[Chickensoup]

Reminds me of the 1800s in England where millions of subjects were thrown off their land and the lands were possesed by the local royalty. No one could hunt or fish the lands and the locals subjects starved and became a source of cheap labor.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well, since Ken Burns just showed his "National Parks" documentary, I will say this --

It's nice that we preserved Yosemite and other pristine areas. I've heard folks say that such places of beauty should be preserved so that ALL Americans can enjoy them. Of course, the designation limits development, limits access and generally LIMITS the number of Americans who can reasonably go and experience these places of beauty. So the whole thing is somewhat misleading.

Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to National Parks. But these would fall into the category of "The Commons" and our government basically placed them off to the side and said "We need to limit how much you will use these places". A lot of folks think that's good. Maybe it is.

What the government is doing now is going to your favorite place to fish -- a place which you would assume falls into "The Commons" and is throwing you out. No fishing for you, you peasant! We need to preserve this area for ALL Americans -- so get out!

[GOPJ]

Reminds me of the 1800s in England where millions of subjects were thrown off their land and the lands were possesed by the local royalty. No one could hunt or fish the lands and the locals subjects starved and became a source of cheap labor.

Totalitarians tend to come up with the same solutions.