You've gotta be kidding me...

dmccormack said:
I agree with the latter part of your argument, but the former only weakens it.

Of all people with a historical grudge, the plight of Native Americans is most compelling. I've lived in New York city, and let me tell you -- "da ghetto" is downright Nirvana compared to most reservations.
Click to expand...

What?? Are you kidding me? The reservations in New Mexico, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Nevada (those that I've seen so far), are not bad, at all. You forget that like 50% of NM is reservations, so I've seen it, too!

Oh, and if its really crappy FREE housing, they can always get a job and move off the reservation. I've seen MANY an American Indian do just that. It is possible.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Says who? Tell me where "national welfare" is defined as a term. If you can then I will believe you. Here is how "welfare" is defined in the dictionary:
  1. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
  2. Prosperity.
  3. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
I think you all are taking the phrase too seriously. You've drank the koolaid.
Click to expand...


It says NATIONAL Welfare, not Indian Welfare. If I lobbied to get something over the place I took my last dump, the sectional should say, "In the interest of Ed's Dump" not, "In the interest of National Welfare" because frankly whether or not we fly over it, climb it, paint it, or take a dump on it, it does not affect our national well being or prosperity. We could raze Devil's Tower and the economy and security of this country would remain exactly the same. If they want to say "don't overfly because we signed a treaty with some Indians" say it. Don't BS us like they did with Mickey Mouse.
 
EdFred said:
We could raze Devil's Tower and the economy and security of this country would remain exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about the economy and security of this country? I can assure you that is not why the label was placed on the sectional. Just because the DHS has brainwashed some of you into thinking that national welfare must mean security doesn't make it so :)
 
National: Referring to the whole country
Welfare: 1) Well being. 2) A liberal process of giving money to the lazy

A group of Indians in Wyoming hardly constitutes National.
Whether or not they get to get high by a rock hardly contitutes well being of any sort.

The 2nd definition of welfare? Now that's a possibility.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Who is talking about the economy and security of this country? I can assure you that is not why the label was placed on the sectional. Just because the DHS has brainwashed some of you into thinking that national welfare must mean security doesn't make it so :)
Click to expand...

I took it from the definition YOU gave.
 
SkyHog said:
The 2nd definition of welfare? Now that's a possibility.
Click to expand...

Now you are catching on.

Jokes aside you should both reread the administrivia on the process on the first page of this discussion. It was only partially because of the native American groups.
 
Last edited:
No, it is NOT about some activities that "might offend". Any more than zoning restrictions that keep strip joints away from churches. And I don't hear any of the complainers complaining about THAT. Of course, maybe those churches, for the most part, are full of people that the complainers identify with. Maybe that has something to do with it.
 
etsisk said:
No, it is NOT about some activities that "might offend". Any more than zoning restrictions that keep strip joints away from churches. And I don't hear any of the complainers complaining about THAT. Of course, maybe those churches, for the most part, are full of people that the complainers identify with. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would complain about that. I personally have never set foot in a strip club, but a legal business is a legal business. If Radio Shack can have a store across the street, then the Melon Patch should be able to build there as well. As long as they keep the activities confined to their premises then they should be able to build RIGHT NEXT DOOR to a church if they want. If you don't like what goes on there, don't go INSIDE.
 
EdFred said:
Actually, I would complain about that. I personally have never set foot in a strip club, but a legal business is a legal business. If Radio Shack can have a store across the street, then the Melon Patch should be able to build there as well. As long as they keep the activities confined to their premises then they should be able to build RIGHT NEXT DOOR to a church if they want. If you don't like what goes on there, don't go INSIDE.
Click to expand...
That is the way it seems to be in Japan. Some pretty non-exisitant zoinign form what I can tell. A legit restaurant next to a strip club, next to an electronics store next to a fetish shop 3 blocks from a school
 
EdFred said:
Actually, I would complain about that. I personally have never set foot in a strip club, but a legal business is a legal business. If Radio Shack can have a store across the street, then the Melon Patch should be able to build there as well. As long as they keep the activities confined to their premises then they should be able to build RIGHT NEXT DOOR to a church if they want. If you don't like what goes on there, don't go INSIDE.
Click to expand...

Those aren't Federal Laws based on some notion of National Welfare, but rather local Zoning laws, which in most cases attempt to keep some sense of predictability in the market.

