3 ms·

The easiest way to find the owner/operator would be to carry a few cans of white spray paint in your backpack and paint the solar panels on every one that you f

The easiest way to find the owner/operator would be to carry a few cans of white spray paint in your backpack and paint the solar panels on every one that you find. Or, clean out your closet and haul your ill-fitting clothes up the hill and drape every one of the panels. It won't take long for someone somewhere to start griping. Then you bust them and levy appropriate fines or penalties and force them to remove all of it, everywhere at their expense. Make an example out of them in the most humiliating manner legally allowed so that no one else ever thinks it will be a good idea.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
daneel_w 4y ago
But why? The device has an indirect scientific value, and additionally it does no harm. I cannot understand your vitriol and malice.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  I have replied to the other poster in this thread. I understand that there may be some scientific value to these antennas and potentially a public benefit. That makes it even more ridiculous to me that those responsible chose not follow the rules around installing things like this on public lands since it is likely dead simple to gain support for something that will provide a clear public benefit, maybe even enough support that it effectively is paid for by the use of public monies. Clearly these people intended no public benefit or they would've lobbied locally for support.
mardifoufs 4y ago
You want to humiliate and make an example of someone for... putting antennas on public land? Sure it's not legal but that doesn't justify such a weird response. This is closer to painting graffitis than anything else, jesus christ.
- redundantly 4y ago
  > This is closer to painting graffitis than anything else, jesus christ. There is a significant difference between these installations, which over time turns into several pounds of electronic waste at each spot, vs a few fluid ounces of spray paint used for tagging or grafiti. It's in the interest for the public and for nature that these illegal installations be stopped.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    I guess so? They are also very easy to dispose of, and as for the electronics waste part, it doesn't really make a difference since it would also be thrown out eventually even if it had permission to be there. To me, it seems very, very much easier to dispose of this than almost anything else. Again, fine whoever did this, but I still think humiliation and making an example out of this is such an extremely disproportionate response.
    - redundantly 4y ago
      > I guess so? They are also very easy to dispose of I take it you didn't read the article nor watch the video in the source. It took a full day's effort of several state workers to hike up, remove, and safely bring all that crap down in unsafe winter conditions.
      - mardifoufs 4y ago
        That's similar to graffitis. I agree it's not great, but my point is about the proportionality of the response here imo. Do you really think this is worth such a vengeful response?
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    I agree with you about the impact of these antennas and also see the comparison of this with simple graffiti, which is also a huge problem today with so many social media idiots discovering that there are national parks and that they are completely unguarded where any fool can do any foolish thing for the cameras, including destroying irreplaceable pictographs or petroglyphs or stealing shards of pottery or arrowheads from archaeological sites that have not been investigated. It is important to realize that private companies operating on public lands have specific rules they must follow for their access and their operations are subject to monitoring for compliance with all the rules in place. Years ago I worked in Utah in Four Corners area on a geophysical crew. We operated mostly on public lands managed by the USFS (United States Forest Service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) for those who don't know. We operated up to the border of at least one National Park and needed to drive through for access to some locations that were adjacent to but not otherwise accessible from roads outside the park due to terrain features including rivers and deep canyons. Our crews had bureau archaeologists leading the way across the land and flagging (to prevent access to) any areas with visible signs of prior habitation, cultural artifacts, petroglyphs and pictographs. Since the local environment was very fragile, our equipment had to operate in a narrow easement and damage to living vegetation could have caused us to be denied access and resulted in cancellation of our operating permit. Personnel were required to pack out everything that they packed in including food wrappers, food scraps and peels, cans and bottles, flagging, etc. BLM and USFS crews followed behind us to insure compliance. The idea presented to us in pre-stage meetings was that the client company had paid for the privilege to explore and that non-compliance with the simple rules of access would mean that our permit was invalidated. Losing a permit in the mid-80's in the oil and gas business meant that you likely had no job. That was in the early years of an extended bust in exploration that ended in the early 90's with the price increases and the rise of horizontal drilling. I see no reason why any entity seeking to operate on public lands should not be required to follow the simple rules we followed. If they can't be bothered then they upon discovery they should be made to feel the full weight of non-compliance. Society has already defined a set of consequences and allowing everyone to escape consequences just results in an escalation of non-compliance. Identify them and make an example of them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

daneel_w 4y ago

But why? The device has an indirect scientific value, and additionally it does no harm. I cannot understand your vitriol and malice.

