Apparently...

User avatar
Plays In The Dirt
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm

Apparently...

Post by Plays In The Dirt » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:17 pm

Someone/s didn't agree with these signs being put up by the BLM. The first one that is shot-up says, "Wilderness Boundary Behind This Sign, and the one broken-off and lying on the ground says, "Responsible Uses."

Image

Image

I discovered these signs today when I was out hiking with my elderly friend documenting and shooting Petroglyph Photos in a wash way out in the desert.

Whether it's right or wrong that these areas have designations, it's actions like this by individuals that may eventually get areas closed down. This particular area has a lot of Petroglyph Panels in which part of it has the Wilderness Designation.

User avatar
cubfan64
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:00 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Apparently...

Post by cubfan64 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:56 pm

That's really a shame and it's another one of those situations where just a few bad apples will ruin things for alot of good people.

User avatar
Mrs.Oroblanco
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:40 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Apparently...

Post by Mrs.Oroblanco » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:39 pm

Does that one sign say "No bicycles and No HANG Gliders?

I know alot of the signs in the Mojave are on rubber bases now, so people can run over them and they pop back up. (they got tired of replacing them).

Hope nobody with a motorized wheelchair wants to go there.

There are certainly better ways then shooting signs to get a point across. I think you are right - it makes the authorities think that we are all gun-toting idiots. These are probably the same type of people who cannot be bothered to vote, or to go to meetings about public lands and its uses, or sit down and write a letter. (imo).

Beth (Mrs. O)

User avatar
Plays In The Dirt
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Apparently...

Post by Plays In The Dirt » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:13 pm

"Mrs.Oroblanco"]Does that one sign say "No bicycles and No HANG Gliders?
Yes it does.

Hope nobody with a motorized wheelchair wants to go there.
They wouldn't get very far in this area.

Sandman
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Apparently...

Post by Sandman » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:00 pm

We see alot of this in our area along with new illegal route proliferation.

LeeVW
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Apparently...

Post by LeeVW » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:56 pm

"There are certainly better ways then shooting signs to get a point across."

I agree. Unfortunately, I saw evidence of someone going off in an even worse direction in the form of a decapitated owl set down in front of a kiosk explaining all the closures. Whoever did that is probably someone I do NOT want to meet!

Lee

User avatar
Ranger Jake
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:40 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Grand Canyon - North Rim
Contact:

Re: Apparently...

Post by Ranger Jake » Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:30 am

It doesn't surprise me at all.

i have some friends that work for The Peregrine Fund (the group that brought Condors back from the brink) and they tell me all kinds of crazy stories about how people have tried to sabotage their efforts. It has caused me to lose (even more) faith in civilization.

User avatar
Mrs.Oroblanco
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:40 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Apparently...

Post by Mrs.Oroblanco » Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:58 pm

It has become very apparent that the two sides of the equation (and there are bad on both sides) cannot seem to come to a civilized solution.

I hate the idea that public lands are being protected - to the point that we get to pay for them, but cannot do anything on them. (I believe we are becoming the endangered species)

But, I also hate the idea that there are some great creatures who are being squeezed out of places because of population growth and people who cannot act civilized and supportive.

There has never been a good halfway point in this debate.

Its the same with archeology. (though a few years ago, I wouldn't be saying this).

There was a time when I hated archeologists - I have seen many bad ones. Then I met up with a man named Scott Wood, who invited us to the "other side" of the arguement.

We got to take metal detectors where detectors are not allowed, in order to help find some of an older civilization that they wanted "marked out". We worked with the archeologists. Then, about 4 days into the "hunt", we had marked off some findings - and had worked hard all day, finding a marking them, until we lost our daylight.

The following morning, almost every part that was marked had been pilfered. People had come during the night, and dug every spot we had marked (except for one). What was amazing to me is that they stole things like nails and grommets.
We were marking the edges of an old tent town, and had spent days marking them on graph maps. (its really interesting what your finds can mark out). And, that was the end of that. What we had already graphed was all we were going to find, thanks to some people who couldn't wait a few days or something. (still haven't figured out the why).

But, the arguement is still valid - there seems to be nobody who can figure out how to make the two sides live in harmony together. There has got to be something between "don't touch the public land" and "don't touch MY public land".

Beth (Mrs. O)

User avatar
Plays In The Dirt
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Apparently...

Post by Plays In The Dirt » Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:08 pm

Mrs.Oroblanco wrote:
But, the arguement is still valid - there seems to be nobody who can figure out how to make the two sides live in harmony together.
I agree, it's truly a difficult task to accomplish. I was shooting Photos in Arizona this morning and when I get back home I'll put together a story of the place I was that will show where all the sides have come together and all forms of recreation have equal access. Perhaps there is an answer.
Mrs.Oroblanco wrote: There has got to be something between "don't touch the public land" and "don't touch MY public land".

Beth (Mrs. O)
As it applies in my story above no one is being locked-out, only the means in which you get there. There are many other areas around here that are also closed to motorized traffic but anyone on foot or horseback has no problem gaining entry and there's a legitimate reason for it.

MMM
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Apparently...

Post by MMM » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:37 pm

PITD I have to respectfully disagree with you on the term locked out. Yes wilderness areas and a lot more can be accessed by foot and horse back, but generaly the term denied access or locked out refers to non-foot/horseback access. I my humble opinion with over 90% of the California desert being designated as non-mechinized use/non-street legal use prohibited, we, the mechinized users are locked out. Look at the Friends of Nevada Wildreness site and they say this "Friends of Nevada Wilderness is dedicated to preserving all qualified Nevada public lands as wilderness"

I respectfully ask that we have ballanced use for all groups in the desert.

Mike

Post Reply