Government shutdown??

Does anyone else feel like these "protests" are targeting the rangers and not the "government?" Are the rangers really the bad guys in this situation?
 
Aldaron said:
Does anyone else feel like these "protests" are targeting the rangers and not the "government?" Are the rangers really the bad guys in this situation?
Click to expand...


I think some of the rangers are taking it too far. I mean there has to be a point where you should just walk away like the Grand Canyon launch situation. But I totally see where you're coming from. I mean hell, I saw a clip on the news of one of the asshats responsible for the shut down yelling at a park service worker telling her she should be ashamed of herself for not letting people in. What a joke.
 
Who precisely are you gong to protest against? The rangers, who are just doing their jobs? Republicans? Democrats? Sounds like a disaster to me. You are upset that you cannot access a national park? The pain for ordinary Americans this is causing far out weighs any inconvenience you are experiencing not being able to do a day hike. IMO, a "protest" needs to be focused, with specific goals. Help the people who are being hurt, the vendors and business owners who operate around Zion. Go, buy a souvenir, have dinner or lunch or breakfast, stay in a motel, then march to the gates and stop. Make your point, get on the news and go home.

Did you see that senator on the tv at the WWII memorial, berating the park ranger who was just trying to do her job? Pathetic.
That is how you will be seen IMO.
 
Nick said:
I think some of the rangers are taking it too far.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But why do we want to put them into a position of having to make the mistake of pushing it too far? Aren't we on the same side as they are? They're every bit as much a victim as we are. They're out there not even getting paid while they have to enforce these rules. I would rather work with them to figure out the right way to "protest" this situation rather than work against them. They're not faceless drones...they love the outdoors every bit as much as we do, and they dedicate their professional lives to sharing the outdoors with others.

The representatives all have offices in the major cities. Doesn't that make more sense for the site of a peaceful protest? Aren't they the ones responsible for this?

To protest the Parks seems to me to be a little selfish by only protesting the one thing we care about, rather than being objective and protesting the real, overall problem. It doesn't take any more effort to protest at the Representatives' offices. Why isn't that being done, instead?
 
Nick said:
Protesting in the park is likely to have a more significant impact than just another protest at some old dude's office. I think that's the appeal. More likely to get more coverage and therefore hopefully influence lawmakers to pull their heads out.
Click to expand...

But at what cost? A contentious relationship and confrontation with people we like?

And I would disagree, too, that it has a more significant impact. A few people showing up at the Park entrance and breaking the law are just going to be labeled as hippies by half of this country. But dozens or hundreds of people from both halves joining up at a downtown office across the street from every news outlet in the state will get both news coverage and sympathy.

We can never assume that everyone agrees with the one thing we're frustrated with...so the protest needs to be the one thing everyone does agree with.
 
Aldaron said:
To protest the Parks seems to me to be a little selfish by only protesting the one thing we care about, rather than being objective and protesting the real, overall problem. It doesn't take any more effort to protest at the Representatives' offices. Why isn't that being done, instead?
Click to expand...


Totally agree!
 
Aldaron said:
But at what cost? A contentious relationship and confrontation with people we like?

And I would disagree, too, that it has a more significant impact. A few people showing up at the Park entrance and breaking the law are just going to be labeled as hippies by half of this country. But dozens or hundreds of people from both halves joining up at a downtown office across the street from every news outlet in the state will get both news coverage and sympathy.

We can never assume that everyone agrees with the one thing we're frustrated with...so the protest needs to be the one thing everyone does agree with.
Click to expand...

News is sometimes driven by novelty. Like it or not, the park closures have become a focal point in the shutdown. They're emblematic of the whole situation. Protesting in the city, where you might have to drive five minutes to your destination, doesn't really carry the same oomph.

In my eyes, protesting at the park has nothing to do with making life miserable for the rangers. The goal seems to be sending a message to DOI that Americans won't stand for their public lands being used as a knife by their government. Will the protest have that practical effect? Probably not but at least people are not apathetic about the cause.
 
