SteamboatRN, i apologize, its not you I'm thinking of, but I do disagree with you on civil disobedience. Thats how this country began. Public land is just that, public, land of many uses, not single use. I agree with crossing fences and going around gates in certain situations. If more people grew balls we could change the rules.
That disobedience was about taxation and the loss of rights pertaining to personal properties. I don't think the founding fathers were talking about our rights to snowmobile.
I really hate to use one of the greenies arguments but it does have some merit.
What if my hobby was driving bulldozers and making dams? Should I be able to do that on public land? Should I be able to harvest trees from public land?
Extreme yes, but the point is valid. Where do we draw the line?
If the blatant disregard for laws was a resonable way to change laws, we would all be able to light up a joint and pop a couple of beers after riding in the wilderness. Before we drove home without wearing our seatbelts.
HOWEVER, it was
mass protests that ended the Viet Nam war, ended (well sort of ended) racial discrimination, and repealed helmet laws in many states. (I personally think that was dumb)
The governments take on it is that they have been entrusted with "protecting" public land for the greater public good. Whatever THAT is.
Just a few thoughts. Don't shoot.