I've been talking to the folks at PEEC this week about the potential for using their accommodation for training. Due to government issues, we decided not to risk assuming permission for the Delaware Water Gap (given it's hunting season). The poor folks at PEEC are already hurting, and are having to cancel and reschedule lots of bookings. If anyone comes from the area, perhaps a note to their Congressman might be in order.
Is anyone else having similar issues?
Happily our event last weekend was in a park not run by the NPS, and we don't have another event scheduled until the end of October. (That one *is* on NPS land.) Given how many of our areas here in Quantico land are nationally run, our scheduling is kind of lucky. Though it's making training harder.
Getting furloughed gave me more time to orienteer and do some field checking that I wasn't too sure how I would fit it into my tight schedule, hooray!!
Despite the extra time for O (or other fun things), I hope all you furloughed U.S. workers are back to work in short order! This is getting ridiculous.
Has anybody heard of any slowdowns at border crossings (for those traveling to COC's this weekend)?
Air traffic controllers, prison guards, and border patrol agents will remain on the job.
http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml
And Canada has managed to keep their government open, so there should be no problem on that side of the border.
I was working, but my paycheck was not.
@Janet, Peggy: Getting ridiculous? It was ridiculous from the beginning!
Does anyone else find it outrageous that the feds are spending $$ during this shutdown to keep people out of THEIR (the people's) parks??
The 8-hour navigation race this past weekend was in a National Forest, yet it was still allowed to go on. I don't know enough about the permitting in this particular case, but I'm curious.
NPS (Interior): closed, special event permits rescinded.
NFS (Agriculture): permitted special events may proceed.
BLM (Interior): case-by-case basis. Mostly closed, rescinded.
Some Canadian provinces had their own version of this back in the high inflation times of the early 1990's. In Ontario they were called 'Rae Days' after the name of our then premier. Our school board tacked our five unpaid extra days off on to the March Break. (Effectively a 2.5% pay cut) It was great to have a two week holiday to go golfing and orienteering in North Carolina.
When life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
But please don't let your federal government default on its debt. Every bank in Canada owns a hell of a lot of that debt. None of them would be able to cover their obligations to depositors. 1929 all over again. We'd all have lots of time for orienteering but no money to get there.
Does anyone else find it outrageous that the feds are spending $$ during this shutdown to keep people out of THEIR (the people's) parks??
No doubt but this is the US - if they left the gates wide open on every National Park, some fool would probably waltz in to one and drown/get mauled trying to get his picture taken with a bear/make up your own serious injury or death scenario, and he or his family would win the subsequent multi-million dollar lawsuit against the NPS claiming they should have stopped him from getting into the park in the first place.
I read an article today about people leaving trash outside the full bear proof trash cans in an open National Forest in Alaska. Locals are worried about habituated bears who are using the place as a hang out spot (Free food!) that will have to be euthanized once the park fully reopens.
If people can't use the Parks responsibly without the Rangers (eg. carrying out their rubbish), I can see why they're spending money keeping them out.
jtorrance
>>>...and he or his family would win the subsequent multi-million dollar lawsuit against >>>the NPS...
This is improbable, near zero in fact, because of the principle of Soverign Immunity.
Nevertheless, that is not even close to the reason federal properties are closed in the shutdown.
Jon, I have to say I agree with the possibility of the lawsuits---this is America and people sue for sneezing here.
Speaking of effecting orienteering . . . . kinda hard to check control points in a closed park. :-(
sx, it would, like, help to
minimally educate yourself before typing.
plus, sx633, some of us here don't believe in anonymity.
Tundra: Good for you and Google! But, like, whatever Tundra, perhaps you should argue better, as you are using The Strawman Argument, i.e. your example doesn't apply here. US law precedent may, and I stress, may, allow a lawsuit against federal agencies. However, there is a very high standard that must be met. Whether this standard is met or not is up to the judge. This standard is extremely difficult to prove and is rarely successful. For a suit to be allowed there must be (in layman's terms) gross, wanton or criminal negligence by a federal employee(s). A judge does not have to allow this or any suit. He can, but, as I said, it's a very high standard, rarely met. Good for the plaintiffs in your poor example, they got a friendly judge.
Note the standard again...gross, wanton, or criminal. Jtorrance turned that on its head and argued "some fool would probably waltz in to one and drown/get mauled trying to get his picture taken with a bear". There is no "gross, wanton, or criminal" negligence on the part of a federal employee in jtorrance's example, hence no suit. No federal judge would ever allow such a suit under the Principle of Sovereign Immunity. Is that so difficult to understand? Or is there just obtuseness being demonstrated here. The feds are fundamentally different than the local grocer in the "slip and fall" lawsuit suit. That it may laughed out of court is irrelevant. That you found the rare example of a "gross, wanton, or criminal" negligence suit successfully brought against a Federal Government Agency merely demonstrates an application of the US variation of Sovereign Immunity. Finally, you will note I commented on the likelihood of such a lawsuit as jtorrance suggests. Not on whether gross, wanton, or criminal negligence lawsuits against the federal government in general exist. There is a distinction. I stand by what I said.
Let's see, so far: Attackpoint: 3 sx633: 1.
Oy, my Agency gets sued a daily basis for a variety of things---including negligence. Could you provide links to this "Principle of Sovereign Immunity" you speak of? Maybe I can save my Agency some funding by getting rid of a high percentage of our general counsel by enlightening them about Sovereign Immunity.
