|
Post by fred on Oct 8, 2007 13:16:06 GMT -6
There are very complicated regulations in the NPS, enough to make me run away screaming on a daily basis (as I've said before, I am a contractor in a national park). Some of the things they do are totally nonsensical. Melani-- I have no doubt you are correct. I also have no doubt you would like to see the right thing done. The problem is, people like you are a minority and the system is so fraught with supidity, that one wonders some time how some of these people managed to learn how to breath. Yet we seem to have no problem adding Indian markers to the LBH battlefield or misplacing other markers on the battlefield, or coming up with some assinine excuse as to why Owen Sweet's 1890 placements are more important than where all these men died. The whole thing is beyond the reason of a rational person. So that begs the question... why?Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by KarlKoz on Oct 9, 2007 7:41:33 GMT -6
..... She was the editor of the almost-monthly "Newsletter," and brought it from the age of the Neanderthal to a very nice, eagerly-awaited, beautifully edited periodical, most of which had great, short articles. .... I think Dale Kosman did a great job as the Editor of the newsletter prior to Diane....but then I'm a little biased.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 9, 2007 10:33:51 GMT -6
I totally agree. Dale was a wonderful editor and a very hard act to follow.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2007 12:09:34 GMT -6
I think Dale Kosman did a great job as the Editor of the newsletter prior to Diane....but then I'm a little biased. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 9, 2007 18:34:15 GMT -6
Blood brothers.
Does the 10th Amendment mean they both can't be on the BOD at the same time, or is it only married couples who are supposed to think exactly alike? ;D
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2007 19:33:52 GMT -6
Ah-h-h-h! Well, I'm happy to say that even though it didn't start out with the fanfare I would have liked, it ended up very well indeed.
Nice to meet you, Karl.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2007 19:37:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Oct 9, 2007 22:13:23 GMT -6
I can completely understand that the NPS just doesn't tack on the land. I worked an internship at Manassas National Battlefield and there was a parcel of land that the CWPT had preserved adjacent to the park that had been sitting there several years. There was always vague talk about it being added, but I don't expect it to happen anytime soon. I suppose Congress must authorize the boundary expansion, but I suspect there's a lot more red tape than that. That being said, a lot of the NPS battlefields in VA have very successfully added parcels over the years, including ones bought by the CWPT. A couple of the units of Richmond National Battlefield are great examples of this. The question becomes, how long were those parcels sitting there before the NPS took them over? It's all a process I suppose, but my guess would be that it would be necessary for the park to really lobby to have the land added, and they won't do that if they don't feel they have the staff, resources, money, etc etc. It all comes down to money, sadly. There is a big difference between the way the NPS manages the Civil War battlefields in the east and the way the NPS manages the LBH Battlefield. The Civil War sites are not fenced off and people are not threatened with trespassing for walking across part of the field. I for one would oppose the Custer Battlefield Preservation Committee from turning over their land to the NPS. Its better left just where it is. The first act the NPS would make after acquiring any land given to them would be to build a very large fence around it and prevent anyone from accessing the land whatsoever. I am not in favor of development out there, but neither do I want to see huge tracts of the battlefield kept out of the public domain.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Oct 9, 2007 22:29:01 GMT -6
Keogh, From what I have read about the Custer Battlefield-and the restrictions placed upon walking the area-I agree with you. I find it hard to understand why visitors are not being allowed off the walking paths,while at Civil war sites I can walk all over the fields. I remember reading a magazine article years ago where some tourist were eating their lunch in the parking area at LBH and were jumped on by a park ranger.
|
|
|
Post by ltreilly on Oct 10, 2007 13:13:49 GMT -6
It took me a little while to realize that fact, but it dawned on me after seeing enough modern pictures of the park...I'm not going to be able to walk around, am I? I'm used to tramping all over the NPS battlefields out here... I'm not sure I'm totally convinced about the park prohibiting walking the field to "protect the archaeological resources", or whatever their line is. Maybe. I'm all for preserving the archaeological record, but I'm not sure the prohibition on walking the battlefield is necessary. I could be wrong, I don't know. It was also a bit dissapointing that it appears that the Keogh/Crazy Horse trail is only open seasonally, and I don't know about the others. I mean, come on! Are you really forcing me to see the whole battlefield from asphalt? Oh well, I'm probably complaining too much.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 10, 2007 13:41:44 GMT -6
ltreilly-
To be fair with the Park's rangers, restricted areas for walking is likely because of snakes. I guess they don't want to be dealing with rattler bites multiple times a week.