Sorry, but there are very few townships that will accept a new open pit mine next to an established resort, because it's not only about deciding to go inside or not.
 
alaskaflyer said:
So, a "special interest minority", say...GA pilots....want to go do something that everyone else can't do, and the heck with everyone else. That's OK? Only the minorities that you don't belong to are being catered to in a negative fashion, but if it involves your special interest group, then it is reasonable discourse and compromise, no doubt. Just wanted to make sure I read the code correctly.
Click to expand...

I thought I might weigh in on this once more. The difference in the two is known as a 'taking'. I don't want to belabor it, but the simple explanation is that one group takes something from another group. It is one of the few defects in pure democracy. On day one of democracy, everyone has all rights to everything. Then, as the society moves along in a rights based system some rights become more 'right' than other rights. Kinda goofy, but that's the way it plays out.

Here, we have one group taking a few thousand cubic miles from another group because their right is more important than another groups right(pilots). However, climbers who are much more intimately involved in the land under question have very limited restrictions placed on them.

It's a use restriction that I also see as unnecessary. Pilots fly, boaters float, climbers climb, drivers drive. We are all being limited in some way, because we have too much gummint. It appears the BIA is a federal agency that has more pull than the FAA or AOPA in this case.

It's almost always bad case law when these things get going. The ultimate taking was Prohibition which didn't last long. All takings should be carefully weighed, and in this case, I don't think it was.
 
No-one has "taken" anything here... and it's labeled "national welfare" not "national security". It's about respect for the culture and the circumstance (it's not like they can do what they need to do in a cinderblock church in shiprock, is it?). But with the complainers here, I've yet to see any respect offered, at all.

You guys can go act like jerks and buzz the ceremonies all ya want and it's legal, if you keep your 500' distances. :rolleyes:
 
Tom, you're taking the word 'taking' a bit too literally. It can mean a limitation such as placed on the air above Devils Tower.

One could postulate that as a pilot, my ceremony takes place 1000' over the land in rural Wyoming. It's a zero sum game, what ever one side comes up with the other side can follow.

And thanks for permission to be a jerk and fly over a large, protected rock that is admired by a protected group.
 
Holy cow people.

This is about wording on a sectional, and nothing more.

FWIW, the "restriction" (which is VOLUNTARY) is only 3nm during June, and 2nm the rest of the year. I don't want to disturb ANYONE's experience at Devils tower, no matter what color they are, because that will only serve to create enemies for GA. As such, I will be giving Devil's Tower a 3nm berth. It's really not that far. I also don't think I'm so important that I can't respect the wishes of others, even those that I may not agree with.

:eek:
 
I'm just amazed at some of the polarization going on here. Because it's clearly aviation related, it doesn't belong in SZ, but if this is indicative of what goes on there, it makes me glad that I stay out of that den of iniquity! :) Greebo, thanks for giving us a choice! :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Holy cow people.

This is about wording on a sectional, and nothing more.

FWIW, the "restriction" (which is VOLUNTARY) is only 3nm during June, and 2nm the rest of the year. I don't want to disturb ANYONE's experience at Devils tower, no matter what color they are, because that will only serve to create enemies for GA. As such, I will be giving Devil's Tower a 3nm berth. It's really not that far. I also don't think I'm so important that I can't respect the wishes of others, even those that I may not agree with.

:eek:
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in this thread would buzz any area that is requested that we stay out of (I'd hope not, at least). If they change the wording to remove "National Welfare" I'd have no problem.

Its like using "emergency" for a non-emergency situation. It would be fine enough to use the blue line with blue dots, most pilots avoid flying in those as well.
 
docmirror said:
It's almost always bad case law when these things get going. The ultimate taking was Prohibition which didn't last long. All takings should be carefully weighed, and in this case, I don't think it was.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you read the notes on the case I think you would see that it was very carefully weighed if you measure the interagency paper by either the foot or by the pound; and in the end the FAA steamrolled the concerns of both local tribes and the National Park Service over the whole issue, leaving an innocuous little box on a chart as the only mitigation for new infrastructure and increased use.

By the way BIA had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
This thread appears to have moved away from aviation, and will be moved to the Spin Zone soon.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I disagree. If you read the notes on the case I think you would see that it was very carefully weighed if you measure the interagency paper by either the foot or by the pound; and in the end the FAA steamrolled the concerns of both local tribes and the National Park Service over the whole issue, leaving an innocuous little box on a chart as the only mitigation for new infrastructure and increased use.