doodlebugging 4y ago
I have replied to the other poster in this thread. I understand that there may be some scientific value to these antennas and potentially a public benefit. That makes it even more ridiculous to me that those responsible chose not follow the rules around installing things like this on public lands since it is likely dead simple to gain support for something that will provide a clear public benefit, maybe even enough support that it effectively is paid for by the use of public monies. Clearly these people intended no public benefit or they would've lobbied locally for support.

mardifoufs 4y ago

You want to humiliate and make an example of someone for... putting antennas on public land? Sure it's not legal but that doesn't justify such a weird response. This is closer to painting graffitis than anything else, jesus christ.

redundantly 4y ago
> This is closer to painting graffitis than anything else, jesus christ. There is a significant difference between these installations, which over time turns into several pounds of electronic waste at each spot, vs a few fluid ounces of spray paint used for tagging or grafiti. It's in the interest for the public and for nature that these illegal installations be stopped.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  I guess so? They are also very easy to dispose of, and as for the electronics waste part, it doesn't really make a difference since it would also be thrown out eventually even if it had permission to be there. To me, it seems very, very much easier to dispose of this than almost anything else. Again, fine whoever did this, but I still think humiliation and making an example out of this is such an extremely disproportionate response.
  - redundantly 4y ago
    > I guess so? They are also very easy to dispose of I take it you didn't read the article nor watch the video in the source. It took a full day's effort of several state workers to hike up, remove, and safely bring all that crap down in unsafe winter conditions.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      That's similar to graffitis. I agree it's not great, but my point is about the proportionality of the response here imo. Do you really think this is worth such a vengeful response?
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  I agree with you about the impact of these antennas and also see the comparison of this with simple graffiti, which is also a huge problem today with so many social media idiots discovering that there are national parks and that they are completely unguarded where any fool can do any foolish thing for the cameras, including destroying irreplaceable pictographs or petroglyphs or stealing shards of pottery or arrowheads from archaeological sites that have not been investigated. It is important to realize that private companies operating on public lands have specific rules they must follow for their access and their operations are subject to monitoring for compliance with all the rules in place. Years ago I worked in Utah in Four Corners area on a geophysical crew. We operated mostly on public lands managed by the USFS (United States Forest Service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) for those who don't know. We operated up to the border of at least one National Park and needed to drive through for access to some locations that were adjacent to but not otherwise accessible from roads outside the park due to terrain features including rivers and deep canyons. Our crews had bureau archaeologists leading the way across the land and flagging (to prevent access to) any areas with visible signs of prior habitation, cultural artifacts, petroglyphs and pictographs. Since the local environment was very fragile, our equipment had to operate in a narrow easement and damage to living vegetation could have caused us to be denied access and resulted in cancellation of our operating permit. Personnel were required to pack out everything that they packed in including food wrappers, food scraps and peels, cans and bottles, flagging, etc. BLM and USFS crews followed behind us to insure compliance. The idea presented to us in pre-stage meetings was that the client company had paid for the privilege to explore and that non-compliance with the simple rules of access would mean that our permit was invalidated. Losing a permit in the mid-80's in the oil and gas business meant that you likely had no job. That was in the early years of an extended bust in exploration that ended in the early 90's with the price increases and the rise of horizontal drilling. I see no reason why any entity seeking to operate on public lands should not be required to follow the simple rules we followed. If they can't be bothered then they upon discovery they should be made to feel the full weight of non-compliance. Society has already defined a set of consequences and allowing everyone to escape consequences just results in an escalation of non-compliance. Identify them and make an example of them.