Parks were closed enmasse because the govt (whichever side you want to pick) knew it would be in the spotlight, they are very visible. Complain about the lack of access all you want, but the real hurt is with the majority of fed workers who can't afford to go without pay for very long. Of course Congress is still getting paid, even as inept as they are. Most have now fear for there re election this fall. The question of restoring lost pay has not come up. May or maynot happen. My wife had three days "NO PAY" through the summer, now is off. I am retired. Good thing we have a decent saving, but that was slated for some major purchases, which now may or maynot happen. Others are in the same boat. This will ripple thru the economy (yes, there is lost economic revenue from the Park closure's). Foreign respect drops as well. So there is a lot more at stake besides someone not being to go hiking. Protesting the Park employee guarding the gate is pointless, they are just doing their job and possibly unpaid as well. All because the inept, self interest babies in congress (yes, ALL of them and BOTH parties) can't create a bill before the last minute.
 
gnwatts said:
Who precisely are you gong to protest against? The rangers, who are just doing their jobs? Republicans? Democrats? Sounds like a disaster to me. You are upset that you cannot access a national park? The pain for ordinary Americans this is causing far out weighs any inconvenience you are experiencing not being able to do a day hike. IMO, a "protest" needs to be focused, with specific goals. Help the people who are being hurt, the vendors and business owners who operate around Zion. Go, buy a souvenir, have dinner or lunch or breakfast, stay in a motel, then march to the gates and stop. Make your point, get on the news and go home.

Did you see that senator on the tv at the WWII memorial, berating the park ranger who was just trying to do her job? Pathetic.
That is how you will be seen IMO.
Click to expand...

Disagree adamantly. Occupying the parks has nothing to do with the rangers, who are just thrust in a position they'd rather not be in. The national parks are here for the enjoyment of the people (as stated in the document that created them) and therefore should be exempt from this funding nonsense. I believe it's illegal to close them. Government ineptitude in closing the 401 parks/monuments is costing $76 million per day in lost revenue, most of it to local communities around the parks. If done properly, and I hope it is, occupying the parks will involve treating the rangers with respect though you are (politely) refusing to leave, and offering them a seat at your campsite (which they can't accept but I'm sure will appreciate). The end goal is exactly as @ashergrey stated, to send a message to the idiots in Washington that the American people won't stand for their public lands being held hostage while overpaid bureaucrats engage in sabre rattling and other wastes of time.
 
Laura said:
Disagree adamantly. Occupying the parks has nothing to do with the rangers, who are just thrust in a position they'd rather not be in. The national parks are here for the enjoyment of the people (as stated in the document that created them) and therefore should be exempt from this funding nonsense. I believe it's illegal to close them. Government ineptitude in closing the 401 parks/monuments is costing $76 million per day in lost revenue, most of it to local communities around the parks. If done properly, and I hope it is, occupying the parks will involve treating the rangers with respect though you are (politely) refusing to leave, and offering them a seat at your campsite (which they can't accept but I'm sure will appreciate). The end goal is exactly as @ashergrey stated, to send a message to the idiots in Washington that the American people won't stand for their public lands being held hostage while overpaid bureaucrats engage in sabre rattling and other wastes of time.
Click to expand...

You can "believe" it is illegal to close them, but it isn't. If there is no money to keep people from killing themselves, or trashing it up, then they need to remain closed IMO. Politicians in Washington, and especially those representing the beautiful state of Utah, don't give a rats ass if you walk pass some rangers and sit in a camp ground. You will look like that idiot senator at the WWII memorial, and you will be a minor distraction at best. And I could care less if Zion is closed for a few days or weeks (the place would benefit I think if it got a reprieve from all of those people), it does not bother me a bit because I avoid those places, so maybe I am too biased here to make any sense to you. Utah is filled with open spaces you can go. But people not getting food assistance or health care, or the people who rely on the business that National Parks bring that are getting hurt, that is a crime.

This is it on this thread for me, as it will only lead to more pissing matches, who is right and who is wrong. What is special about this site is the lack of politics.
(I could not find a smilie with a peace sign)
So..Peace!
 
Bob said:
Complain about the lack of access all you want, but the real hurt is with the majority of fed workers who can't afford to go without pay for very long. Of course Congress is still getting paid, even as inept as they are.
Click to expand...

