Why does it need to be removed?
I understand not wanting to set a precedent, but I wish more organizations adopted a mindset that the original can stay, but no others are allowed. That leaves space for a little bit of whimsy.
I understand not wanting to set a precedent, but I wish more organizations adopted a mindset that the original can stay, but no others are allowed. That leaves space for a little bit of whimsy.
Leave it be, and leave the rule in place. If there's an epidemic of monoliths being planted on federal land, then you uproot them all and say "this is why we can't have nice things."
Until or unless that happens, just leave it alone.
The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. Nothing wrong with changing the law to further that goal. Just give the monolith a permit to make it legit.
Maybe we can set up a Starbucks next to it and some bathrooms too. It's the famous monolith! Come one come all!
> The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life.
I don't see how litter in my national parks is improving my quality of life.
On the other hand, you didn't know it existed until 2 hours ago and now you want it removed.
There already is art Throughout the wilderness and I think it is great. Sometimes the art is as simple as a statue or plaque commemorating a historic location, other times it is DIY art like this.
The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms.
Also, as far as I can tell, this isn’t in a national park, but on federal BLM land Used for hunting and off-roading.
Yes, and they shouldn't be.
> The idea that some out of the way and moderately interesting art is a priority is laughable.
I don't think it's that interesting, but besides that I don't follow your rationale. Because some people litter against the rules, we shouldn't clean up this thing someone put on federal lands? Even so, wouldn't large pieces of litter take priority over smaller ones simply due to human nature?
I really feel like you're stretching here. Frankly, it's interesting to watch people defend some thing they just found out about and have no attachment to.
The national parks service philosophy is very preservationist. They advise people to follow guidelines that are literally called “leave no trace”. Their mission statement uses the word preserve in the first sentence. Hell, part of the reason why Big Bend national park never became an international park (among many others) was because the parks service disagreed with the laxer, conservationist approach that Mexican authorities favored.
>The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms.
Those modifications are done carefully to have as little impact on the environment and a lot of types of recreation are completed banned in national parks, hunting being the obvious one. The use of vehicles (including bicycles) is completely banned in federally designated wilderness.
What steps did whoever installed this take to make sure that this thing isn’t going to leech metals into an ephemeral watering hole used by wildlife?
https://www.doi.gov/blog/hunting-and-fishing-national-parks-...
The thing is the reason why a lot of people are ok with this art thing is because it's not just the first instance of it, but because it's currently quite interesting and tasteful. These are vague qualitative aspects that are hard to define with law and will change over time.
Better to have a simple law everyone can understand and agree on then to find some perfect law that fits with our complicated, blurry and inconsistent definition of morality. The more complicated a set of laws are the more likely people will be able to find loop holes to exploit.
If you allow the original but remove a 2nd and it is goverment land, are you opening yourself up to legal issues regarding the 1st amendment.
Change the law, and/or file an injunction to stop it's removal if that is your wish.
But I firmly believe that The Rule of Law matters in our country.
Specific to this case, it's not an organization, it's a federal law. And whimsy might bring cheer to you and I, but it does not really belong in federal law.
>The department has not disclosed the exact location of the monolith, fearing explorers may try to seek it out and "become stranded". The big horn sheep wildlife officials were counting are native to many parts of southern Utah, where the terrain is rugged.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°20'35.2%22N+109°39'58.5...
That terrain in Utah is no joke and many people have gone missing in those areas.
Inexperienced people die venturing into nature all the time. The solution is to warn and educate people, not discourage them from enjoying the outdoors.
A more aggressive strategy might involve teaching children in schools not to walk out into the desert without water, or into the ocean if you can’t swim
FWIW, I find this piece of trash to be a showoff moment for some wannabe 'artist'. Mimicking a movie prop to me sounds like a low-effort, untalented mindset.