Ignorance of the law is no defense

The defense of two men accused of stealing ancient American Indian petroglyphs near Reno has raised a curious debate about whether they should be found innocent because the Forest Service didn't put up a sign.

Because there was no sign, the men say they didn't know it was illegal to carry off the rocks from federal land.

It's an interesting - if somewhat stupefying - theory on people's responsibility on public land, especially in light of the various efforts going on to protect blue butterflies at Sand Mountain and mastodon bones at Ruhenstroth.

The debate among land managers and archaeologists is whether rare and precious artifacts on federally managed land would be safer if they didn't draw attention to them, or if it's better to label them and warn people to be careful.

Our opinion is that popular, easily accessible sites should be designated and identified. But most of the nation's treasures on public land should remain just as they are - to be discovered and preserved out of respect for what they are.

It's absurd to think every rock and tree in the forest should be labeled for its significance, just as it's unrealistic to try to post every rule and law that might be covered. We've come a ways since the 10 Commandments.

Every person must know his or her own responsibilities - whether driving along a busy highway in the middle of a city or hiking alone in the backcountry desert. Gaining knowledge, experience and a sense of appreciation for the place is part of the reason for going.

After all, we don't expect the U.S. Forest Service to label poison ivy as "Not recommended for toilet paper" or to hang a tag on rattlesnakes that says, "Keep back at least 10 feet."

And anyone who believes it's OK to take home some petroglyphs from federal land in order to "protect" them is telling a tale that ought to make them blush.