National Parks

Complicated Rules For Foraging Aren't Helping Our National Parks

Let the people pick berries!

|

A hipster forages for oyster mushrooms in Minnesota. Steve Rice/MCT/Newscom

Officials from the National Park Service (NPS) announced an agreement last week with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians that will allow select tribal members to forage for an edible plant called sochan in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP). The agreement allows up to three-dozen permitted tribal gatherers (plus up to five accompanying family members) to harvest sochan in the park.

The change, reports the Asheville Citizen-Times, "returns the right by the Cherokee to pick and fry up the kale-like sochan, also known as green headed coneflower, on their ancestral land as they had done for thousands of years." Officials also announced they're considering allowing park visitors to harvest ramps, a hipster-friendly species of wild onion.

This agreement is a groundbreaking move on the part of the NPS, but it doesn't go far enough.

The origins of U.S. anti-foraging laws, which I traced in a 2018 Fordham Urban Law Journal article, Food Law Gone Wild: The Law of Foraging, were borne out of white Americans' fears of and hatred for Native Americans, who I write "were probably the earliest victims of anti-foraging laws in the New World."

While foraging is enjoying a renaissance, so too are penalties for engaging in the practice. Foraging regulations in this country vary wildly, and tend to be far more restrictive than is reasonably necessary. For example, as I detailed in a 2015 column, a Maryland man was fined $50 and hauled into court for picking berries in a local park. I include several other examples of fined foragers in my 2016 book Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable.

The NPS has slowly been evolving on the issue. In 2016, the agency modified rules for foraging in national parks, allowing individual Native American tribes "to request to enter into agreements to conduct gathering activities." In addition to a request, the new rules require both an environmental assessment and a formal finding that foraging will not significantly impact the relevant wild food in the park.

The agreement announced last week appears to be the first such agreement crafted under the modified rules.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the Cherokee aren't overly excited about the new agreement, which includes restrictions on harvesting methods, locations, uses, and other factors, all detailed here.

"For thousands of years, the Cherokee gathered sochan and other plants from these mountains," reads a statement from the tribe announcing the recent sochan agreement (emphasis mine). "This agreement is a first step toward restoring those gathering rights."

Elsewhere, the tribe notes that the process for getting the sochan agreement on the books required the tribe to pay the federal government $68,000 for an environmental assessment, one of merely nine steps in the process, which "irk[ed] some leaders" of the tribe.

Foraging opponents worry that allowing the practice will lead to overharvesting, but in sochan's case, the opposite is actually true. "Cherokee methods of gathering sochan were found to boost seed production," the tribe notes. Put another way, prohibiting the tribe from harvesting sochan has harmed sochan seed production and, hence, is bad for the tribe and bad for sochan populations.

I also find it hard to get too excited by the agreement announced last week. It's a complicated, expensive, and time-consuming regulatory amendment that will just allow a few dozen people out of more than 300-million Americans to harvest the leaves of a sunflower cousin in a National Park.

I made the case for allowing foraging in all NPS units in a 2017 piece for the New Food Economy. In the column, I urged a shift "from the default [foraging] ban that exists under the current rules—which mandate that all foraging in a given park is illegal unless a superintendent allows it—to something like much more permissive, akin to all foraging in a park is legal unless a superintendent prohibits it."

Allowing foraging in a park isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Park superintendents may—and do—allow foraging while also placing limits on the foods that visitors may harvest, methods of harvest, uses, quantity, and location, along with particular prohibitions for wild foods that have been overharvested (e.g., declaring that visitors may not harvest mushrooms in a park).

If overharvesting of any species is (or becomes) a problem in a given park, then the park superintendent is empowered to limit the quantity of that species visitors may gather in the park, restrict harvesting methods or locations, or by temporarily prohibit foraging for that species until it recovers.

With 46 of 61 National Parks already allowing some form of foraging of some things, it's a hop and a skip to having the default policy be that foraging of everything is allowed at all 61 parks, with park superintendents responsible for introducing temporary, species-specific restrictions when circumstances require it.

That way, more Americans, Native and non-native alike, would be encouraged to visit our National Parks and to learn about and enjoy the tremendous abundance and variety of wild foods that grow there, including sochan. After all, that's a central reason the parks exist in the first place.

