National Parks

[Edwina's Secretary]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but why would you have posted that in DH, if it was only your intention to extol the beauty of our national and natural wonders?

Wouldn't it have met with a better reception and have been viewed by more people if you had posted in General?

Maybe I missed something???????

I posted in the Dog House (and explained in the thread) because I would like to see some balance to the constant negativity about our government that is here.

My intention was not to

extol the beauty of our national and natural wonders

One photo does that.

My intention was to point out (sorry extol doesn't work) the job our federal government does in maintaining it. And sadly, doing so seems to be very controversial!

[pomtzu]

My intention was to point out (sorry extol doesn't work) the job our federal government does in maintaining it. And sadly, doing so seems to be very controversial!

With that being a "good thing" - that should have taken it out of DH and away from a naturally controversial area.

Again - JIMHO. I rest my case - enough said on my part.

[Medusa]

I think that it was the comment about the expanding role of our federal government that blue was talking about. IMO, he may have felt that it made it sound like a political statement rather than referring to the beauty of our national parks.

[Karen]

The Dog House is the place for upsetting things, political discussion, and scary things. We should be able to talk about a variety of topics without people being concerned about personal attacks. Even when people disagree with each others' viewpoints, they should do so politely. The thing we all have in common here is that we treasure our pets, and that is the one thing that unites us.

I do think we should all be able to play together nicely.

[lizbud]

The Dog House is the place for upsetting things, political discussion, and scary things. We should be able to talk about a variety of topics without people being concerned about personal attacks. Even when people disagree with each others' viewpoints, they should do so politely. The thing we all have in common here is that we treasure our pets, and that is the one thing that unites us.

AMEN !!!

It can be very hard not to respond in kind when you (anyone) are
slammed with every post you make ,no matter what the topic.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I think that it was the comment about the expanding role of our federal government that blue was talking about. IMO, he may have felt that it made it sound like a political statement rather than referring to the beauty of our national parks.

And what if it was a political statement? I posted in the Dog House AGAIN...because in seeing the parks I realized that our government DOES some things very well. By the very use of the word "government" it is political.

I am not allowed to post a thought that involves politics without being denigated?

I will be eager to see "Mission Accomplished" posted again! But not hopeful.

[Medusa]

Pomtzu's point, ES, and mine, too, is that if you were merely posting about the beauty of the national parks, then it probably wasn't DH worthy. That phrase of which we speak may have seemed incendiary to blue. However, to answer your question, no, you shouldn't be denigrated when posting a thought about politics. And the same is true of everyone else as well.

[catland]

I am not allowed to post a thought that involves politics without being denigated?

geez ES -"denigated" - now you are making me use the dictionary before I can post a reply.

I've definately been away from PT too long if you are now being considered a "Troll".


I happen to love state and national parks. We go camping quite often at the state parks up by Mt. Hood. The wonder of our national parks is that they are accessible to all of us - in prior times such wonders would have been off limits to the majority and reserved for the elite.

The parks are indeed a wonderful example of when a government of the people can actually do something that really benefits all the people, and not just the select few.

Our state government has its problems too, but one of the things they did years ago was to delclare that all of the Oregon beaches belonged to the public, and that you could not "own" the beach and ocean and prevent access to others. Pretty cool, huh?

[Puckstop31]

Our state government has its problems too, but one of the things they did years ago was to delclare that all of the Oregon beaches belonged to the public, and that you could not "own" the beach and ocean and prevent access to others. Pretty cool, huh?

So if I OWN beachfront property in Oregon, I have to let anybody on MY property?

LOL.

Does anybody really understand what Liberty REALLY means anymore?

[Puckstop31]

ES. Dr. Goebbels would have been proud of your propoganda. Granted, I do understand what you were trying to do. Problem is, we are not the morons you assume we are.... Our history... LEARN it. Learn who our founders were. Learn what this country was really founded on, what made this country the power it WAS. When you really open your eyes, you will see why we are the way we are these days....

In my eyes, all you did with post #1 in the first thread was prove, again, how fond you are of authortarian figures... As long as they do what you think is OK.

[Cinder & Smoke]

Hey Folks ~

Anybody notice a few posts in this topic have gone *missing* ??

MINE being one of them.

Sorta changes the overall theme and feel of the thread.

[catland]

So if I OWN beachfront property in Oregon, I have to let anybody on MY property?

LOL.

Let me clarify.
Yes, you can own and enjoy beachfront property with an ocean view that is your private property that doesn't allow tresspassing. What you cannot own is the actual beach.

Here's an explanation from the opb.org website.

In 1967 Governor Tom McCall signed the Beach Bill with great fanfare, calling it "one of the most far reaching measures of its kind enacted by any legislative body in the nation." The bill granted the public recreational rights to the dry sands of Oregon’s beaches all the way to the vegetation line.

But the fight to protect Oregon's beaches from private development and "No Trespassing" signs began around 1913 when Governor Oswald West designated Oregon's tidelands — the wet sand portion of the beach — as a public highway.

But in the 1960s, private developers along the coast began challenging the law saying that, in fact, the dry sand portion of the beach belonged to the upland owners. And, therefore, they could do whatever they wanted with the land — including erecting barricades to create "private beaches."

What ensued was a fight to save all of Oregon's beaches for public recreational use. The battle erupted into the hottest issue of the 1967 legislative session and created the greatest public response to any issue in Oregon's legislative history.

[Edwina's Secretary]

geez ES -"denigated" - now you are making me use the dictionary before I can post a reply.

I've definately been away from PT too long if you are now being considered a "Troll".


I happen to love state and national parks. We go camping quite often at the state parks up by Mt. Hood. The wonder of our national parks is that they are accessible to all of us - in prior times such wonders would have been off limits to the majority and reserved for the elite.

The parks are indeed a wonderful example of when a government of the people can actually do something that really benefits all the people, and not just the select few.

Our state government has its problems too, but one of the things they did years ago was to delclare that all of the Oregon beaches belonged to the public, and that you could not "own" the beach and ocean and prevent access to others. Pretty cool, huh?

Using a dictionary is good for you! I had to use one to spell "denigated" in the first place...

The lakefront in Chicago is also ALL public...result of ordinances from after the Chicago Fire of...1871 I think?

Here in Cali you can have a house on the beach but public access is still required.

And I agree -- very cool!

[blue]

So are we going to see the rest of the pics you took while visiting the National Parks?

[kokopup]

I believe that public access to the beach is pretty much universal. I know it is in Florida and Alabama.
Post by Puckstop31

If I had the dough to own beachfront land, it would NOT be in Oregon. But that's just me. (Granted, i'd never own beachfront land anyway. 25,000 acres in Montana is more me. LOL)

Knowing that you oppose government dictating anything, you need to know your rights and obligations if you are a large land holder in Montana. MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 7 is a good start. You thought Oregon was bad.