US closing another midpacific airfield

AJC wrote:

http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article

If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into
national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands?
Boat?

AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:50:28 -0400, Fly Guy wrote:

AJC wrote:

http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article

If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into
national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands?
Boat?


Well surely the idea of at least some national parks is to keep people
away from them!
--==++AJC++==--


There are those who would perceive that perspective as arrogantly elitist.

"We're going to buy and maintain this park, see, but you can't go. It's
reserved for the bigwigs/butterfly enthusiasts/friends of the golden
throated bobolink."

There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while
limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied
of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to
specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a
traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers".

TMO

TMOliver wrote:
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled:
Well surely the idea of at least some national parks is to keep people

There are those who would perceive that perspective as arrogantly elitist.

"We're going to buy and maintain this park, see, but you can't go. It's
reserved for the bigwigs/butterfly enthusiasts/friends of the golden
throated bobolink."

There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while
limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied
of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to
specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a
traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers".

You don't see that there's a benefit to keeping people from tramping over at
least some spots on the planet?

I don't think there would be a problem with using whatever method you found
most egalitarian to determine who got to go. Lottery? Fee? Written exam?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

(Miguel Cruz) vented spleen or mostly mumbled...



I don't think there would be a problem with using whatever method you
found most egalitarian to determine who got to go. Lottery? Fee?
Written exam?



Lotteries are fine...(in fact used now for some over-visited parks, hunting
on government lands, etc.). Limitation with entry on a first come-first
served basis gives me some pause as it almost inevitably favors the
nearby for whom an "anytime" visit is possible, and may limit the number
of Floridians who may see the Grand canyon. I'm troubled by the fee
approach, in that it may prevent some of those most in need (or subject to
improvement by going) from going. Would you charge to view the Declaration
of Independnece?

I simply resent the creeping practice of closing off some areas and then
inventing eceptions which include special interests groups and inevitably
VIPs.

At what point does the protection of Mother Nature from the depredation of
crass humans pass the threshold of justification? When do you shoot the
tiger? After the first villager is dined upon? The tenth?

TMO

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:22:08 -0500, TMOliver
wrote:

At what point does the protection of Mother Nature from the depredation of
crass humans pass the threshold of justification? When do you shoot the
tiger? After the first villager is dined upon? The tenth?

When people start moving to places where they need to drive 20 miles
in their 400 horsepower machomobiles and never-taken-off-road SUVs to
get a roll of toilet paper or to take little Ashley to a soccer game?
;-)

Fly Guy wrote:

AJC wrote:

http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article


If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into
national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands?
Boat?

Yes. How do you normally get to the Channel Islands (Calif) or Fort
Jefferson in the Tortugas?

TMOliver wrote:
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while
limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied
of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to
specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a
traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers".


Can you point out this clause in the constitution?

Do you not know people that couldn't afford to go there even if there
was an airport? I didn't see anything about banning visitors, just
closing the airport.

mrtravel wrote in message igy.com...
TMOliver wrote:
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while
limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied
of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to
specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a
traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers".


Can you point out this clause in the constitution?
[snip]

He's probably referring to the equal protection clause. There
was also however the 10th amendment. (Is a "right to travel"
clause too although that is really more of a restraint on states
being able to prevent state to state travel).

assuming you make the access difficult enough (so you want to go to midway,
you need to go by boat) people won't go (or at least the ones who go will
have spent a lot of money to do it)

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
TMOliver wrote:
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled:
Well surely the idea of at least some national parks is to keep people

There are those who would perceive that perspective as arrogantly
elitist.

"We're going to buy and maintain this park, see, but you can't go. It's
reserved for the bigwigs/butterfly enthusiasts/friends of the golden
throated bobolink."

There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while
limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be
justfied
of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to
specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a
traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers".

You don't see that there's a benefit to keeping people from tramping over
at
least some spots on the planet?

I don't think there would be a problem with using whatever method you
found
most egalitarian to determine who got to go. Lottery? Fee? Written exam?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

me wrote:

mrtravel wrote in message igy.com...

TMOliver wrote:

AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while
limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied
of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to
specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a
traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers".


Can you point out this clause in the constitution?

[snip]

He's probably referring to the equal protection clause. There
was also however the 10th amendment. (Is a "right to travel"
clause too although that is really more of a restraint on states
being able to prevent state to state travel).

And the right to travel doesn't mean you have the right to have a
government (taxpayer) funded airfield at the destination.