Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire evil canoeist gang terrorizes wilderness campers and threaten the land...

I never had a problem with F&G or the Troopers in AK. They were always pleasant to deal with.

Uber-Micro-Aggression

Shoulda drowned her.

Sounds like Agenda 21 bull crap, to me.

I haven't (yet) had a bad experience with a tree cop, but I just don't see them much where I go in AZ.

The mentality within the FS seems to be changing quite a bit though. More and more we hear about people in the outdoors getting hassled by aggressive FS people, and the FS coming up with ever more restrictive policies that make enjoying OUR forests increasingly difficult.

Up in NorCal in the El Dorado NF, the local sheriff had to strip the FS of their state law enforcement powers it was getting so bad. You want to read some horror stories on why this happened, google "kenny marcus forest service". Plenty of horror stories. Guy thought (apparently) it was his life mission to rid the king's forests of anyone wanting to use or carry a firearm, or otherwise just enjoy the forest. Real piece of work. And when the FS made no effort to address the public's concerns, the sheriff acted.

Some of those stories...not sure I'd be able to restrain myself in the face of that kind of disrespect and downright JBT behavior.

You guys are not showing proper respect for HER public land!

You ought to be shot. Oh, wait probably almost were...

Seriously I have mentioned in other threads about the "Multiple Use" act. I have mentioned also about obvious government over reach... we are now reaping the crop.

FH, I was at a park in CO about 10 years ago and the same type rangerchick happened by the same trail I was on about the time I got even with a boulder the size of a small car alongside the trail. I wanted to sit a bit anyway, so I hopped up on that boulder and sat down..It was only about waist high, so it made a good place to rest.

Ranger chick stopped and put her hands on her hips and just stared me down... I asked her "What?"

She then told me to get off of that rock!

"Why?"

Because you are OFF the trail! Nobody is allowed off the trail in this environmentally sensitive area!

"Lady, this rock isn't in the middle of the trail, but close enough for me. I don't see the problem with just sitting on it."

She told me that I was being expelled from the park, and one more word and she would have law enforcement come issue me a citation or worse.

I told her I was leaving anyway, but had two words for her, no matter who she called... "Fug You!"

Then I left, never to return. Absolutely factual event.

She acted like she owned the park. Acted insulted that anyone as stupid as me would even be there... One day they will find out who actually does own the park.

There is absolutely no reason for the federal or state governments to confiscate these properties from the citizens and run them as national parks and forests. It's a taking, pure and simple, and your story perfectly illustrates why it's problematic. You, a citizen, the one to whom the land ostensibly belongs, are not allowed off the trail to even sit on a rock.

The government should return the land to the citizens by auctioning it off to the private sector and cutting our taxes by the amount of the sales price.

Sadly true and well expressed.

where we canoe and kayak around here, the cops are pretty relaxed.

More and more though, in the various National Forests in North Florida, and the State Forests, the rangers are becoming real azzwipes. Way too many young, wet behind the ears children, that want to 'go by the book', and are tyrannical in nature.

...for now.

I'd call that throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just who do you think would be the buyers? Not JQ Public - but multinational corporations and a few ultra-wealthy.....who would immediately close all public access. No - I think the solution is to demand a return of the "service" mentality. If it takes time to pull that off, at least the land will still be there at the end. Taking the land out of the public domain would be permanent.

I am okay with the land returning to state control in it's current form, but selling it off just guarantees that it will be commercialized and/or destroyed. I may be conservative, but I am not blind. I have seen how this works.

years ago we had a FS ranger come tearing across a field on an ATV to tell us we were on a closed road,(the gate was shut) and he was gonna fine each of us some ridiculous amount like $700.00 for each pickup.
I said wait one minute why don't we call your boss or the sheriff here and see who is actually in the wrong, 4 guys in pickups on a road that does not have the gate closed or a pompous tree cop who just took a government owned ATV across a forest meadow, about 30 minutes later his boss came down the road where we had come from, and asked what the problem was, the little tree cop was nervous now knowing that his boss couldn't have come down the road if the gate was closed because it would have been drifted in. There were these ATV tracks across the meadow and he was the only on on an ATV. I think he got fired. And we went on our way, well we made it about a 1/4 mile and my buddy had a motor mount break and we had the fun of trying to repair that in the middle of the forest but we were in the clear.

Ya see,Barry,that rock once was the size of a house.
It's trail busters like you that have eroded it down by climbing on it.

They have been entrusted with protecting Mother Nature's jewels from barbarians like us.

Unlikely but even if they did that would be a good thing. The land's doing nothing right now, returning $0.00 to us...being wasted, frankly.

The government owns something like millions of square miles of land. There aren't enough "evil" multinational corporations in the world to buy all that land and if there were they use it to produce something.

What you call throwing out the baby with the bathwater I describe as putting the baby in its crib where it belongs.

That's my opinion, which I'm entitled to. And yes, I hunt and fish. I just don't believe the government should be in the business of subsidizing others' hobbies.

Wait, I get it, you're just being silly here right? Trying to jerk the chains of those of us that are capable of logical thought? HaHa good joke there!

Brother, we could fill a whole 'nuther thread about this....

Land is a zero sum commodity (unless you are speaking of geological time limits). Any commodity that has a limited availability and is to be "sold off" will be priced to meet the available market.

The market, in this case, is entities with disposable income or with profit motive. You can remove the majority of the people who enjoy outdoor pursuits from the first group, when it comes to buying land. The second group isn't going to let you hunt on their land without more cost and regulation than a national forest - if at all.

More likely, they will be "risk averse" and not allow you access at all so you don't sue them over some injury. And while you are not accessing their land, they will probably make sure to profit enough from it to buy whatever other lands come up for sale...just to be sure.

If you want to boil everything down to "subsidizing other's hobbies", then we can eliminate all sorts of stuff - like all recreational river travel, off-shore fishing (someone should own the ocean too, dontcha know), non-business air and road travel, wireless communication, internet, public swimming pools (including the one at school), all public parks (no picnic here), kite-flying (why should someone own rights to the sky as well?), etc...

You extreme "free-market" guys don't get it. Your extreme can be just as miserable as the extreme socialists. Damn few of you would be happy in a complete and total purge of all socialist activity. No man is an island.

Well, Snubbie, since you�re so �logical� why stop with park lands? The government should own all land. That�s your argument, carried to its �logical� conclusion. It�s certainly been done many times before, throughout human history.

No it is not but claiming things are zero sum is the basis for all collectivist arguments, I'll grant you that.


That's a good thing. The alternative is welfare, though there are degrees of it, to be sure.


An example of a miserable free market, please?

I don't know about Snubbie, but I am not arguing that any sector should have all of anything. But I see you are advocating private or corporate ownership of all land. That's being done right now in some places. How is your logical argument more valid?

That really is how all these environmentalist [bleep] see things. Not just the ones in uniform either, it's all of them.



Travis