Re: Interesting photos
OK, that seems logi...I mean what?
"It saves time, money (taxpayer dollars), and labor (also paid in taxpayer dollars, both in field trips and in medical bills if an accident occurs)."
That makes no sense. If a medical accident occurs, the camera won't help. Even if you're lucky enough to experience the medical problem that leaves you stranded and unable to use any communications capability you have directly in the view of the camera, what will that do. Let's also assume that they have people watching all these cameras (national parks are big. It would be a lot of people, paid with taxpayer dollars, for a lot of cameras). Field trips are still required in order to come get you and the medical bills won't be affected. Then, there is the high likelihood that you get hurt out of view of the camera, in which case it won't help them find you at all. They don't have complete coverage. Meanwhile, any management they have to do to keep the park going requires them to go to various places. I'm assuming that their cameras never get broken, run out of power if they are wireless, have cables cut if they are wired, sag due to gravity, get dirty such that their imaging is impaired, nor require maintenance of any kind, so that the cameras don't add to the workload. You'd still need people to go to all these places.
I could see some logic if they were trying to do research on the animal population, although I don't think the cameras they have would be as useful as regular naturalist procedures, but that's not even the argument they came out with. When a camera that can save people when injured comes out, I'll drop my objections and most likely purchase some to put around all sorts of high risk areas. Until then, I dismiss that as pure illogic.