NPS threatens to confiscate signs July 31 2010

The National Park Service threatens to confiscate our signs if we don't move them.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• NPS
• threatens
• to
• confiscate
• signs
• July
• 31
• 2010

[retiredranger1999]

(cont from below) be able to do it the same way." I would have shortened the conversation by politely saying that her line of logic is incorrect and that she either follows the new direction or the signs will be taken down. Then I would say to her that what happens next is her choice Her conversation is that of a child using adult vocabulary, testing her limits and trying to annoy an authority figure, which were her parents when she was younger. It appears to me that she hasn't matured since

[rowanmorrison]

@retiredranger1999 The ACLU responded to the new conditions with a written letter stating that the "arm's length" restriction is not supported by current law. In addition, there are other groups that put up unattended signs, for example a Menorah that was put up during the holiday season.

[retiredranger1999]

Additional, asking about why the Park Service signs were up without someone being in arms length is comparable with someone responding to an officer telling a person to remove the political sign they just installed in a crosswalk and then saying that the stop sign at that intersection is in violation of the law.

[retiredranger1999]

the middle of a highway or busy intersection of a city street. Those are restrictions. In comparison having someone have to stay within arms reach of their sign does not seem like an unreasonable directive to me. The National Park Service would not be attempting to put this directive in place unless there was some previous experience where not having it caused some problems, problems the person in the video never even asked about, not uncommon for someone in that 5,000 I spoke about.

[retiredranger1999]

cont). For example, if someone wants to preach the word of God and decides to do that during a movie or play, I don't think that is the time or place for that free speech to occur. It might be said that a theater owner could have that person removed as they would be disturbing the peace. What if the theater is located inside a publicly owned theater at a National Park, National Forest or BLM visitor center? Some restrictions on free speech are in place. You can't decide to give a speech in the

[retiredranger1999]

It is especially difficult when people from these competing interests can only see their own issue and don't care what effect their issue has on others. They evaluate what the satisfaction of their demands will have on other users, they just narrowly focus on their own agenda. I strongly believe that every voice should be heard, but also believe that some conditions and restrictions need to be placed on that speech to ensure that everyone can get the experience they seek. (cont)

[retiredranger1999]

interest served. This while disregarding or being blind to the 5,000 other interests the agency is faced with. Many or most of these interests are in conflict with each other and a solution is not possible. Even if some are wrong for the resources of the land, they may have political support. The endless number of laws, policies, court decisions, and demands make it hard to do anything at all, much less what is correct for the majority of people and for the land's long term health.

[retiredranger1999]

@rowanmorrison The fact that someone else put up unattended signs does not mean that not complying with the direction correct. This is the old second grade logic of, when being caught, a kid says "well Johnny was doing it to!"  The correct way of going about it would be to comply with the direction and file a compliant about the Menorah later.

You would not believe, unless you have been there, how difficult it is to manage public land. Everyone coming at you trying to have their own (cont)

[retiredranger1999]

She is being unreasonable and she was not threatened. She is using completely absurd logic to try and say that the Park Service's signs were not in compliance. By doing so is attempting to divert the conversation from her group's non-compliance with direction already given to them and was successful at it. The Park Ranger bent over backwards being courteous to her and logically explaining the new direction. She also used the tactic of "well we did this before so we should always (cont