National Parks

[sasvermont]

Maybe this will re-thread, the thread. Why wouldn't you like National Parks?

Anyone else have some photos from trips to National Parks - ones they are willing to share here?


I also love our State Parks here in Vermont.

[Puckstop31]

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.

Its a free country, but a private board. Mods, any comment?

[Puckstop31]

Maybe this will re-thread, the thread. Why wouldn't you like National Parks?

That is the controversy, I think. Some people doubt that this thread(s) were REALLY about National Parks.

[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.

[Puckstop31]

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.

OK. As long as it is a State law, cool. Its a shady law, IMO. Government infringing on private property, but still... As long as it is a State law... cool. 10th Amendment and all that.

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)

Back to it... This law has to just KILL beachfront property values, eh?

[Karen]

Its a free country, but a private board. Mods, any comment?

Phred, your post, and others, were in a different thread which Edwina's Secretary started, then deleted. This is a new thread, with the same title.

[Grace]

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.

Phred, I think she deleted the original National Park topic, and then started this one. The other one got sort of out of hand - I think

[blue]

I had posted a thread about a trip I made this week to some of our national parks.

I expressed my admiration for the job the federal government does in maintaining these national treasures.

Apparently, my admiration for the parks was offensive to some and was described as "trolling".

Apparently, the Dog House exists to talk about bizarre and horrible crimes and how terrible this country's government is.

An attempt to post a positive impression of our country is met with rudeness and scorn.

Got it.

I agreed with you that federal funding for the National Park Service was a good thing.

Now where are the rest of the pics?

[catland]

sorry, no pics - but I can tell you that Crater Lake National Park is specatular. Nothing can prepare you for just how blue the water really is.

[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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

I started a thread about my reaction upon seeing a couple of national parks.

That caused some people to post nasty things and insult me, etc.

That takes the fun out of posting photos or much of anything else.

So I deleted the thread.

Mission accomplished I guess.

Same thing happened with the sewing machine thread.

Sorry Phred. It disappoints me too but that seems to be how things go these days.

[Cinder & Smoke]

I started a thread about my reaction upon seeing a couple of national parks.

That caused some people to post nasty things and insult me, etc.

That takes the fun out of posting photos or much of anything else.

<deep sigh>

If I remember, it was a nice photo.

So sorry.

[blue]

I started a thread about my reaction upon seeing a couple of national parks.

That caused some people to post nasty things and insult me, etc.

That takes the fun out of posting photos or much of anything else.

So I deleted the thread.

Mission accomplished I guess.

Same thing happened with the sewing machine thread.

Sorry Phred. It disappoints me too but that seems to be how things go these days.

You probably should have left out all the political parts of the thread and posted more then one picture.

Your opinion that the Interstate freeway system for example, it is fantastic but its also in the Constitution under Interstate Commerce.

Or your gushing over Harry S Truman, who had nothing to do with the National Park Act of 1916 or any of the earlier acts creating National Parks by Grant and possibly Lincoln.

FWIW I also agreed that your sewing machine thread was a good idea. Back in elementary school we kids sewed some wash mitts together that I wish I still had today. I also have my own home sewn bivy sack for mountain climbing and camping.

So its twice now that I have agreed with you.