High Sierra Topix

Back to my point: "government" is just people doing their jobs as best they can given the resources they have. Government not a boogie man stealing candy from babies. Just trying to add some perspective about what it must feel like to have your office shut down for some ideological reason. And then to top that off, people expect extra effort to keep things going.

as best they can? they're still gonna get retroactively paid for not doing their jobs other than writing notes to leave. and a pension in some cases.

Bathrooms at Mosquito Flats and Mcgee Creek Canyon are unlocked, but locked in Mammoth Lakes basin. Most of Rock Creek below RCL and McGee Creek Canyon were brilliant with color today, just gorgeous!

There are two important ideas circulating in this thread, and they both are completely on-topic if you consider the topic in its broad sense of long term access to our public lands.

1. Responsibility of government employees.

Nearly all of the government employees we are apt to meet will indeed be taking "marching orders" from others.

Under normal circumstances I want them to follow their orders. I want them to write citations when they catch people building fire rings where they are not allowed. I want them to write citations when they catch a group that is chopping down trees or camping on green grass ten feet from waterline. I want them to cite fishermen who catch more than their limit. I want them to build the trails we pay for and to issue permits in a fair manner, rather than taking bribes.

Since I expect them to follow all of these orders, I can't very well complain when they also follow an order to evict me from a closed park. To say otherwise would make me a hypocrite--I want my government employees to always follow orders when I agree with them, but I want them to bend the rules and look the other way when it is not convenient for me.

Now, we might agree that closing the parks in the way it was handled was a bad policy decision. I don't really know the answer to that--I am not sure what the alternatives are when an agency runs out of money. But this has nothing to do with the ranger we will meet in the field.

2. Anger over the shutdown

As far as the shutdown is concerned, I am afraid I agree with HikeSierraNevada. Those individuals who are responsible for the shutdown represent a radical group that is using the rules of the House to defeat a democratic majority that actually favors moderation and compromise.

Nearly every one of those individuals would also repeal the Wilderness Act, would gladly defund the National Parks and Forest Service and make them 100% supported by timber sales and entrance fees. For that matter, most would auction off the national forests to allow the "free enterprise system" to let the marketplace regulate the land. These are exactly the same people that John Muir fought against--they have not really changed in 120 years.

Keep in mind that the parks and wilderness we now enjoy are a much better example of genuine socialism in this country than Obamacare, and have long been a target of conservatives. If the radical right wins this battle, it will just become the first of many more manufactured crises in which political blackmail is used to their advantage--each time further eroding the resources we need to care for public lands, and eventually culminating in the destruction of our public lands altogether--along with every other vestige of "public" over private.

The Federal Government is in debt to the tune of $17 trillion! When will it stop spending money is does not have?

TahoeJeff wrote:The Federal Government is in debt to the tune of $17 trillion! When will it stop spending money is does not have?

Some of my liberal friends would disagree with me, but I also would favor a balanced budget--primarily out of a sense of ethics. I think that has a lot in common with the conservation of land--both depend on ethical reasoning that thinks about the well being of future generations.

I guess I stirred up some political potatoes trying give some perspective. Thought it was relevant since we all rely on government employees that manage the wilderness we all love to visit. Just saying, give the employees a break, it's not their fault. The continuing resolution the House refuses to vote on is at sequestration levels that are actually LOWER than what Paul Ryan proposed. So it's not about fiscal discipline and the Affordable Care Act is not going away. It's obvious what this is really about. If they held the vote, it looks like there are enough moderate adult Republicans to join up with the Democrats and end this shut down. That's the formula that ended the last manufactured fiscal crisis when we lost our credit rating thanks to this nonsense.

HikeSierraNevada wrote:I guess I stirred up some political potatoes trying give some perspective. Thought it was relevant since we all rely on government employees that manage the wilderness we all love to visit. Just saying, give the employees a break, it's not their fault. The continuing resolution the House refuses to vote on is at sequestration levels that are actually LOWER than what Paul Ryan proposed. So it's not about fiscal discipline and the Affordable Care Act is not going away. It's obvious what this is really about. If they held the vote, it looks like there are enough moderate adult Republicans to join up with the Democrats and end this shut down. That's the formula that ended the last manufactured fiscal crisis when we lost our credit rating thanks to this nonsense.

You didn't answer my question again



I've avoided a partisan political discussion because playing the blame game is pointless on this forum, you would be wise to do the same.

kpeter wrote:e
Since I expect them to follow all of these orders, I can't very well complain when they also follow an order to evict me from a closed park. To say otherwise would make me a hypocrite--

Your first example of following orders is simply doing the job they are paid for and enforcing legally created codes and regulations, the latter isn't.(at least no one has shown me where it is written that they must do this)

There is no hypocrisy

want my government employees to always follow orders when I agree with them, but I want them to bend the rules and look the other way when it is not convenient for me.

I want my government employees to be good American citizens first and not unthinking, uncaring robots serving, protecting, and defending a particular segment of government.

There are a lot of suppositions by a bunch of people sitting in front of computers in this thread. Perhaps the next people to actually see some of the rangers in questions might try to get their opinions on the matters under discussion. The biggest issue I have in much of this chit-chat is simply their views are not represented in any meaningful way as far as I can tell. And I would point out that it is much easier to take black/white perspectives when the realities are ignored.

caddis wrote:You didn't answer my question again

I've avoided a partisan political discussion because playing the blame game is pointless on this forum, you would be wise to do the same.

Caddis, I wasn't sure what examples you were asking for in your first reply, and now I have no idea what question you are referring to that I didn't answer. I'm willing to drop it now because I do agree that getting into politics on a hiking forum is not a good idea. It's hard to discuss a government shutdown without getting political. Better to agree to disagree and move on. Cheers.