... It does irk me a tiny bit when people mock something by using a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Jason, ANY line of rationale, to mock-the-law, is reductio ad absurdum. Well, I mean: There technically is NO justification to break or mock laws. Even spitting on sidewalk laws.
But when does it end ? I bet that any place in the USA that you hunt , on any speck of public land, that I can find some law you are in violation of. Or some bureaucrat who could stand on one foot, squint, and decide "you can't do that". It could be lost & found laws. It could be alter and deface laws. It could be harvest and remove clauses. It could be cultural heritage laws. So at a certain point, YES: There comes a time when the md'r HAS to decide if he's going to go by technicalities, vs the spirit of the law (or the "does anyone really care?" test of the law).
Is that right ? NO ! Is that "reductio ad absurdum" YES !
And I'll be the first to admit I'm probably the chief instigator of the forum locker-room-talk (ie.: mocking) of this. Trust me: I wish it wasn't this way. I DO wish that red carpets were rolled out for me, just as you or the next guy does.
And I never fudge on my taxes, I keep my word, I won't lie, etc.... However, on the subject of md'ing, yes, I'm guilty as charged. I do admit to a calloused conscience. Is it excusable ? No. And I respect someone's decision to "not step off the sidewalk". Ie.: those that will avoid a park that has boiler plate alter and deface verbiage, or that consider an isolated "scram" to be law.
The only reason it's a bee in my bonnet, is that I've seen first hand where someone goes from "being skittish" (which is fine and commendable) to going and asking "can I?". I've seen the latter open up cans of worms where none existed before. Yeah yeah, I'm probably exaggerating, I know. Ok, sorry, I'll get off my soap box now .