by brotherbbock » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:52 pm
jhodlof wrote:Isn't the real issue accessing the mountain? Wouldn't it be smart to contact the DWA to talk about access and to work with them or the FS to gain better access? Section 33 is too low to be an important water producing area, so from the topo map and satellite images, the only thing that is there that looks to be worth protecting is a gauging station. The only thing that makes sense to me which would cause DWA to not want people on their land is liability issues, fire hazard or dumping issues. I would think there are better ways to handle this than just online bickering. Form a political interest group, start talking with the FS and DWA, hash out some kind of agreement and maybe this will be a non-issue.
by mrh » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:59 pm
by fatdad » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:02 pm
by kevin trieu » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:13 pm
by mrh » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:17 pm
brotherbbock wrote:jhodlof wrote:Isn't the real issue accessing the mountain? Wouldn't it be smart to contact the DWA to talk about access and to work with them or the FS to gain better access? Section 33 is too low to be an important water producing area, so from the topo map and satellite images, the only thing that is there that looks to be worth protecting is a gauging station. The only thing that makes sense to me which would cause DWA to not want people on their land is liability issues, fire hazard or dumping issues. I would think there are better ways to handle this than just online bickering. Form a political interest group, start talking with the FS and DWA, hash out some kind of agreement and maybe this will be a non-issue.
The chief engineer is saying the whole mountain needs to be protected because of climbers defecating in the water shed. He specifically told us that they have seen the numbers increasing in their tests. These guys will fight to get it all protected if they possibly can.
by simonov » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:45 pm
brotherbbock wrote:Also notice that you have no right to photographic privacy in the "check if appropriate" area, They broke this rule when we were photographed at the power station parking area.
by brotherbbock » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:33 pm
redneck wrote:brotherbbock wrote:Also notice that you have no right to photographic privacy in the "check if appropriate" area, They broke this rule when we were photographed at the power station parking area.
You have no right to privacy in a public place and can be photographed at will without your permission.
by simonov » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:43 pm
brotherbbock wrote:Yes, but not under the pretense that we were doing something wrong or breaking laws. They should not be allowed to photo my license plate for their records when I indeed was on public land committing no crimes.
by leopop » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:33 pm
by brotherbbock » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:37 am
leopop wrote:Put yourself in bbock's shoes. If you were in the parking lot of a grocery store and some stranger were to get out their camera and start shooting photos of your license plate and your face, and explained that they were taking photos for identification for the future potential of you vandalizing their vehicle, you probably wouldn't be too happy either.
by climberslacker » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:39 am
by simonov » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:12 pm
leopop wrote:Put yourself in bbock's shoes. If you were in the parking lot of a grocery store and some stranger were to get out their camera and start shooting photos of your license plate and your face, and explained that they were taking photos for identification for the future potential of you vandalizing their vehicle, you probably wouldn't be too happy either.
by MBS1017 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:57 pm
by SpazzyMcgee » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:00 pm
MBS1017 wrote:I'm afraid of what could've taken place.
mature, safe way
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests