Honestly, and with few exceptions (Black Canyon being one, but that's a permit that can take years to get), I prefer to stay out of the National Parks, as they tend to be exactly the type of place I am looking to avoid when I visit nature. Yes, you can avoid the crowds and go hike in somewhere. Even then you're dealing with a bunch of weekend warriors (including you, it sounds) that get territorial about camp sites and cock-sure with all that fancy gear that gets used twice ... maybe three times before it sits in the garage for six years collecting dust.

Go on a single day hike (several days in a row, of course) up and down a Western river canyon. If you know what you're doing, you can time the bug hatch with the off-peak Mondays and Tuesdays following holidays so as to also avoid all that weekend warrior traffic to and from the cities as a bonus.

Even beyond that, "camping" should not involve a 3-4 day hike to get somewhere to avoid crowds. That's called backpacking. The camping I refer to in my previous comment is done on gravel lots with a parking space adjacent and a number on a post and some over-zealous retiree driving around in a golf cart. This fact alone makes your entire post redundant.

He uses an RC raft boat you insensitive clod! After all, what better image of a "toy" than a guy standing on the side of a river with an RC raft boat driving his wife down that tricky class IV!

Either way, National Parks are among the most restricted places in the country. You can't have dogs. You pay to get in. You have to stay on the trails. Any kind of fishing/hunting is highly restricted. Camping involves setting up a tent in what amounts to a parking lot.

National Parks have a lot of beauty and I appreciate some of these rules, but they are definitely not places where you are free to do as you wish.

Sure, let's find out. I was heading up to Indian Peaks Wilderness this weekend to take some fall color photos. I have a tripod that looks and acts more like a hiking staff. My girlfriend was going to wear a nice dress, so I guess she's going to be a model.

And in the event I actually see anyone else up there, I'll be sure to let them know where to find my permit.

Couple days late, so yeah ...

I didn't mean to offend with my comment, I was simply trying to think of a book that would be worthy of banning based on my own moral views. I honestly couldn't think of one, but the Book of Mormon was as close as I got.

What about a not-so-simple tripod? I use a Trek-Pod. Does this mean hiking staffs shouldn't be allowed either?

While I don't discount the fact that presidential policies might have had an effect, but do you think that maybe there were less trees harvested in 2013 because they had all either died and decomposed or burned already? Take a trip to a Western forest affected by Mountain Pine Beetle and it will be evident when you look up the mountain side and see 90% of the trees standing dead. Here's some images that should give you an idea

Where do these people come from? Free access to National Parks? Hardly. While I admit that a National Parks Pass is one of the greatest deals around, it is certainly not free. National Forest, on the other hand, I have never once paid to use (outside of camping with friends that prefer to use the paid campgrounds instead of open forest access). I did pay I think $7 to get a firewood permit when I lived in Summit County (allowed to cut standing-dead beetle kill only), so that wasn't free, but it was hundreds of dollars cheaper than buying the firewood for the winter. Also, I will admit that tomorrow the National Parks will be free (instead of the $10-25 entrance fee you would normally pay).

I would be curious to see what you come up with as a citation. The majority of Federal land is in the West. The majority of that land in the west is part of the Forest Service. There's lot of National Parks as well, but their area is nothing compared to NFS and/or BLM land.

I am an avid fisherman, and I can probably count on a single hand the number of times I've bothered to fish in a National Park. With few exceptions (Slough Creek and some of the other "Holy Grail" type streams that exist in National Parks) there are just too many people to have any fun. National Forests, on the other hand, are generally the best places to go for public fishing access.

I suggest you familiarize yourself about the Mountain Pine Beetle.

In the context of Climate Change, would it be better to have millions of dead trees burn, millions of dead trees decompose, or millions of dead trees built into furniture?

Except we're talking about neither. We're talking about Wilderness Areas. Resource extraction does exist in Wilderness Areas, though it is quite limited and generally due to those acts being grandfathered in since they occurred before the Wilderness Act. Also, FTFA:

It's tough for the media to report on this story accurately when the Forest Service won't even acknowledge why this policy is necessary or what situations it addresses. Without that everyone is simply left to guess what this is all about.

-1 Overrated. This is just not true and those who modded it up should feel shame.

This might be true for some very specific, high-traffic and relatively accessible wilderness areas (Gunnison Gorge comes to mind) but not so for the rest. Generally you will only need a permit to camp overnight during summer. Many times permits aren't required outside of June 1 - Sept 15. Additionally, many permits cost nothing and are self-issued by the user. I know they do this in the Maroon Bells due to being the one of the most photographed wilderness area in the country as well as being a particularly dangerous hike due to loose rock and lots of traffic.

Aside from these basic measures, there are also permits for collecting firewood, Christmas trees, and other forest products (varies by region).

I can really see both sides of the argument, but I do agree that your point is valid.

If we step away from books for a moment and consider television, the point becomes clearer. On one hand, I would never want to censor my children from watching something about Jesus or hosted by Carl Sagan. Those are interesting topics no matter which side of the debate you may lie on. On the other hand, I wouldn't want them watching a majority of the crap reality shows, extremely biased political talk shows, and other trash that has very little value for a child. If my child is interested in politics, I will encourage unbiased sources (all two of them) to make sure my child isn't getting brainwashed by propaganda.

If we bring the topic back to books, I think you can see some similarities and of course it comes back to "think of the children". I wouldn't want a book to be banned because I disagree with the content. I would want a book to be banned because it is fucking nonsense representing itself as the truth.

To reiterate what I am trying to say, I can't even really think of a book off-hand that would fit this criteria. The closest I can come up with is The Book of Mormon. It represents itself as historical fact when it should clearly be categorized as fiction. Even despite the tales of an angel coming down and speaking of golden tablets and such, I don't think I would necessarily want the book banned; however, I can see both sides and if books should be banned, The Book of Mormon presents a decent case.

I want my children to read what they like to and to not be exposed to indoctrination at school. Unfortunately, with as polarized as our country has become, it is increasingly difficult to make sure some extremist isn't plastering their disingenuous views on students. I know, my point kind of sucks here, but in the end I think saying "banning books is okay" is not a correct statement but I also think "books should never be banned" is false as well. The reality is somewhere in between and is decided upon with rational thought and a lack of bias.

I read it in school in 1994 as well. I can easily see it still being banned in some backwoods school district in the South, though.

In other words, the domestication of humans by the canine. They chose us, not the other way around.

So, if you were a chef and there was a new type of oven that was really nice but not quite what you wanted, you would go to an internet forum for computer geeks to see what suggestions they might have, because hey, they're diverse?

If it were me, I would be looking for exactly the opposite of a diverse group of people. I would want to hear the suggestions of a very specific group of people (in the case of my example, chefs) that are actually experienced with using the things I'm talking about.

How are you able to infer my attitude? I make a comment that amounts to, "it is sad that educators have to ask computer geeks for suggestions about how to educate" and I have some kind of "attitude"? I guess if I do, it is an attitude that things shouldn't be this bad. This teacher wants to help better his profession and better his students, and yet the very people he should be able to get help from are so unapproachable and/or unhelpful that the teacher is forced to seek help from an outside community.