Advertisement

NEXT: Standing on the Shoulders of Tyrants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Arbitrary rules are the only thing keeping hipster hordes and tribes from clear cutting our forests down to nothing.

    1. Hipster hordes and tribes forcibly tied me down and harvested my dingle-berries while I was visiting a national park!!!

      Something has to be DONE, dammit!!!!

      1. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
        Check For info Here,
        ===> http://tinyurl.com/y39hnxja

      2. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
        Check For info Here,
        ===> http://www.payshd.com

    2. You think you are joking but one look at the national mall the day after some hipster political march shows that you are not. As long as you virtue signal, these people are generally fine with screwing up the environment.

      1. It’s horrible. They won’t take responsibility for anything.

        “Government or someone will clean up after us!”

      2. The national parks get a ton of traffic, but most of it is limited to 1 mile within the nearest parking lot. If you hike out a bit further than that, many times you will not see a soul. Especially if you are not on one of the famous trails.

        1. Poop. Bury or carry out?

          1. Depends on soil conditions and amount of human traffic.

    3. I got my first ramps of the season yesterday quite responsibly, thank you very much. Left roots in the ground and plenty remaining in the patch.

      1. Ramps are awesome. However, they are sort of endangered around here, so I don’t collect them anymore. If you wanna be a trooper, go out and gather as much garlic mustard as you can carry. Makes a great pesto.

  2. Pave it all and solve traffic congestion

    1. As a plus, it makes the parks handicapped accessible – – – –

  3. Uh, no.

    First, the most strict land protection, typically National Parks and/or official wilderness areas, is designed to minimize human impacts. Foraging is a direct violation of this ethic. Sure, some land management might be compatible with foraging, just like with hunting and fishing, but not all.

    Second, let’s stop this BS about the special status of Indians, at least off the rez. Either we are all citizens with the same rights and restrictions, or we are just a bunch of special interest groups fighting for status and priority. I am especially tired of Progressives who rail against christian creationism as a political foundation, but the swoon at the mention of some indian creation story.

    1. I completely agree. The taxpayers set these lands up to be more or less nature parks. They are sold as a way to leave some land untouched. You can agree or disagree with that. But, allowing people to go in and forage is completely contrary to purpose of the parks. We don’t let people farm in there do we? If these people want to forage, go do it on their own land or on land where the land owner is willing to allow it.

      And absolutely screw the Indians. They should not get special status unless it is contained in a treaty.

      1. Which treaty?

        1. Doesn’t matter, we broke them all.

          1. “We”? I hate when people use the word “we” to describe the actions of the federal government. Don’t do that, please.

            1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

              The federal government is “we”, including you. So vote.

          2. Whats this “WE” crap??

            The Government broke the treaties.

            1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

              The federal government is “we”, including you. So vote.

      2. But maybe we can avoid reparations for Native Americans if we allow them to forage the land like their ancestors did???

        1. Maybe they can ‘gambol’!

      3. “We don’t let people farm in there do we?”

        Because harvesting native plants is the same as cutting down all the trees, plowing the native plants under, replacing them with food crops and displacing all the wildlife.

      4. Unless it is contained in one of the countless treaties with Indians that the U.S. government broke?

    2. Indian creationist fundamentalism has virtually shut down physical anthropology in North America:

      Indian creationists thwart science NY Times

      1. Yes it has. Kennewick man is a great example of this. The body dates for like 10,000 years ago, but somehow Indian tribes that haven’t been in the area more than a few hundred years are allowed to claim him as their own and declare his body sacred and beyond study. It is absurd.

        1. It’s not even clear that Americans from that long ago are all related to American Indians. There’s a lot we don’t know about early human migration into America. As things are now, we won’t be learning much more.

          1. If we learned more, what we learn might conflict with the narrative and no one wants that.

          2. It’s not even clear that Americans from that long ago are all related to American Indians. There’s a lot we don’t know about early human migration into America. As things are now, we won’t be learning much more.

            Bullshit. Kennewick man was DNA tested and both his Y-DNA haplogroup and mitochondrial DNA are both found uniquely now among native Americans (not anywhere else in the world) from southern Canada down to Patagonia. Anzick boy (3500 years older than Kennewick – roughly 13000 BP and the oldest Clovis burial) is exactly the same – related uniquely to native Americans – 80-90% of whom from Canada to Patagonia share those DNA parental markers. The same goes for every old remains that has been DNA tested rather than via some voodoo phrenology.

            They all tell the same story – and trash every other bogus agenda-driven hypothesis. A small group (prob 100-200 people max) of ethnically mixed East Asian and Siberian crossed over Beringia from 30,000-18,000 years BP. At which point they were cut off from Eurasia forever – and that particular ethnic mix then disappeared in Eurasia. And they worked their way south in different waves over the next few thousand years and populated the Americas. Today’s Inuit mostly come from a later migration wave. There is pre-Clovis archaeology scattered throughout the Americas but no remains.

            1. Where does the 100-200 number come from? That seems surprisingly small to me.

              1. I have no idea where that particular claim came from but much of the rest of his claims are bullshit.
                Craniofacial morphology isn’t “voodoo phrenology”, fmri neuro-“science” is.

              2. Seems small to me too. I saw it in the Anzick stuff. One DNA study posits as few as 70 people but that’s before Anzick.

            2. And the Native American creationists angrily reject that story and insist their ancestors were created in America and did not come from anywhere else.

              There is pre-Clovis archaeology scattered throughout the Americas but no remains.

              And how do you think it got here? Blown here by a storm?

              1. the Native American creationists angrily reject that story and insist their ancestors were created in America and did not come from anywhere else.

                No they don’t. What they reject is the migration that is linked to an attempt to appropriate their history/culture by subsuming it to something in old world. eg – the Europeans who wanted to keep Kennewick Man in a museum claiming exactly what you just did (he’s not related to anyone now, looks Polynesian actually so its not even covered by NAGRPA so therefore those remains are finderskeepersFYTWit’sourlandnowcommonproperty).

                Their conflict with scientists originates from the arrogance of scientists and collectors who built their collections by graverobbing and ‘theft’ and once again ignoring any law/treaty. Their conflict with European based religions originates from a couple centuries of evangelists/missionaries trying to kill their culture by subsuming it in some interpretation of some passage in an old European book.

                1. No they don’t. What they reject is the migration that is linked to blah blah blah

                  Yes, they absolutely do. If you don’t know that, you need to do more research before embarrassing yourself further in this conversation.

                  1. No they don’t. Literalism is a consequence of a written culture not an oral culture. ALL native cultures are oral not written. There is not one native who believes they descend from Great Turtle mating with Sister Wolf under the Harvest Moon. The idea is laughable and you are an arrogant moron presenting that as an argument.

                    This is about inalienable property, the relationship between the living and the dead, the long history of native remains being treated as circus artefacts while white remains get reburied, and us violating yet another law where we promise to do something different this time. Quite similar to the arts repatriation arguments in Europe between museums there and the place those artifacts were taken from in colonial era (but never vice-versa).

                    1. You’re brushing off what Native Americans ACTUALLY SAY about what they believe in favor of your theory and agenda, and I’M arrogant? Go fuck yourself.

                    2. Read that NYT link again and stop trying to be literal yourself. They are objecting to scientists who want to treat them as lab rats. Scientists who want to break any connection those tribes have with their past – to in effect declare those tribes dead – so that scientists can claim those artifacts/bones/relics as common property of mankind for their own research purposes. Those tribes are saying we are not dead. We know who we are and we’re not asking for your bullshit opinions about who we are. So stop stealing our ancestors bones.

                      And time – the NYT article is 20 years old from when Kennewick man was first discovered – has proven the tribes right and the scientists then wrong on that. Kennewick man WAS ancestral to modern living native Americans and DNA has proven that. The scientists were dead wrong. Some scientists have stopped being such assholes in the interim. You haven’t.

                    3. stop trying to be literal yourself.

                      Stop substituting your politically driven interpretations of what Native Americans say for what they actually say. And then go fuck yourself.

                    4. ALL native cultures are oral not written.

                      And stop accusing Native Americans of being illiterate.

                    5. for what they actually say

                      WTF? You and I are both from a written culture – not an oral culture. You want to take as LITERAL TRUTH what you READ in a NYT (about as written a mindset as is possible) article WRITTEN by a journalist (again a completely written orientation) who selectively chose to write down the quotes from natives (of an oral culture) which ‘supported’ those scientists (again a written culture) who wanted to mock the oral culture by conflating it with the ‘creationism’ (a WRITTEN Protestant European literalism which is very recent actually) already known to NYT readers in order to eliminate any legal claim (again a written culture) of those tribes to those bones under NAGPRA.

