woods walk, Big Brother Cameras, nurse logs

If the park service is interested in "policing" that park area, why don't they get off their butts and patrol the place if there have been problems ? I wouldn't have mooned or birded the camera , but I would be dissapointed to see those set up at my trails , so I feel your disgust at them setting those cameras up.

Mind you, I really have no inherent fear of anything in the bush , except evil and stupid people. Once you've been shot at , you'll never walk through the bush the same way.

That said, I really enjoy the nice photos you post B5 . I've never been to BC , but I definately want to go there someday. Our trails are impassable now, without skis or snowshoes , neither which I own , so I envy you in that you can go hiking there this time of year. Also surprised to hear that people there seem sheepish when they see a heavily "prepared" hiker , as your post seems to indicate. I get no strange looks when I wear a large K-bar on my belt on my hiking trails.

Beware though...someones watching when you least expect it.
 
Hate to break it to you folks, but Bushman is right, those cameras do NOTHING to deter serious crime. Rapists/murderers/thieves, etc will simply perform their crimes in unsurveilled areas, hide their identities or disable the camera's ability to record them.

What happens instead, is that the bureaucratic morons that put them there find out they cost money, and use them to surveil honest people, and make asinine things (like dogs using a stream) fine-able offenses to pay for their surveillance of the honest people because it isn't helping stop criminals.

I'm guessing the jerkit smiley was about people thinking that the government should "do something", anything when there is a problem. Especially despicable are those willing to give up their own freedom to have a false sense of security given to them. Even raising taxes to pay for more rangers won't help because you can't have enough to have them everywhere so the criminals will just ply there trade where the rangers aren't at the moment. If you did have enough to be everywhere, you have what's called a locked-down police state, and are a particularly reprehensible type of person to want that.

No, the only right answer is to be able to look after yourself. Which means that people stop the BS of "I can't imagine having to carry [insert hoplophobic description] because of the possibility of attack in the woods!", and carry something to protect yourself, beit a gun (anti self-defense laws be damned), big knife, little knife, sharp stick, etc.

That being said. . .

Nice pics, man. Love that area. Although it never ceases to amuse me that "nature types" will walk along prepared trails, not actualyl knowing a dan thing about nature, rather viewing it as if it's a museum, and throwing a fit over someone "raping nature" by ripping out some fatwood. LOL BTW do you have anywhere that isn't covered in moss and lichen?
 
You are correct, the cameras won't deter crime initially.
But...
They have been proven to catch criminals that have committed crimes.
Therefore after caught and convicted, the cameras are preventing additional crimes by that individual.
 
Cpl Punishment said:
Hate to break it to you folks, but Bushman is right, those cameras do NOTHING to deter serious crime. Rapists/murderers/thieves, etc will simply perform their crimes in unsurveilled areas, hide their identities or disable the camera's ability to record them.

What happens instead, is that the bureaucratic morons that put them there find out they cost money, and use them to surveil honest people, and make asinine things (like dogs using a stream) fine-able offenses to pay for their surveillance of the honest people because it isn't helping stop criminals.

I'm guessing the jerkit smiley was about people thinking that the government should "do something", anything when there is a problem. Especially despicable are those willing to give up their own freedom to have a false sense of security given to them. Even raising taxes to pay for more rangers won't help because you can't have enough to have them everywhere so the criminals will just ply there trade where the rangers aren't at the moment. If you did have enough to be everywhere, you have what's called a locked-down police state, and are a particularly reprehensible type of person to want that.

No, the only right answer is to be able to look after yourself. Which means that people stop the BS of "I can't imagine having to carry [insert hoplophobic description] because of the possibility of attack in the woods!", and carry something to protect yourself, beit a gun (anti self-defense laws be damned), big knife, little knife, sharp stick, etc.

That being said. . .

Nice pics, man. Love that area. Although it never ceases to amuse me that "nature types" will walk along prepared trails, not actualyl knowing a dan thing about nature, rather viewing it as if it's a museum, and throwing a fit over someone "raping nature" by ripping out some fatwood. LOL BTW do you have anywhere that isn't covered in moss and lichen?
Click to expand...

^ nope its uber moss country here!

+1 and a thumbs up for the rest of your post. :thumbup::cool:
 
G'day Cpl Punishment

Cpl Punishment said:
....I'm guessing the jerkit smiley was about people thinking that the government should "do something", anything when there is a problem. Especially despicable are those willing to give up their own freedom to have a false sense of security given to them. Even raising taxes to pay for more rangers won't help because you can't have enough to have them everywhere so the criminals will just ply there trade where the rangers aren't at the moment. If you did have enough to be everywhere, you have what's called a locked-down police state, and are a particularly reprehensible type of person to want that.