Most of the tourists visiting the battlefield just can't be trusted not to get into troubles of that sort when left to their own outdoor skills.
Oh well......
M
P.S. The rattlers are ALWAYS in a bad mood and have no patience with tourists.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 10, 2007 13:45:22 GMT -6
These are interesting points you guys raise. I think Bill is correct, but the problem with allowing people to walk all over might have more to do with carving paths where none should exist-- remember the terrain and the type of weather out there-- and the fact that probably 90% of the people who visit the battlefield have no clue. "I thought Custard was a general in the calvary!" Uh-huh!
Plus, I am rather down on tourists in general and the mess they leave behind. Questions would pop up, where do we place the garbage cans? What I think they should do, however, is plan guided tours that will last a day or two and will take selective groups-- guys like us who have this abiding interest-- to all the significant areas. That makes sense to me. You would have to pay and you would have to make reservations in advance, but things like that could be done. I have been on top of Weir Peaks and the loaf a couple of times and no one has said anything, but that's private land, if you can believe it. I have also been beyond (south of) Benteen Hill, but I would give my right you-know-what to get my jolly butt on top of Luce/Nye-Cartwright, down Cedar Coulee, down MTC, up Deep Coulee, etc. Again, that's all private, but who wants to take the risk that far in the open. All I need is Joe Medicine Crow chasin' my posterior around Montana with a shotgun... and I have heard from people who have lived it, some of the land owners get very, very testy.
Course, I don't know why, given their ancestors' great reputation in fighting the Sioux, but that's another issue.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 10, 2007 14:00:42 GMT -6
Fred-
Your points about the terrain and the effects of unsheparded tourists stomping about in their Bermuda shorts and flip-flops are excellent.
I have a real feeling that you and I are totally simpatico in our opinions of the run-of-the-mill tourist. Yep, I'll drink to that.
M
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 10, 2007 14:30:27 GMT -6
Broken Sword--
Amen, my friend. It's also one of the reasons I object so much to this markers business. I don't care that they put up markers for the Indians; that actually makes it more real. I just don't like the excess soldier markers and I don't like the placement of certain named markers.
When we were out there in June we saw the new Bloody Knife, and (I think) the McIntosh and Reynolds markers right up there on Reno Hill near that silly-ass monument. Again, I can understand private land and all that, so they wanted to put the markers somewhere where people would see them, but there wasn't a single word of explanation. One of us raised a bit of a storm about it on some Website I think and I understand it has been or will be properly addressed, but again, the battlefield is about the men-- red and white-- who dies there, not about the 1890 placement of markers. Take the excess and put them in the museum.
For cryin' out loud, tell the truth for once. The public can understand the truth.
"Tourists" are also the reason I go to Europe in May and October.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 10, 2007 14:31:52 GMT -6
I am a member of the CBPC but I never get any info concerning what is being proposed for the land they (including me) are supposed to own. I was at the LBH with Jim Court in 2000 and got to the 'old' Crow's Nest, Weir Peaks and part of Reno Creek and again in 2006, when the CN was fenced off, but I got on to Weir Peaks again, also to the Ford D area and the eastern slopes of Battle Ridge, Keogh Swale and Calhoun Hill. Both times, extreme care was taken not to wander about like unthinking tourists and I cannot see why the NPS could not take up Fred's idea of guided tours for real enthusiasts on that basis. One thing that I do remember from both trips, is that the most obstruction apparently came from white ranchers and not the Crow tribal members.
|
|