                      The article itself is in the usual form of written mythology with good guys (scientists in quest of knowledge) hampered by bad guys (natives in flyover country clinging to their buffalo and bows and arrows).

                      If you were skeptical of NYT (or sympathetic to the bad guys), you’d see the agenda and bias and usual inherent inability by them to even try to understand the issue fairly. But it confirms your own biases about good/bad guys – so hey it is literal truth.

                    6. You are assuming that the article I linked to is my only source of information about this.

                      You are denigrating Native Americans in post after post, arrogantly insisting they are illiterate and incapable of accurately expressing their beliefs without you to interpret for them. For you to accuse ME of bias is ridiculous. Stop with your racist insults against native peoples.

                    7. I’m not saying any such thing. I am saying their culture/traditions are oral not written. That is simple truth. There is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’. Only profoundly different. People from Plato to Marshall McLuhan have opined (in writing) about how impossible it is for writing to express the real meaning of what was expressed orally. The same thing has plagued translation from one written language to a different written language.

                      I have no ability to comprehend what those oral stories/myths mean now. Or how those stories have changed over time to provide meaning. Nor am I particularly interested in those stories either. I only know what they DON’T mean – now or ever. And that is they don’t mean what they LITERALLY say. Because literalism is purely a construct of written communication.

                      The conflict over Kennewick man was a property conflict over BONES. Stop trying to turn it into a conflict over religion/culture

                    8. The conflict over Kennewick man was a property conflict over BONES. Stop trying to turn it into a conflict over religion/culture

                      Kennewick, Kennewick, Kennewick. I said nothing about the Kennewick man. It was John who brought him up.

                      However?your statement is absolute bullshit. The Indians who demanded the Kennewick remains had no property interest in them. Their demand was based entirely on religion and culture. And your sophomoric babbling about philosophy and linguistics remains irrelevant to the fact that Native Americans are quite capable of expressing their beliefs with no need for a self-important “progressive” interpreter to tell us what they really mean. That you think they aren’t is racist.

                      https://youtu.be/m_W_MpMQnZs?t=290

                    9. The Indians who demanded the Kennewick remains had no property interest in them.

                      NAGPRA explicitly protects Native American graves found on federal land. The bones were found on land belonging to US Army Corps of Engineers.

                      Archaeologists came up with all sorts of now-disproven nonsense – initially that the bones were European, then after radiocarbon that the bones were Ainu or Polynesian. There was no valid hypothesis about how Polynesians/Japanese/Europeans came to inland WA 10,000 years ago and nothing but pseudoscience babble (voodoo phrenology) to even back up that claim. The purpose was transparently to exclude those bones from being covered under NAGPRA. They even sued to prevent remains from being repatriated for reburial. And mostly won in court (CoE had to retain legal control for exclusive but controlled access by ‘scientists’) because pseudoscience babble is an acceptable form of religion in our courts. Esp compared to even less pseudoscience babble about Great Turtles and buffaloes.

                      Fortunately, one group of actual scientists was later given access that didn’t explicitly reject the possible hypothesis that the bones WERE ancestral to local natives still living in the area – and that one local tribe trusted to not have a hostile agenda so they submitted DNA to them. Their DNA study results.

            3. I guess the Indians are allowed to have “bogus agenda-driven hypotheses” but white people have to stick with yesterday’s scientific theories.

              1. JFree commonly lies, is full of shit and stupid enough not to know it.
                Fuck off, JFree; make this place smarter than it is now.

            4. You do realize that DNA is now widely considered totally ineffective, don’t you?
              It cannot even distinguish male from female any longer – – – –

        2. Wait, I thought the white eyes won those wars?

    3. That really is an anomaly. There’s the sense that the US gov’t has made agreements or treaties w these “nations”, & the nations do have gov’ts to represent them, but “nationality” is apparently determined hereditarily. True, many nations of the world do define their nationality by heredity, but it gets ridiculous for the US to impose this distinction when tribe members have accepted US citizenship.