No, the only right answer is to be able to look after yourself. Which means that people stop the BS of "I can't imagine having to carry [insert hoplophobic description] because of the possibility of attack in the woods!", and carry something to protect yourself, beit a gun (anti self-defense laws be damned), big knife, little knife, sharp stick, etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the effort to explain.

I'm not advocating that Governments take the place of personal responsibility, rather questioning how vandalism can be condoned (let's face it, the real lack of objection tells me that most poeople here either don't have the guts to object to it or support the act I have objected to). Since v8unleashed has set the standard, this is what I think of those that either tacitly or actively support vandalism :jerkit:

I'm rather glad you have explained the mindset of arming onself for self defense. Goes a long way to explain the various posts I've seen on the internet over the years where people have tallied off their stockpile of ammunition & firearms to defend themselves from the rampaging masses when the SHTF, or when the Zombie hordes invade, or when the next pandemic is going to bring about TEOTWASKI or .......





Kind regards
Mick
 
Last edited:
hiwa said:
If the park service is interested in "policing" that park area, why don't they get off their butts and patrol the place if there have been problems ? I wouldn't have mooned or birded the camera , but I would be dissapointed to see those set up at my trails , so I feel your disgust at them setting those cameras up.

Mind you, I really have no inherent fear of anything in the bush , except evil and stupid people. Once you've been shot at , you'll never walk through the bush the same way.

That said, I really enjoy the nice photos you post B5 . I've never been to BC , but I definately want to go there someday. Our trails are impassable now, without skis or snowshoes , neither which I own , so I envy you in that you can go hiking there this time of year. Also surprised to hear that people there seem sheepish when they see a heavily "prepared" hiker , as your post seems to indicate. I get no strange looks when I wear a large K-bar on my belt on my hiking trails.

Beware though...someones watching when you least expect it.
Click to expand...

+1 hiwa, good post.
 
I dont advocate vandalism of the cameras. I OBJECT to them being there and as such make my objections known by having SOME FUN with the cameras, fun as in mooning them or flipping them the bird.

other people do vandalize the cameras. I'm not one to do so.
 
I was enjoying your photo spread until I got to this:

I could not enjoy the woods and harvest fatwood. I'll be going back at night when the jumpy nervous nellies go home.
Click to expand...

Am I not correct that collecting/harvesting ANYTHING(alive or dead) in a Provincial or National Park is unethical at the very least, if not illegal? That is a Park you were in, right?

Edit to add:

I find it particularly bad form that you actually chose to go to a Park in an effort to "snag" a couple pieces of fatwood. You live in a province with the richest, most abundant back yard in Canada and yet you chose to do this in a PUBLIC PARK.
Very bad juju Bushman.

IMG_1940.jpg
 
Last edited:
Blue.....

Provicial Park.... no it is not a Federal offence... but still a fine...

National Park.... it IS a Federal Offence and strictly enforced... Fine and possible jail time.
 
Still, very bad juju though Rick, made even worse by doing so knowingly and then flaunting his disregard on a public forum.
 
its neither a Provincial nor a National park.

Its part of a electoral area abutting the City of Vancouver. It is part of the great vancouver regional district. REGIONAL PARK

as for a few chunks of fatwood..........hows about the 50 acres of park that was sold off to developers to develop all the new condos (30 buildings) that are there now.

Slag me all you want, call the police, call the mayor. 3rd party evidence is hearsay.
 
Blue...

I have opinions that are on both sides of this issue. Definately, openly admitting to stealing from a restricted area, doesn't help.... but I could reach and hope that the fact Bushman shows what a fatwood producing stump looks like, may help someone make it through a cold night in a perpetually wet environment.

Sometimes there is no fix, either way you look at it. Laws are made by people and are not perfect. There are worse things Bushman could be doing in there.


Rick
 
Yup, you win!

You did the right thing, and likely showed all of Vancouver just who is good and right.

Way to get'um buddy..... those smug, uncaring, ruthless, mofo's who are only interested in personal benefit.
 
I can live with my choices. It only seems to be upsetting you.

fruits of my labours, sent back to whence it came frome
IMG_1603.jpg
 
Blue...
I'm not sure where you are going with your arguement. Are you against the harvesting, the mooning/birding or BigBrother Bashing or something else?

We all leave a footprint on this Earth... its unavoidable... its up to you to manage the damage. We are only seeing a bit of the picture here... not enough to judge Bushman, IMO.


Rick
 
The land is on Musqueam Band land. The Musqueam have extended the use of the land to the GVRD region.

if i need to answer to anyone, its the Chief of the Musqueam Band. I'll be sure to beg forgiveness next band gathering.:D
 
Man, some wicked spots out there bushman. seriously though, you ever want to get into northern alberta, go on some class 3-4 rivers, make a couple day trip out of it, let me know. There are some great spots, and the only people who are going to look at you funny are the guys carring a bigger gun than you. :thumbup: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top