Recent comments

I do not agree with the "cutting" of any additional trails in Our National Parks. This pristine 20,000-acre slice called Grapevine Hills in Big Bend National Park sounds like the type of place I rely on Our National Park Service to protect from any type of development. What are the differences between a foot trail and a bike trail? Are we still cutting trails through meadows? I seem to remember decades ago an effort to reroute existing trails to the edges of meadows.

Bush appointed him. I'm pretty sure that's an automatic guarantee that he sucks.

Thanks for the great info about Gateway NRA...

Sigh. First of all, I created this blog to spur discussion and debate of national park issues. You and others are more than welcome to toss in your two cents, as you've certainly done. I don't claim a monopoly on right and wrong; I invite discussion to encourage different views, for only through rational discussion can we reach rational decisions. Secondly, this blog is not taxpayer supported. Not one taxpayer penny goes into it, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I do not work for the federal government. And what's with all the "couch potato" talk? It takes a lot more sweat, effort and desire to hike 20 miles with a 45-pound pack on one's back than to pedal that far. As I said before, it's not likely we're going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. But then, isn't that the beauty of living in this country?

I graduated from the Ranger Academy at the Santa Rosa training Center in 2006 and had Captain Michael Foster as an instructor for several different classes. He was one of my favorite instructors as he has a large body of experience and genuine compassion and interest in the training of the rangers.

However, my experience was not entirely congruous with Captain Foster's article in that my scenario training did include the extensive use of firearms.

One scenario involved a report of a woman attempting to break into a building with a crowbar. The nature of the scenario necessitated responding with our weapons drawn and arresting and removing concealed weapons from the suspect.

Other scenarios where we drew our sidearms involved a suspicious person with a knife and a search of building for robbery suspects. We also participated in felony vehicle stop scenarios, during both night and day, that required the use of firearms, including the shotgun.

Outside of scenario training, we had other forms of training involving the use of firearms. We had extensive instruction on the range, training with both sidearms and shotguns. Along with many other tactics, defensive tactics training taught us weapon retention and felony arrest procedures, both involving drawn weapons.

We trained with the F.A.T.S., or Firearms Training Simulator, which puts the trainee into a multitude of real-life situations and forces him or her to make instantaneous decisions whether or not to use deadly force.

Perhaps the most realistic training involving firearms was the live-fire simunitions training. This involves the use of a real sidearm fitted to fire 9mm "paint" round while responding to various scenarios including hostage situations and armed and intoxicated park guests. During these scenarios, we actually "shot" the actors playing suspects.

I did not write this response to undermine Captain Foster's concern for the quality of training for the rangers. I wrote it to clarify the instruction I received at the Santa Rosa Training Center during my time there, which was overwhelmingly positive.

Andrew Douglass
andydouglass@gmail.com

Wow looks like you had your coffee.. LOL Let's only talk about mountain bikes. I'm not here to support vehicles with engines. That's another conversation that I'm not interested in being part of. First things first. If it were up to me, I would have the more land "protected" and not given up for development. I would also allow exploration by approved methods of those lands. Hiking, snowshoeing, cross country sking, mountain biking etc. As noninvasive as possible. But also allow usage of the land. Paved trails? For mountain biking? That's not mountain biking. Rail trails are for those people. Which is also cool but off topic. I’m for anything to get people outside and exercising. All we mountain bikers want is equal access to the hiking trails. No money need be spent. We know the common rules of trail courtesy even if our hiking brethren do not. Do not heap mountain bikers in with dirt bikes and ATVs using terms like “mechanical devices” when it comes to governing (controlling) trail usage. We are not noise generating, smoke spewing, oil dripping and nature destroying threats to nature. Well we do hoot and howler on occasion. I can agree that more trials do not need to be cut. In fact, we would prefer it that way. Dual access to existing trails is all we would like. I seldom see hikers on these trails anyway. Why not have them being used by someone? It is unfortunate that Antietam National Battlefield and other historic "hollowed" ground is being (an has been) overrun by development or to simply further developed to increase business which the NPS is also guilty of. As a lover of American History I find it a shame that most Americans take for granted what was fought for by past generations. But all of that is also another topic for another day.

