Your little rule book is wron, and I'm going to find others in your
organization that agree with me and we're going to team up to
circumvent your rules."
Appealing to the administration of the NPS to change rules that
prohibit us from us enjoying a hobby that has less environmental
impact than other permitted activities is not circumventing the
rules (http://www.m-w.com/ ). It is following standard procedures to
effect change. No one has proposed skullduggery or intrigue. Most
letterboxers maintain their boxes; they are not abandoned. The NPS
doesn't prohibit camping because of the few campers that leave trash
behind. Letterboxes can hardly be an eyesore given that concealing
them is the raison d'etre of letterboxing. Almost all mammals, bears
and raccoons included, locate food by scent then return to locations
where they've found food or seek out new sources being drawn to it
by scent, so I don't think that boxes are frequently mistaken for a
food source. All I suggest is that we educate the NPS about the
hobby and the numbers of participants and work out a compromise, why
not a simple system where boxes are registered with the park, if our
existing database is not simple enough for them, with a check off
system to show regular maintenance so they know that we are
monitoring them. I would like to see a system to ensure maintaince
of all boxes, unmaintained boxes annoy me too. They could even set a
limit on the number of boxes in a given park if they are worried
about excessive traffic. If Yosemite limits the numbers of campers
then limiting the number of letterboxes is acceptable. It seems
unfair however that the NPS goes to great lengths to accommodate
other activities, and not just accommodate but encourage through the
construction of permanent facilities for them, and then maintain
such a rigid stance against letterboxing. My letterbox left behind
cannot be as offensive as the porta-potty placed in the camping
areas. Other activities don't need to leave things behind for the
continued enjoyment of the activity by themselves and like minded
enthusiasts (abandoned using the same rationale used against
letterboxes)because the NPS puts them there for them! Maybe the
solution is to require the NPS to hide boxes and post clues for us...
?? regardign LB and Nat'l Parks...poor stance????
4 messages in this thread |
Started on 2004-03-06
[LbNA] Re: ?? regardign LB and Nat'l Parks...poor stance????
From: Lady Hydrangea Prisspott nee Hedge (lady_prisspott@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2004-03-06 17:20:17 UTC
[LbNA] Re: ?? regardign LB and Nat'l Parks...poor stance????
From: funhog1 (funhog@pacifier.com) |
Date: 2004-03-06 19:06:25 UTC
Great idea, in theory. However, the Ranger I had my discussion with on this topic told
me that Congress is the organization that makes the rules. In order to instigate
change we would have to get an act passed in the House and Senate. Start lobbying!
Funhog
>All I suggest is that we educate the NPS about the
> hobby and the numbers of participants and work out a compromise,
me that Congress is the organization that makes the rules. In order to instigate
change we would have to get an act passed in the House and Senate. Start lobbying!
Funhog
>All I suggest is that we educate the NPS about the
> hobby and the numbers of participants and work out a compromise,
[LbNA] Re: ?? regardign LB and Nat'l Parks...poor stance????
From: lizardbuttsfamily (mmebt@hotmail.com) |
Date: 2004-03-07 04:14:40 UTC
... we would have to get an act passed in the House and Senate. Start
lobbying!
> Funhog
>
I know that this was not addressed to Ryan, but for some reason I
thought of him( may be due to his chatter- although the Gods of
Letterboxing did answer my prayers).
This could be Ryan's next adventure. I'm assuming that he isn't
trekking the Pacific Coast Trail this year or any other famous long
trails that are located in this world, and he is still independently
wealthy.
Lizardbutt's Mom
lobbying!
> Funhog
>
I know that this was not addressed to Ryan, but for some reason I
thought of him( may be due to his chatter- although the Gods of
Letterboxing did answer my prayers).
This could be Ryan's next adventure. I'm assuming that he isn't
trekking the Pacific Coast Trail this year or any other famous long
trails that are located in this world, and he is still independently
wealthy.
Lizardbutt's Mom
[LbNA] Re: ?? regardign LB and Nat'l Parks...poor stance????
