[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
- Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
- From: Dave Gomberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:53:51 -0800
At 11:54 AM 3/26/1998 EST, Charcholla wrote:
>Once we learn the FS's "intent" of the regulation, then we ALL need to abide
>by the regulation (whether we as individuals agree with it or not) until we
>can lobby and have it changed.
Remember, FS regs are NOT LAW, they can be authorized by law. And the
authorization is for specific purpose. So for example, I would bet the FS
is charged with managing fire in areas under their jurisdiction and
authorized by law to issue regs to further their fire management goals.
But the burden is on them to prove a particular application of a particular
reg furthers fire management. And the judge is free to decide they have
exceeded the authority they were granted. Imagine the area around Whitney
Summit. It is so cold and exposed there that there is no vegetation. So
unless you have something hot enough to set granite alight (I doubt it),
there is no fire management purpose to be served by prohibiting fires there
(provided you are far from a sheer drop where sparks could land a few
thousand feet lower). So a citation issued there might be overturned at
That is not a matter of civil disobedience any more that the disobedience
of an unconstitutional law is. An unconstitutional law is not a law. And
so there is nothing to break. Except bureaucratic hot air balloons.
I guessed I was raised different. I believe the government is subject to
the rule of law and not to be slavishly obeyed just because it says so.
Dave Gomberg mailto:email@example.com
Any business offer in this mail expires in 3 days unless otherwise specified.
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *