This is why I am a legalist/absolutist. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is what I grew up under; and as far as I'm concerned, "intent" is a Liberal cop-out, to excuse leftists purposely breaking the law "for the higher good".
Perhaps, intent can be useful at sentencing; but not for guilt/innocence questions...PERHAPS.
You stole it; it was protected public property, on public land: neither your "intent", nor the monetary value, mean anything.
The snapping point on this was an Oregon theft case, where the theif was found 'not guilty', becasue the prosecution could not PROVE the thief "meant to" permanently appropriate an expensive ring to his own possession. He had broken in; stolen the ring; pawned the ring; spent the money...then told the court he "intended" to redeem the ring and return it at a future date: THEREFORE, according to Oregon higher courts, he had NOT stolen the ring, but had "only" borrowed it without permission.
If these yahoos could convince the court they "intened" to put the boulders back,after displaying them in their yard for awhile, under that "intent" assininity, they would again be 'not guilty'.
The Ninth Circus has again committed legal mayhem, this time to our national heritage and future understanding of our past.
Hangin's too good for the lot of 'em.