You are here

Home

All Recent Comments

Comment Period Reopens on Whether National Park Visitors Can Arm Themselves

Mar 20th - 23:50pm | Geno

When the fact of the matter is that any object, including a human fist, can be used as a weapon with deadly force, a gun is just another option. The intent of both wild and domesticated animals, humans included, is what harms. Guns are not to be feared, the inhumane nature of some people is, how do you regulate that? Leave our guns and freedome alone.

Sections of Pacific Crest Trail Poached by Mountain Bikers; Could Problems Arise in National Parks?

Mar 20th - 23:37pm | Anonymous

There's not enuf rangers to enforce the stupid rule...so do as I do...keep on bikin'! I've been bikin in national parks on trails for 3 years and have never been caught!

Mar 20th - 20:57pm | imtnbke

I appreciate Chris Sanderson's comment, but by its logic no mountain biker could ride any trail where horses were present. Which would pretty much close off all trails to mountain biking. As for the point that there are other trails out there to enjoy, it's true, but I look at it just the opposite: what makes the PCT so sacrosanct that no cyclist should be allowed to ride it?

Mar 20th - 20:49pm | imtnbke

I am reflecting on Kurt's latest reply. And so doing, I conclude Kurt is right that I shouldn't belittle one person's cause as less worthy of pursuit than another's just because less is at stake objectively. So I retract that aspect of my prior post.

Mar 20th - 18:58pm | Chris Sanderson

I hiked the entire length of the PCT in 2003, and I ran into a number of cyclist on the trail. I ride a bike everyday to work and back here in San Francisco, so I am not ashamed to say that MOUNTAIN BIKES DO NOT BELONG ON THE PCT! For one, it is a trail shared with equestrians, and a mountain bike tearing around a corner could do a lot to create a hazardous situation for horse and rider.

Mar 20th - 18:45pm | Kurt Repanshek

You're comparing the mountain biker's fight for access wherever your tires can roll with that of black civil rights? Please tell me you're not serious.

Mar 20th - 18:01pm | imtnbke

Kurt, I'm sorry I irritated you to this extent.

Mar 20th - 16:35pm | Kurt Repanshek

Feel better?

Mar 20th - 15:22pm | imtnbke

Kurt says "some have concerns . . . ." Talk about the ultimate voiceless passive construction, rather like "mistakes were made," or the Latin American torturer's remark "se me fué de las manos" ("the person left me from the hands") instead of saying "I killed him."

Mar 20th - 15:13pm | Anonymous

Zebulon - not sure what parts of the "Pacific northwest" you're talking about, but it's clearly not Washington state. And your comment on mud and hiking obviously shows that you don't hike in the Pacific Northwest. Otherwise you'd realize what a silly comment that was...

Mar 20th - 11:17am | Zebulon

PCT aka the Perfect Cycling Trail. Most parts of the PCT in northern Cal and the Pacfic northwest are barely ever used. The damage accusation is complete FUD. If it's too muddy, you should not be hiking the trail either. Duh.

Mar 20th - 10:09am | Anonymous

I think there has to be some sharing of trails, especially non-motorized forms of travel - whether it be on foot, on horse, llama, or bicycle. I agree with the other comment that at least it's not motorized vehicles - that's where you have to draw the line. I believe the CDT allows bicycles on most of it's trail system and there's been no issue there.

Mar 20th - 10:00am | Anonymous

Careful. The right of the people to keep and operate mountain bikes shall not be infringed. I'm sure some federal judge can be found to rule thusly.

Mar 20th - 08:16am | Anonymous

I personally do not see the problem of sharing the trail, particularly if there are feeder mountain biking trails coming into the PCT. There is very little incentive to stop at the end of a feeder trail, whether you are hiking or biking, but especially biking. Maybe trail officials should re-engineer the trail sections inbetween mountain bike feeder trails to solve the problem.

Mar 19th - 21:14pm | Ralph Laterski

This is not surprising to me, but what might be surprising to you is that I'm an avid mountain biker. I'm in my 40's and ride with dozens of other riders, they're all nice guys, however they just don't care about the environment.

NRA Appeals Ruling Blocking Concealed Carry in National Parks

Mar 20th - 23:33pm | Roger

The judge's ruling won't hold water. The 2nd Amendment is absolute...if the USSC hears this case, we will never have to worry about this issue again. Editor's note: This comment was edited to remove a gratuitous comment.