Now that Tundra has weighed in, I see that his fellow travelers now know which side to take.
Oops, I forgot to tally bl, so with sevin it's
Attackpoint 5 sx633 1.
bl, With apologizes to my "friends" (I use the term loosely) I'm John K. Inhofe.
Sheesh, now for all the apologies apoligizes comments. Gang pile!
Feds get sued
all the time around here exactly as you stipulate, and these suits are allowed to proceed
under FTCA if a judge finds gross negligence. This is also why we as organizers have to indemnify and name as additional insured "the U.S. Government, its agencies, <U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Department of Agriculture>, <National Park Service | Bureau of Land Management | U.S. Forest Service>, <the specific jurisdiction>, and their representatives and authorized right-of-way grantees": possibility of gross negligence. Otherwise, if the sovereign were always immune, why ask us for liability insurance?
If a park ranger were given orders by a superior to secure an area for a shutdown, and grounds exist to assert that a specific area encompasses danger if not duly patrolled, then you have grounds to argue gross negligence on part of a federal employee if said employee fails to secure the area and someone gets hurt in it. End of story.
ps, total sarcasm on my part---sx has the "score" right. I was just hoping he would realize the absurdity of it and move back to the origin of this thread.
Is the shutdown effecting orienteering in my world? Yes. Last weekend---trying to vet some courses, guess what, didn't happen. I'm not risking my security clearance to go tromp in the woods for a leisurely activity.
Yes it's time to move back to the original topic. But, please permit me one last comment re my original post before it went off topic. The point of my post, which I did not make clear, should have an been stated something more like:
"In reply to jtorrance I assert that Federal lands are closed for reasons other than threat of suits. I argue that federal lands are closed during the shutdown for political reasons solely. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just obvious. And I'm not taking sides, democrat v. republican. To continue that debate, which is probably not the intent of attackpoint, is probably better suited for a different type of board." Reasonable people will have other opinions."
anonymityWhat's next, a
button?
I read way too much stuff on here, and don't recall anyone being called out for anonymity before. Why now? Or did I miss precedent?
On topic, my club is almost all at state or metropolitan parks, so good to go. If it extends, the next long AR might have issues if the new permits for NFS are not approved. But that is likely 10 months distant.
All I can say is that I'm glad I can participate in events in California, but that I will never organize one there.
Does the Deep Pockets principle apply to law suits in the States as much as it does in Canada?
The way Deep Pockets works is that someone does something and becomes injured in a manner that will require care above and beyond what normal health care will provide. So a suit for negligence is launched against everyone and every agency possible. The judge tends to award responsibility and blame not against who was actually responsible for the injury - often the plaintiff - but against who has the highest level of insurance, the deep pocket, to afford to pay that needed level of care.
A MTBer tried an absolutely stupid stunt riding where he wasn't supposed to on municipal land. He crashed and was forever after a quadriplegic. The award against the municipality was $5 million. A man jumped off a house roof in to an above ground pool, resulting in paralysis from the waist down. The homeowner with the insurance was deemed responsible.
Moral of the story: the more insurance you have the more likely you and your insurance company are to get sued.
Of course deep pockets applies in the States. A golf course owner I know was sued when one of the players on his course picked up and was bitten by a pygmy rattle snake. The guy needed medical care so he was required to sue the golf course for the insurance coverage. The course's insurer settled quickly.
excuse my naivity, but (1) if the parks are closed because parks service rangers are stood down without pay, who is actually policing the closure of the parks?
and (2), more of a big picture question, when will this shutdown come to a rather sudden and embarrasing end for the sect within the Republicans that have forced this, when their core constituency notices that one of the outcomes is that it is currently harder to purchase firearms?
@1lastchance:
(1) Personnel deemed "essential" -- under which law enforcement generally falls -- are kept on the job; they will get paid, but possibly not on time.
(2) LOL!
Last chance: park rangers and cops aren't necessarily the same. Not all rangers are armed whereas all LE is---basically have a gun = essential....Nice smokie da bear hat, not necessarily unless they're armed, security clearance, etc. So policing is happening, but say, trail maintenance, welcome centers, toilet cleaning/upkeep---not happening.
and yes, LOL. Latest prediction I just heard (30 seconds ago) next Tuesday or Wednesday. We'll see, I'm in a weekly class with 5 staffers and they saw no end in sight this past Tuesday. :-\
Just before the Debt Ceiling limit date? Interesting...
Yeah, surprise. . . surprise. . . NOT.
All I can say is that I'm glad I can participate in events in California
Permit and insurance costs are our number one and two expense items.
... and we aren't facing anything quite like what they have
in our sister state to the south yet, but things are getting close.
That's fairly standard for commercial operators (but not, usually, non-profit or community groups) in inner Melbourne, although I think the fees are lower than in the Santa Monica example.
Those boot camps pay a fee for the use of our parks but it is nothing near what they are proposing in Santa Monica. They should pay but they will probably find another place to go and Santa Monica will not only be without the park use fee but also the parking revenue from people who drive to the park for a bit of a workout.
Such fees are standard here in Bendigo. Nowhere near as steep though.
Right; my point is, just about every park in every jurisdiction worldwide has permit fees, but seemingly only in California are these fees set at a level to be comparable with or exceeding what the park gets from tax revenues.
This discussion thread is closed.