?

SteelerBravesDawg:

Be sure an wear your safety goggles, crash-helmet, therapeutic hiking shoes, double-masks and visor when exploring that crazy-dangerous park trail.

I’ve hiked it a few times, twice rim to rim. And I’ve always thought that the mules were scarier, these animals are sure footed and do this all day line but the height of being on top of the mule I think would bother me.