      1. Yes. They should have sovereignty or citizenship. Not both.

    4. Special or not a group has requested access for this activity and the Park Service has given them a limited permit to do that.

      Don’t see the issue here.

      It has nothing to do with special interests. Any group or individual can make such a request.

  4. Oregon Could Become The First State To Legalize Magic Mushrooms

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djuPruyiDE0

    1. Every Autumn, right after the first rain, some folks who consider themselves to be mycologists go out in the parks and pick what they assume to be ‘good eatin’ ‘shrooms, and find out they are a bit ‘magic’ also.
      Typically, Mom makes up a hearty mushroom soup and the entire family ends up in the emergency ward.

      1. To my admittedly shallow learning about such matters, picking apart the poisonous shrooms v/s the merely hallucinogenic shrooms v/s the plain-simple “good eating” shrooms is near-impossible, except for the most highly learned / experienced experts.

        Seems to me, some enterprising (young?) bio-chem, genetics expert needs to come up with some simple field tests for this!!!

        1. “To my admittedly shallow learning about such matters, picking apart the poisonous shrooms v/s the merely hallucinogenic shrooms v/s the plain-simple “good eating” shrooms is near-impossible, except for the most highly learned / experienced experts.”

          Me, too.
          My solution is to take my $3.50 and go to Safeway.

          1. Don’t you know there is no safe way? You have to be lucky. Raley!

          2. Government Almighty DAMN it, Sevo… (You are right and I heartily agree)… But…

            “Go to Safeway”… Is the Safe Way!!!

            Intentional or unconscious genius?!?! It just dawned on me after all this time!!!

            Intentional or unconscious genius?!?! Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!!!

          3. The mushroom selection at Safeway is pretty slim, though.

        2. To my admittedly shallow learning about such matters, picking apart the poisonous shrooms v/s the merely hallucinogenic shrooms v/s the plain-simple “good eating” shrooms is near-impossible

          Depends on the variety. Some culinary mushrooms either don’t really have poisonous lookalikes or are pretty easy to tell apart from ones that might make you sick, as long as you know what look for. Other varieties are trickier, with the consequences ranging from accidentally eating something that tastes bad to death. When in doubt, leave it be.

        3. There are simple field tests for recognizing psylocibin mushrooms. And you gotta do a spore print.

      2. In Europe, virtually no mushrooms are poisonous. Foraging for wild mushrooms is a popular hobby in Europe. In America a large number of mushrooms are poisonous, many of them are deadly. If you forage for Mushrooms in North America without having a very knowledge of which are poisonous and which are not, taking a bad trip is the least of your worries.

        1. In Southeast Asia, poison mushrooms can be easily distinguished from edible ones by simply putting them in hot water to see if a red color seeps out. No red, no poison. When large numbers of SE Asian people started moving here after the Vietnam War, there were a lot of emergency room visits and deaths because they didn’t know that test doesn’t work here.

          1. “…When large numbers of SE Asian people started moving here after the Vietnam War, there were a lot of emergency room visits and deaths because they didn’t know that test doesn’t work here…”

            (light bulb switched on!)
            Yeah, quite often, Nguyen is one of the family members…

          2. That happens to Russian and Polish immigrants too. Mushroom hunting is a big deal in Russia.

          3. In Southeast Asia, poison mushrooms can be easily distinguished from edible ones by simply putting them in hot water to see if a red color seeps out. No red, no poison.

            This is incorrect. The only way to tell whether a mushroom is edible is to identify it to species.

            1. Yes, that is incorrect. That was my point. That’s why they get poisoned.

        2. One of the problems with mushroom hunting in parts of Ukraine is that they are radioactive. Locals still hunt and eat them though but Americans have been told to stick with commercially produced mushrooms.

        3. In Europe, virtually no mushrooms are poisonous.

          This is completely false, John. For example, the deadliest mushroom in the U.S, the death cap, originally comes from Europe.

