View Story | 27 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I'd thought I'd try to give you a bit of insight into the perspective of the Park Service.
The idea of 'take nothing but pictures' is applied to all resources in a national park, historical, cultural, natural, or otherwise. That is where the Park Service is coming from.
Many people think many places or artifacts in national parks are unsightly. For example, what if somebody thought the Golden Gate Bridge was ugly and should be green? This is why the blanket rule is 'Everybody leaves everything alone.'
Many natural and historical artifacts are also dangerous. That is the nature of a wild, relatively unmanaged territory. In order to maintain the wild, unmanaged quality, the parks also maintain much of the risk.
For example, many parks have abandoned houses, ghost towns, or mine shafts more than a hundred years old. Can you see how these are historical artifacts that many people would view as having inherent value, as saying something about the people who came before us, what they did, and what they left behind?
Likewise, there will be many people who see value in leaving the wreckage of historic planes intact. It is part of the story of the island.
Of course these artifacts can be very dangerous - bits of old metal are lying around, and falling down an open pit mine could easily kill you.
As far as your court case (not related to Article V) they will probably argue that the safety of visitors is taken care of by warning all hikers to stay on established trails, and that wandering from these trails is dangerous. From your story, it appears there were no parts of the wreckage actually sitting in the middle of a well-maintained trail.
They will probably also argue that a 'reasonable person' - in the term of the law - would, upon deciding that an artifact was dangerous, instead of returning to that artifact and exposing themselves to more danger would avoid that artifact and/or inform the authorities.
Ironically, the same laws that are being used against you, may, in the future, be used to preserve the sculpture you created. Other visitors may think it's an eyesore, a disgrace, a violation of history, but if the park service allows it to remain (and I would argue they should) it will become another chapter in island history, and as such, a protected part of the park that future visitors may not disturb.
I wish you luck.
by dreaminonempty on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
i understand the position of the park, but we are talking about hazardous material not mentioned in any of the literature, nor noted at the site.
in addition to that, the debries is not the entire wreck, but the remains that were left to the winds. these winds have scattered pieces off onto other parts of the park. so is the site a resource? is the wreck (because it's been removed)? or is the debries?
if people see value in debries, then why is it allowed to blow off the field onto surrounding cliffs and into ravines? also, there were a couple of parts next to the trail which went past the site.
a reasonable person would have notified the park, and i did, i spoke with a ranger the first day i was there.
and yes, i agree with you, the irony is that the sculpture is part of island history. and what the government did with it (a d.o.i. investigator, according to written testimony, apparently removed the top piece), reflects its contradiction. i'll point it out.
thanks for the luck.
Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.
by john de herrera on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM PDT
Often, cultural artifacts are intentionally left out of park literature in order to minimize looting. I imagine there's probably some collectors out there who would be interested in a propeller from this plane, for instance.
As far as hazardous material, there is a balance to be achieved. There are many, many things that are hazardous in parks and they can't all be labeled. For instance, in Yellowstone, there are pullouts along the road where you can often spot bison. Many of these have signs warning you that bison are dangerous and should not be approached. But there are also many places in the backcountry where you can often spot bison. There are no signs on the trails at these places because 1) there's not enough people visiting to justify the effort and 2) the visitors who make it back there are almost certain to understand the nature of bison already, and 3)they have already been warned in general in materials they received with the backcountry permit.
In the case of plane wreckage, it is probably reasonable to assume that most people know that metal objects can be sharp. Visitors are already told to stay on the trail, so there is little reason to expect them to exposed to any sharp metal objects anyway.
The resource in question is the entire debris field, wherever it may end up. The continuing process of distributing the debris is part of what would make it interesting to many people. Observing change over time is part of the national parks' mission.
You were reasonable in reporting what you found to the ranger. What is likely to be judged unreasonable is returning to the site, and exposing yourself to more of what you believed to be a dangerous situation.
The parks have to take this sort of thing very seriously because a few people can end up having a very large effect on a resource. They are charged with preserving the resource, including the plane wrecks. Personally, I think your sculpture adds to the story of the island and makes for a good anecdote - but what if just a handful of people - just a handful out of the billions on the planet - reads your diary and decides to do the same thing as you. There could easily be no more plane wrecks on the island at all. And that would be a shame, and the park would have failed. I, for one, am very curious to see one of these debris fields, and next time I'm in the neighborhood I think I'll take a trip out there and take a look.
by dreaminonempty on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM PDT
ultimately, my reason for doing what i did was, and is, an attempt to protect the u.s. constitution from being violated. every federal law is tied directly to the seven articles and twenty-seven amendments. if the constitution is currently suspended/violated, then all ancillary law has no force/effect until that violation is corrected. i did what i did to show that i cannot be sentenced for breaking a law which has no force, until congress issues the call for a national convention.
http://www.article5.org
the congressional record shows 567 state applications for an article v convention, and one congress after the next simply ignores them and fails to carry out its constitutional obligation to issue the call.
what i did with what remained of the wreck, is subjective. i would argue the laws i'm accused of violating are defective in this case. some people think otherwise. ok, fine, let's see what the court says (and i don't think i'll be pleasantly surprised).
i too think that all plane wrecks in national parks which are left strewn about should have local sculptors commissioned to do what i did. i think sculpture out of hazardous materials would add to each park's resources, and help preserve the history of the crash.
as it stands, the park historian has submitted a written statement that she did not know what wreck i was tallking about. she thought it was one from 1984. part of my action was to get the park to document the wrecks as resources of interest.
the chief ranger did say to me that they have taken action in regards to what has happened. what that is i hope to find out in cross-examination.
i heartily encourage you to visit the channel islands national park. it is a really incredible park. there will be other diaries in this series, so stay tuned if you like. thanks for taking the time to comment. i will have some of these thoughts in mind in court. feel free to add anything else if you think of it, d.o.e.
p.s. i can't believe i was spelling debris wrong. my spelling was never that great and seems to get worse as the years go on ;(
by john de herrera on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM PDT
i've thought about your comments more. i'm glad you made them. i will certainly be using your thinking in my case.
by john de herrera on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 27 comments