Posted on 10/27/2014 12:57:31 PM PDT by TexasCajun
The National Park Service is investigating a woman who appears to have traveled from New York to several Western states in recent weeks in order to paint pointless, embarrassingly unsightly drivel all over a bunch of America’s most pristine and most iconic national parks.
The crap sketcher is Casey Nocket, Modern Hiker reports.
Nocket, 21, left her trail of twaddle in nearly a dozen federally-protected parks including Yosemite National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Crater Lake National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and Bryce Canyon National Park.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I found it by searching on the link name of the image ( click “save as”, then cancel. )
It’s at Natural Bridge, Va. and it’s G W not CW, thought to be George Washington, who did a survey there.
From the samples above she ain’t no Banksy.
I purposely did not post that pic as it would constitute jury tampering!
The obvious question is not answered or even asked...
How can this bimbo afford to travel all over the country to do "her thing?"
Taxpayer-supported (welfare)?
Sugar daddy?
What?
Why do I keep seeing this?
Is the NPS now the new Gestapo?
We have created a huge playground for useless entitled twits?
Can anyone provide links to this incredible new "rule?"
Read the article. It's a felony and she will be charged.
Can you tell me more about that? I've taken photos at all the parks I have visited.
Funny, isn’t it, that when a modern human paints ugly crap on rocks, everybody gets upset about it, and they look for ways to clean the paint off the rocks.
But when “scholars” find ugly crap that was painted on rocks 20 thousand years ago by primitive humans, they declare it to be high art, they study it, write erudite articles about it, and put up barriers to prevent anyone from trying to clean the paint off the rocks.
Or/also a cupid stunt.
She should be forced to remove it all with a toothbrush-sized brass brush.
Leave No Trace.
I'm going to sleep on it before I announce the further penalty, because what I'm currently thinking isn't Christian or Scoutworthy.
It was a story that appeared here on FR within the last 3 months. People have reported being harassed by Rangers who told them photography was not allowed in Nat'l Parks. I don't recall many details beyond that. A search on FR would probably bring up more.
Teddy Roosevelt
From what I read professional photographers would now need to pull a permit(I believe it was around $1500) prior to taking pictures in National Parks. If caught without the permit a fine would ensue. I am not sure if this applies to your general vacationer taking snapshots.
Here is a link.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_says_media_need.html
Actually, what she's done is not allowed. Also, it's not the National Park Service with regard to the story on photography. It was the Forest Service. It was also with respect to commercial photography, not personal. Commercial photography has carried a fee for years on any public lands. The issue is making the press (covered under the First Amendment) pay fees for filming stories on Forest Service land.
Personal photography has never carried a fee on public lands.
No one would give a crap about it if modern humans painted their own rocks, instead of rocks belonging to others.
Commercial filming and photography on public land (Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, etc...) has carried a fee for decades, and companies or individuals who sell their photographs or films without having a permit can be fined. Personal filming and photography is perfectly fine, allowed, and even encouraged in many places.
This all stemmed from an improperly interpreted story from a couple of months ago regarding the Forest Service stating it will charge news agencies fees for doing stories (whistle-blower type, anyway) on public land (filming and/or photography), and that the fee was higher than the fine (think the fee was $1,500 and the fine only $1,000), even though this would clearly be covered under the First Amendment and freedom of the Press. People were misinterpreting then, and they still are today.
It is a felony..and the fact her “art” isn't even good graffiti, more like a kids attempts at drawing, and the fact she gloated about it, went into areas not allowed and defaced significant areas...she could be in a heap of trouble.
She's certainly lacking in brains and artist ability...and appears to have an overinflated opinion of herself and her scribblings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.