  5. OT Post, good read at http://www.yahoo.com/news/trum…..00099.html

    Trump’s ‘pattern of cognitive decline’ alarms psychiatrists

    1. The fact that psychiatrists are respected more then phrenologists or astrologers alarms me.

      1. Agreed, for the most part. They are no more capable of reading minds than you and I are. They serve as gatekeepers, trolls under the bridge, demanding payment to “enable” us to get to shrink-meds if we need them or think we need them…

        They do have medical degrees though, which at least means that they have studied the human body and biochem at some length…

        1. The fact that they would hazard to guess a diagnosis on someone they have never met, shows that they have no respect for their field and are just political hacks. I am not sure any area of science has done more damage in the name of politics than psychology. Every totalitarian regime in history has put psychologists to work declaring dissidents insane.

          1. “…The fact that they would hazard to guess a diagnosis on someone they have never met, shows that they have no respect for their field and are just political hacks…”

            Just a guess on my part, but the author probably spent a LOT of phone time before he got any psychiatrist to go on record with this bullshit.
            Put another way, the author isn’t reporting what he’s been told; he made up a story line and then searched until he found someone to publicly agree.

            1. I saw that article too. Looked just like that to me as well.

      2. Psychiatry has always had an identity crisis.

        The human brain has a software and a hardware component. The hardware is the brain and nervous system. Doctors who study and treat diseases of the brain and nervous system are neurologists.

        The software is the information stored in the brain and the ideation the brain engages in. Bad information and thinking can cause pathological behavior just as physical problems with the brain can. Doctors who treat people suffering from false ideas and faulty thinking are psychologists.

        So?what is a “psychiatrist”? What is this “psyche” they purport to treat? Even they can’t give a straight answer to this.

        1. Combined residencies and fellowships in neuropsychiatry are becoming more popular now. These are 5 year programs and allow those who complete to be eligible for board certification in both neurology and psychiatry.

          Docs with this kind of training are highly sought after in the job market as there are not many of them.

          In either field the key skill is in diagnosis often serving as a consult.

        2. What is this “psyche” they purport to treat?

          it’s the wetware, silly. It’s all wetware in here.

      3. I knew an astrologer who was quite good at reading people; so good, in fact, that she could give better readings face to face with no data than having the most accurate birth time and longitude/latitude possible. She never quite figured out why that might be, putting it down to some mystical talent inherited from the ancient Egyptians, or maybe some secret she had divined from reading up on so many astrological theories.

        1. You’re calling an astrological chart “data”?

          1. As is clear from context…

            having the most accurate birth time and longitude/latitude possible

        2. Some people are just very good at “reading” people. Others are terrible at it and we see them as having poor social skills. It is probably innate in some individuals. People give off clues, facial expressions, verbal cues such as voice or choice of words, body language, what you are wearing, grooming, etc.

          Astrologers generally are very good at this and can also be very manipulative. They can take advantage using emotions to drain bank accounts.

          1. Evaluating people based on their dress and grooming is considered bigotry these days.

  6. There is something sinister and alarmisting about this desire to forage. Are these preppers rehearsing for the final days? Are they greenies who smell victory with the Green New Deal and expect the earth’s population to drop into the low hundred millions so foraging will be a viable life? Are these alt-right Neanderthals who want to return to their roots? Are these ctrl-left Marxians who want to equalize foraging opportunities?

    1. The Neanderthals will rise again.

    1. Two things:

      ?A sealed juvenile record would not show up in a background check, even if one was done.

      ?We know nothing about the facts of the case. A sixteen-year-old can get a record as a “child sex offender” for having consensual sexual contact with a peer only slightly younger, and contact far short of what normal people would call “sex” can result in charges. We don’t have sufficient information to conclude this person is or ever was a threat to children.

      1. Fair points but the larger issue is why on earth we are putting on drag shows for children? What the hell is the matter with these people?

        1. That’s a good question. But, as libertarians, we should be slow to judge people based on what the government says about them, and we should be skeptical of government interference into how children and adolescents may or may not touch each other.

  7. Simple rule for foraging on national parks:
    Everyone can do it, or no one can do it. The national parks belong to all the American people, not to special groups.

    1. Sure so apply for the same permit and now they need to give it to you.

      The reasons are irrelevant to my libertarian way of thinking. The park limited the access to minimize environmental impact so they would need to take that into consideration but they cannot discriminate.

      There are places there that are like roadside attractions with trails almost shoulder to shoulder with people. Others are more remote and they keep it that way. I understand the Park Service needs to keep a balance.

      1. “I understand the Park Service needs to keep a balance.”