By the way BIA had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I see this as a better way that trying to minimize air traffic is being handled as opposed to the TFR err rather permenant FRs around Disney and major sporting events.
 
SkyHog said:
I don't think anyone in this thread would buzz any area that is requested that we stay out of (I'd hope not, at least). If they change the wording to remove "National Welfare" I'd have no problem.

Its like using "emergency" for a non-emergency situation. It would be fine enough to use the blue line with blue dots, most pilots avoid flying in those as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just NE of 6Y9 we have a National Wilderness Area where we are requested to not fly below 2000' AGL, but it does not say on the sectional it is because of national welfare. Same as the Boundary Waters (although that is a P-) and that doesn't say national welfare. If they want to restrict the area around Devil's Tower, that's fine. Just don't call it a national welfare issue when it most certainly is not.
 
EdFred said:
Exactly. Just NE of 6Y9 we have a National Wilderness Area where we are requested to not fly below 2000' AGL, but it does not say on the sectional it is because of national welfare. Same as the Boundary Waters (although that is a P-) and that doesn't say national welfare. If they want to restrict the area around Devil's Tower, that's fine. Just don't call it a national welfare issue when it most certainly is not.
Click to expand...
After reading all of this I still do not know what a National Welfare issue is?
 
smigaldi said:
I dunno, still seems about aviation policy of no fly zones and how they are handled.
Click to expand...
I should have said "likely moved", as I'm still reviewing it. If the conversation remains aviation related, it will remain. I posted the above after noting several posts that at a quick skim did appear to be non-aviation political.

So - lemme rephrase:

This thread is being reviewed to determine whether or not it has moved away from aviation, and thus should be moved to spin zone.
 
Lately, the term "National Welfare" has the same definition as the Supreme Court's definition of pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. It seems to me that the powers that be want to keep it ill-defined - sticking it with a definition may restrict how they can use (or abuse) it.

I agree with Nick & Ed, I don't care that it's restricted, just be straight with why. If everything that they don't know what to label gets labeled with "National Welfare", it will become like the boy who cried wolf - people will see it used in these BS situations so much that it will lose meaning and impact.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Exactly. No one defines it (except for the dictionary), so it seems a little silly that one would be upset about the FAA using it.
Click to expand...
I just think that if the FAA cannot define it then they have no business using. If they want to restrict air traffic above some of these places then come clean with the reasons and use the defined terms we already understand.
 
smigaldi said:
I just think that if the FAA cannot define it then they have no business using. If they want to restrict air traffic above some of these places then come clean with the reasons and use the defined terms we already understand.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying. End of the world? Scott and I agree on something? :hairraise:
 
docmirror said:
Tom, you're taking the word 'taking' a bit too literally. It can mean a limitation such as placed on the air above Devils Tower.
One could postulate that as a pilot, my ceremony takes place 1000' over the land in rural Wyoming. It's a zero sum game, what ever one side comes up with the other side can follow.
And thanks for permission to be a jerk and fly over a large, protected rock that is admired by a protected group.
Click to expand...
Doc, what limitation? It was a REQUEST. No limitation existed, other than maybe folks would expect other folks to act like they had a mama growing up and had learned some manners!

And I know you know you don't need my permission to act like a jerk. :)
 
If it's not a limitation, why is there a demarcation on the sectional? I'm just being a jerk I guess. Given the tenor of your comments, remarks about another's mama may be disingenuous. Maybe a bit less 'bark' would help.
 
perhaps it might, and to be honest, in my effort to not let it be "personal", I diluted my comments so much as to, apparently, misdirect them. I was not directing ANY of them towards you, except for when I'm specifically referencing a post of yours. When I talk about "complainers", it's others I had in mind.

But the nature of some of the remarks in this thread are such that more wag and less bark isn't really the answer, I don't think.

Nevertheless, I'm outta this thread, whether they move it to the spin zone or not.
 
Here, for reasons of national welfare as well as my own I fixed it for all of you.
 

Attachments

  • devils tower.PNG
    devils tower.PNG
    632.8 KB · Views: 35
TMetzinger said:
And yet it's ok for rock climbers to scale this "sacred" rock?

And since when does a hot-air balloon in flight generate noise that can be detected on the ground above ambient noise levels?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating buzzing the area, but this is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Last time we were there, they didn't even want us to take our little Corgi with us on the path around the rock. We noticed that the rock climbers were yelling and clowning around like idiots. Talk about distrubing the National Welfare!
In any case, I'll keep my distance when flying. B)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top