I feel there are plenty of opportunities out there for mountain biking without the need to further cut trails in the national parks. As I've written many times on these pages, the national parks landscape covers just 84 million acres, while the BLM and Forest Service landscapes combined encompass more than 450 million acres. By and large, a good chunk of those 450 million acres are managed for multiple use, while the 84 million NPS acres are not. And as I've said, there are numerous mountain biking opportunities already in national parks, ranging from the 103-mile-long White Rim Trail in Canyonlands and the 45 miles of carriage paths open to mountain bikes in Acadia to the old dirt roads of Mammoth Cave and the single track in Whiskeytown NRA. Why the need to cut more single track? If you say, 'Great, let's cut more mountain bike trails,' where do you stop? Segways, which are being allowed in Antietam National Battlefield this summer, rely on a trail footprint no bigger than a mountain bike trail. Should we provide paved trails for them? If so, how do you manage the traffic of hikers, mountain bikers, Segways, et al? Do we need separate trails for each type of use? The folks in Yellowstone seem to think snowmobiles don't pose a significant environmental impact to their park's environment; should we cut snowmobile trails through Yellowstone's forests and across the Hayden Valley for them? And that picture you didn't like? That was promoted by the International Mountain Bicycling Association, which went to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park last summer in a bid to further mountain biking in the parks. IMBA designed the trail; its 'ambassadors' are those pictured racing down the trail, kicking up the dust. I fear that's the type of picture that will be repeated across the park system if IMBA has its way. The national park system today is facing pressures from so many different angles. Mountain bikers want increased access, so, too, do snowmobilers, personal watercraft owners, equestrian groups. Cell phone companies want to erect cell towers in the parks. Gateway communities want more recreational opportunities in the parks. Developers are building subdivisions on park borders. Give in to all these interests and the national parks I fear will lose the luster they've struggled to hold onto for nearly a century. Give in to all these interests and what will the park landscape look like in another 50 years? What will your children and grandchildren see? An overcrowded city park? A landscape so overrun by this group and that group that it's no longer the magnificent place it originally was set aside for? Hyperbole? Perhaps a bit. But why take the chance when there already are so many other areas for these uses and when the national parks are, in large part, a limited edition?

Debri181, I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. I have nothing against mountain bikes. There are two in my garage, right next to our two road bikes, and they all get good workouts on a regular basis. And you're right, speed isn't in the equation when one is pedaling up a mountain. But it certainly comes into play on those downhills. The point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of opportunities inside and outside the national park system for mountain bikers, and that I don't see the need to cut any new single-track trails in the parks.

your the best i love you

I want to thank those who have responded to my article. Responses have convinced me that we can work together to enhance the SRJC Ranger Academy. We can build on the strengths of the current program and open a discussion on how to further improve it. If you have any comments or concerns related to seasonal ranger training, please forward them to me ASAP. It is my hope that this discussion will lead to a positive, open dialogue to ensure the program fills the needs of every student and benefiting parks.

As an avid mountain biker (one who logged over 2000 miles of mostly single-track one short summer on the west slope of the Colorado Rockies, riding on weekends!)I agree that there are plenty existing trails and we don't need to be building more trails in NP's for mechanized traffic. I also hike plenty and really enjoy -- no, crave -- the solitude of remote, hikers-only trails. Some things need to remain as untouched, untrammeled, and slowly-traveled as is humanly possible. Mountain-biking is fun but participants need to realize that they do have unpleasant impacts on other trail-users. By the way, I encountered numerous herds of elk in the backcountry of Colorado while riding. In fact, biking is often quieter than walking, to the extent that a rider can really surprise both hikers and wildlife, and not in a pleasant manner. Nothing worse than looking over one's shoulder constantly for that speeding bike...