        Yeah man, balance… Extremists of all sorts don’t buy that. Sad to say, there are libertarian extremists as well. I for one don’t want to talk “principles” all day, other than vague and nebulous principles of freedom, respect for one another… Love, even…. Reason, and the evidence of our senses. The greater good. BALANCE!!!!

        Should the local fire department be publicaly or privately owned? Being a good libertarian, I say privately owned is probably better… But if there’s a house burning down RIGHT NOW, let’s put out the fire first, and argue later!!!

        Balance, yes, Amen!!!

        1. I don’t see why the federal government should have any land at all.

          Then again try foraging the flower garden in front of the local Mariott

          But people like the parks. Where else am I going to drive the wife and dog to in the used RV when I am too old to work and too young to just roll over and die while I soak up the money coming out of my kids paycheck?

          On the third hand what is poor ranger Smith going to do? He is stuck between actual Cherokee Indians on one side and Greenpeace tree spikers on the other. Not only that he just heard over the radio that Yogi stole another picnic basket.

          That’s all the philosophy I know on the matter.

    2. I have been there many times both on family type trips and on several long backpacking trips in the backcountry.

      They do a good job taking care of a very popular park.

      With foraging or anything else. It is not an all or nothing decision. If a permit is requested and they give limited permission they are doing the right thing. If a hoard showed up and started tearing up the place they would likely just shut down the activity altogether.

  8. Take only photos, leave only footprints.

    That is the morel of the story.

    1. leave only footprints.

      And urine.

    2. I see what you did there.

  9. I think it a wonderful idea gathering foo in the National parks.
    I eat meat. I want gather deer and elk sirloins.
    When can I start? Fishing is already allowed.
    When the parks were established we hunters were promised by our lying government that we could continue to hunt
    in Olympic Nation Park in WA state and Point Reyes National Sea shore just to name 2

  10. Politicians lie:

    “…Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey corrected this notion: “there is nothing in [Title VII] that will give power to the Commission to require hiring, firing, and promotion to meet a racial ‘quota.’ [. . .] Title VII is designed to encourage the hiring on basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion.”…”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ted_States

    1. This is in answer to Lee Barracks.

  11. What does this have to do with my hunting rights being taken away?
    Hunting is a right NOT a privilege. This goes for Indians and honkies.
    I am a proud honkie.

    1. If you’re asking me, I was simply providing one more example of a politician lying.

  12. From the Indiana Daily Student –

    LGBTQ+ Dungeons and Dragons club finds weekly comfort in fantasy adventure realm

    “The club began in fall 2017 when the LGBTQ+ Culture Center’s former social work intern wanted to provide a creative space for members of the LGBTQ community.”

  13. Surprise popularity of King William gin

    “When we released the first bottle last year it did well across the UK, but it really lit up in Scotland and in Northern Ireland and we were thinking ‘hello, what’s going on here?'”

    The company spokesman went on to say that he’s had fans suggest that King William should have had some of this gin at the Battle of the Boyne.

  14. “PARIS: Three love letters from Napoleon Bonaparte to his wife Josephine, written between 1796 and 1804, were sold for a total of ?513,000 (US$575,000) on Thursday (Apr 4), the Drouot auction house said…

    “The historically-themed auction run by the French Ader and Aguttes houses also included a rare Enigma encryption machine, used by Nazi Germany during World War II, which went for ?48,100.

    “The items were part of a vast sell-off by the French state of the collection amassed by the collapsed investment firm Aristophil.”

    One of Napoleon’s letters said, “when I come home, I’d like to march on my stomach like my army.”

  15. “The origins of U.S. anti-foraging laws, which I traced in a 2018 Fordham Urban Law Journal article, Food Law Gone Wild: The Law of Foraging, were borne out of white Americans’ fears of and hatred for Native Americans,”

    That’s an interesting way of describing laws intended to protect private property rights of farmers and landowners. If the state is going to allow everyone the right to cross your land and pick your crop or take your livestock then there’s not going to be much left for you, is there?

    Normally, this would be called “trespassing” and “stealing”. But for some mystifying reason New Woke Reason has to make the simple libertarian concept of property ownership into a racial issue.

    Is there anyone at Reason who understands property rights?

  16. THINK ABOUT IT?..
    Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    >>>>>>>> http://xurl.es/Incomehere

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.