Federal Judge Issues Scathing Opinion in Blocking "Concealed Carry" In National Parks, Wildlife Refuges

Mar 20th - 23:29pm | Upset

The NRA got involved in this issue because they saw through the smoke and treated it as another attempt to usurp an individual's right to bear arms. Isn't that why Brady got involved...to restrict/eliminate one's rights under the constitution, they certainly don't care about Condors or the effect of lead sinkers on fish.

Mar 20th - 22:24pm | Rick Smith

Kurt--

Mar 20th - 20:33pm | Kurt Repanshek

You say you don't recall Brady getting involved with other "environmental" issues. Well, while you're probably right, what other national park issues has the NRA gotten involved with other than this one (or similar gun issues)?

Mar 20th - 19:47pm | Upset

I do agree that laws should be upheld and such law must be constitutional to be enforced. This was a "rule" change that was in compliance with something higher than a law...the Constitution. An individual's constitutional right's cannot be abridged or usurped by a "rule" or "policy" even if the law is constitutional.

Mar 20th - 19:06pm | Kurt Repanshek

Upset, Anyone who supports constitutional rights should also want to see the laws upheld, no? And that's what this case is about, whether the Bush administration followed the National Environmental Policy Act. The ruling had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Mar 20th - 18:55pm | Upset

It seems like this administration's judicial supporters are just like their congressional supporters since they will will trample our constitutional rights without even blinking an eye. As usual, the descenters want to know who drew their weapons, who felt threatened, who fired their guns...give us your names!!!! Sound familiar?

Mar 20th - 18:45pm | Anonymous

Just a couple of comments and observations about this whole thing. First, I am a gun owner, I don't hunt anymore and am not anti-gun or anti- hunting. I have read most of the comments about this over the months and made a few of my own, but what has struck me today is the name calling remarks by some of the Pro carry folks, ya I know, sticks and stones.

Mar 20th - 17:22pm | Pike

Persons with concealed carry permits have demonstrated to the issuing state's satisfaction that they are responsible law abiding citizens and can be trusted to safely and responsibly carry concealed firearms because they are not a threat to themselves or others.

Mar 20th - 14:49pm | Kurt Repanshek

On this thread and elsewhere on the Traveler there have been claims about drug smugglers and AK-47-toting thugs and how dangerous some areas of national parks are. At the same time, there have been more than a few CCW permit holders who have claimed that they've carried in the parks.

Mar 20th - 14:12pm | Tom

Concealed Handgun Licensees SHOULD be permitted to carry within airports and on aircraft. CHL holders are proven to be among the most law abiding people in our population. These are NOT the people you need to be concerned about!

Mar 20th - 12:35pm | rscottjones

This has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights and everything to do with the NRA's voter mobilization strategy for 2008 & 2010.

Mar 20th - 12:33pm | Dan

If their case was so strong that concealed handguns were an unnecessary presence in the parks, why didn;t they argue that position? Instead they argued the technicallity that proper environmental assessments were not followed.

Mar 20th - 12:19pm | Dan

While you may be right about the original intent of the law, the current rule change should not affect poaching.

Mar 20th - 12:11pm | RAH

The new rule was a solution to a problem. The problem of CCW holders traveling across NPS lands in cars and having to stop and secure the weapon and then stop again to carry in a holster. Some drivers had to do this many times a day.

Mar 20th - 11:41am | Rick Smith

Why is it that when groups like the NRA file lawsuits, it is viewed as activity that does not pursue their politial agendas? Yet, when other groups file lawsuits, it is nothing but "classic legal obstructionism, wasting the court's time and resources to further a back-door political agenda." I am a member of two of the litigant parties.

Mar 20th - 11:10am | Anonymous

If it's so safe, why do the park rangers carry firearms?

Mar 20th - 10:55am | tomp

Take a step back for a minute and consider why the ban on loaded guns in national parks was enacted decades ago. Poaching was already illegal, but enforcement was nearly impossible.

Mar 20th - 10:11am | Dan

In one sentence they say that parks are one of the safest places for Americans. In another sentence they imply that people with concealed handguns will be shooting aggressive people and animals so often that it will negatively impact the environment.

Mar 20th - 09:12am | Kurt Repanshek

Concerned and Anonymous No. 2, as the story pointed out, this ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It centered 100 percent on the duty of the Interior Department to consider the environmental ramifications of its actions.