That is who I'm really feeling for right now. Lack of access to the parks sucks, but it won't last forever and I still have a paycheck coming so I will deal. The fact that Congress is still getting paid through all of this pisses me off to no end. If their checks were in jeopardy I have a feeling this would all be over by now.


gnwatts said:
You can "believe" it is illegal to close them, but it isn't. If there is no money to keep people from killing themselves, or trashing it up, then they need to remain closed IMO.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty torn on this issue, but I at least partially agree with this statement. I hate seeing the parks closed. HATE IT. I am a frequent visitor to the parks. However, I would rather see them closed than to see a bunch of people trashing them. I'm not suggesting people would intentionally trash the parks, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little of that going on. I'm talking about resource damage. I don't think anyone can argue that there would be large numbers of people who decide that they're going to hit up the permitted areas since there's no one around to stop them. There's usually a damn good reason that they only allow so many people per day into certain areas. It might be due to water quality, delicate soils or rock formations, stress to particular species of animals, etc. The damage that could be done in a matter of weeks could be catastrophic, and have long lasting consequences.

I have no issue with people protesting. As Americans we have a right to do that if we disagree with our government's choices. It just seems to me that it would make more sense to protest in places where the politicians can't change the channel and ignore you. I could be wrong. @ashergrey makes an excellent point and has an insight into the the media that most people don't. The politicians are already in a media shitstorm, so I think that a little more negative coverage wouldn't bother them as much as, say, a group of people showing up outside their offices.

I don't think anyone on this thread is right or wrong. We each have our own opinions, and they are all valid. I think at the heart of the issue we all want the same things, we just have different thoughts on how to approach the issue.
 
Sorry, you're not going to get off that easy.

gnwatts said:
You can "believe" it is illegal to close them, but it isn't.]

The national parks "belong to the American people, and the American people should have the right to come in," says National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis. "But the only way I can protect these places during this period is to shut them down."


Good intentions, but incorrect action on his part. I say "believe" because I haven't had time to research the exact case law. However, I'm not the first to state this. It violates the national park charter. If they need to be protected due to the very fact that they must be accessible to the public, then they must be funded.

[ Politicians in Washington, and especially those representing the beautiful state of Utah, don't give a rats ass if you walk pass some rangers and sit in a camp ground]

They will if it's done in large numbers and is seen on CNN, etc.

[Utah is filled with open spaces you can go.]

Beside the point.

[But people not getting food assistance or health care, or the people who rely on the business that National Parks bring that are getting hurt, that is a crime.]

Please see the sentence about $76 million/day being lost, most of it to local communities that rely on the national parks as part of the reason for the protest.

So..Peace!
Click to expand...

Peace back to you.
 
If the message comes across as, "we want to hike so let us back on public lands," then it's selfish and a waste of everyones time. If it's more focused on the millions of people out of work right now and the communities (not just based around national parks) then its a noble protest. As for me, I'm going hiking in Escalante.
 
Petition-2.jpg

Since I live too far away to occupy any national parks I decided to do this instead. I'm hoping it goes viral, but even if it doesn't I feel so much better for doing it. If you agree I'd really appreciate your signature and post to Facebook, Twitter, or whatever social media you use. I want Washington to see it! The link is below:

https://www.change.org/petitions/in...t-or-republican-in-the-2014-national-election
 
I tried to organize a critical mass bike ride to the DC monuments to protest the shutdown. I contacted all of the local bike advocacy group. Totally failed and I know a lot of them personally. Most had absolutely NO interest.
 
Crossing the closed gates just puts the Park rangers on the spot. I would venture all of them don't want them closed, don't want to be there and don't want to enforce....... they are told to be there and its there job or could be let go. Pretty stressful in my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
futurafree government shutdown effects on national forests? General Discussion 21
S Wave permits during government shutdown General Discussion 13
B In Government Trail and out Water Canyon Trip Planning 3
SKLund Bears Ears: Jamming Government to Gulch Backpacking 1
Eugene Cedar Mesa - Todie TH to Government TH April 2016 Backpacking 8
westerner54 Government Trail to Big Man Pictographs, Grand Gulch Utah Backpacking 3
gnwatts Polly's Canyon - Government Trail Loop Backpacking 28
powderglut Possible Solution To Government Bureaucracy General Discussion 1

Similar threads

Back
Top