From: rcarl616 (rcarl616@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2004-03-08 16:14:39 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "funhog1" wrote:
> Great idea, in theory. However, the Ranger I had my discussion with
on this topic told
> me that Congress is the organization that makes the rules. In order
to instigate
> change we would have to get an act passed in the House and Senate.
Start lobbying!
> Funhog
>
> >All I suggest is that we educate the NPS about the
> > hobby and the numbers of participants and work out a compromise
Well, speaking as someone who has worked for years in a federal
regulatory agency, yes and no.
Yes, the Congress makes the ultimate rules, in the form of laws. And
certainly a law passed by the Congress that specifically permitted or
prohibited letterboxing in national parks would dramatically affect
any discussion between the NPS and letterboxers. But laws are
generally not that specific or detailed and, as a result, Congress
empowers federal agencies to develop and issue regulations to
implement the laws that Congress passes. Regulations have the same
legal force of the law they implement but regulations are developed,
and can be modified, by the agency that is responsible for those
regulations, without the further involvement of Congress. The
development of federal regulations must follow a very exacting
process, including public comment, but in the end it is the federal
agency that determines the requirements found in their regulations.
And "policy" is an even more flexible concept. Policy amounts to
further intepretation of a law or its regulations. It might be
derived directly from the original law or the regulations, or it might
be no more than an expression of current thinking, political point of
view, preference, convenience or status quo on the part of the federal
agency involved in a question. If neither law nor regulations speak
to a certain issue, then it may be resolved by policy. And policy can
be changed at any time and for any reason.
Telling us to go to Congress to change the rules is certainly a proper
suggestion but it is also a time-honored bureaucratic way to cut off
debate and discussion. Typically it includes a strong element of "go
away and don't bother me," as I suspect was the case with the ranger
who made the suggestion.
So, no, one doesn't necessarily have to go to Congress to change the
rules. A suggestion that "we educate the NPS ... and work out a
compromise" is entirely legitimate, could be fruitful, and certainly
is easier and faster. Don't let the bureaucrats scare you off.
The catch is that someone actually has to do it...
Dad of "Lisa and Her Dad"
> Great idea, in theory. However, the Ranger I had my discussion with
on this topic told
> me that Congress is the organization that makes the rules. In order
to instigate
> change we would have to get an act passed in the House and Senate.
Start lobbying!
> Funhog
>
> >All I suggest is that we educate the NPS about the
> > hobby and the numbers of participants and work out a compromise
Well, speaking as someone who has worked for years in a federal
regulatory agency, yes and no.
Yes, the Congress makes the ultimate rules, in the form of laws. And
certainly a law passed by the Congress that specifically permitted or
prohibited letterboxing in national parks would dramatically affect
any discussion between the NPS and letterboxers. But laws are
generally not that specific or detailed and, as a result, Congress
empowers federal agencies to develop and issue regulations to
implement the laws that Congress passes. Regulations have the same
legal force of the law they implement but regulations are developed,
and can be modified, by the agency that is responsible for those
regulations, without the further involvement of Congress. The
development of federal regulations must follow a very exacting
process, including public comment, but in the end it is the federal
agency that determines the requirements found in their regulations.
And "policy" is an even more flexible concept. Policy amounts to
further intepretation of a law or its regulations. It might be
derived directly from the original law or the regulations, or it might
be no more than an expression of current thinking, political point of
view, preference, convenience or status quo on the part of the federal
agency involved in a question. If neither law nor regulations speak
to a certain issue, then it may be resolved by policy. And policy can
be changed at any time and for any reason.
Telling us to go to Congress to change the rules is certainly a proper
suggestion but it is also a time-honored bureaucratic way to cut off
debate and discussion. Typically it includes a strong element of "go
away and don't bother me," as I suspect was the case with the ranger
who made the suggestion.
So, no, one doesn't necessarily have to go to Congress to change the
rules. A suggestion that "we educate the NPS ... and work out a
compromise" is entirely legitimate, could be fruitful, and certainly
is easier and faster. Don't let the bureaucrats scare you off.
The catch is that someone actually has to do it...
Dad of "Lisa and Her Dad"