Mar 20th - 08:20am | Anonymous

For the past 2 years we had to hear from the past NPS Director how great Kempthorne was. This is part of the evidence that he was no real friend to parks. What role did the past Director play in this? She certainly did not stop the rule. Couldn't she have insisted that it was not NEPA compiant?

Mar 20th - 07:59am | Anonymous

Ya know... the bill of rights, specifically the second amendment is really fairly simple to read. I'm nor sure what about "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand. I guess like "Thou shall not lie" and the nine other suggestions it's just an out dated concept in today's enlightened world.

Mar 20th - 07:40am | Concerned

This is absurd. You have the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. There is loads of data that show that allowing concealed carry has actually reduced violent crime... even as the budgets of law enforcement has declined, law officers decrease, job losses rise, cost of living rises, and poverty rises (all factors that typically cause crime to increase).

Mar 19th - 19:41pm | Anonymous

Following Kempthorne's logic, I'm wondering why the previous administration proposed allowing concealed weapons only in parks. Why not allow them in airports as well? After all, such a rule wouldn't authorize the USE of such weapons in an airport, just their presence.

National Park Designation is an Unholy Mess

Mar 20th - 16:32pm | Bob Janiskee

Thanks, MRC. I understand everything clearly now........... I think.

Mar 20th - 14:43pm | MRC

The trademark database at USPTO lists 30 live entries including "national park". Pretty much all of them cover only a special visual logo, not a claim for the words as such. And their scope is very limited, mostly to publications, and many were registered by concessionaires which looks like they had permission by the NPS.

Mar 20th - 12:55pm | Bob Janiskee

Frank, I must admit that I'm out of my depth on this one. Perhaps a Traveler reader more familiar with these trademark and copyright issues might want to chime in?

Mar 20th - 08:34am | Bob Janiskee

Dave, as Kurt has said, the posts you'll see on Traveler fairly soon will address the NPS unit designation and redesignation issues in a more comprehensive and proactive way. Rest assured that we have some specific suggestions for improving and standardizing NPS unit designation. We assume that Traveler readers have also got some thoughts on this matter they'd like to share.

Mar 20th - 07:31am | Bob Janiskee

Interesting post, Frank, but your dreams of having a national park named in your honor are just that -- dreams. If you tried to use that name for your park, the Interior department would file charges on you for the fraudulent offering of federal services. Incidentally, there's been a lot of publicity lately about a national park trademark brouhaha at Hot Springs.

Mar 19th - 13:42pm | robmutch

Nice comments Dave. This is a great start. We do have many great thinkers on this subject, such as Bob. rob mutch -- Executive Director, Crater Lake Institute www.craterlakeinstitute.com

Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park Could Shut Down For Structural Strengthening

Mar 20th - 11:34am | jessstryker

The Ahwahnee is a wonderful hotel, however the design and construction of concrete structures has seen many improvements since the Ahwahnee was built in the 20's. While I hate to see the Ahwahnee close for as much as 2 years for the structural work, I would also hate to see it badly damaged in an earthquake.

House Fails to Pass Massive Lands Bill That Would Have Aided National Park System

Mar 20th - 06:25am | Sabattis

Congressional leaders have moved quickly on this, using some parliamentary maneuvers in the Senate and an agreement to avoid a filibuster to get the Senate to pass a revised version of the bill and send it back to the House. The procedures used by the Senate on this one mean that it will not be open to amendment in the House, and so passage should now be relatively straightforward:

Senators' Letter to Open National Parks to Concealed Weapons

Mar 20th - 00:48am | Troy Kapalczynski

I spent 8 months driving around North America on a motorcycle exploring the multitude of diverse people and places this continent has to offer. I slept on the side of the road, whether that was in city, suburb, rural, or extreme backroads (aka four-wheeler trails). From Wisconsin to Florida to Southern California to Alaska to New Foundland to the East Coast.

Panoramic Photography, Or "How Do I Get All of the Teton Range in the Picture?"

Mar 19th - 16:08pm | brettgross

Mark- you can just copy and paste my text into a word processor to print it.

Mar 19th - 16:07pm | brettgross

I agree - treehugger that is a cool movie. I love QTVRs. Not to date myself, but I remember stitching these things by hand. Lots of math involved to make QTVRs in the old days. I had actually not realized that Canon's PhotoStitch could make QTVRs until I played with it a bit for this article. Now I have to try stitching my own...

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.