Recent comments

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Frustrating. But honestly, we saw it coming. The track record of this administration shows that it consistently pushes expert's views and the view of the public aside and yields to loud/powerful minorities.

    Where is this going to take the parks? First, I agree that this rule change will eventually be reversed (perhaps it will follow a path similar to that of the Yellowstone Snowmobile debacle). However, before that happens people will be confused, wildlife will be unnecessarily killed, and rangers/employees in parks will face questionable and dangerous situations.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 37 weeks ago

    The U.S. is distinguished from the rest of the world in that its citizens have a lawful right to be armed in most places. We should value this privalege and freedom which so many under communism or oppressive governments and dictators do not have.

    However, criminal acts are never condoned and should always be punished. And, criminals will be armed whether the law forbids it or not. So I see absolutely no deterent to crime by denying law-abiding citizens the right to be armed and protect themselves if the need arises. Should someone attempt to rob or hurt you in a national park, do you think the park rangers are going to prevent it?

    Many citizens carry a firearm now when traveling, or camping. It only makes sense to take precautions when going out into sparsely populated and often desolate areas. Similar reasoning applies in not picking up hitchhikers, and locking your doors at night when at home. Why should one be defenseless when traveling? And, many who are vacationing stop in national parks along the way. Citizens certainly carry concealed weapons in their vehicles now, why not recognize their rights under the Constitution to do so in full light of the law?

    I applaud the right and recognition of a citizen to carry a firearm in national and state parks.

    Gene

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 37 weeks ago
  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Kurt, I thank you for the privilege of commenting on this site and am glad to see you taking a stand on ad hominem attacks. (I again apologize for falling prey to this trap in my earlier comments here.)

    However, I don't believe that we should necessarily respect opinions. I've quoted Jonathan Rauch before, and here's a paragraph from Kindly Inquisitors that I have repeated for the last dozen years:

    . . . only after an idea has survived checking is it deserving of respect. Not long ago, I heard an activist say at a public meeting that her opinion deserved at least respect. The audience gave her a big round of applause. But she and they had it backwards. Respect was the most, not the least, that she could have demanded for her opinion. Except insofar as an opinion earns its stripes in the science game, it is entitled to no respect whatever. The point matters, because respectability is the coin in which liberal science rewards ideas that are duly put up for checking and pass the test. You may not get rich being show to be right, you may not even become famous, and you almost certainly will not be loved, but you will be paid in the specie of respectability. That is why it is so important that creationists and alien-watchers and radical Afrocrentrists and white supremacists be granted every entitlement to speak but no entitlement to have their opinions respected. They should expect, if for any reason (including minority status) they refuse to submit their ideas for checking by public criticism, that their opinions will be ignored or ridiculed—and rightly so. Respect is no opinion’s birthright. People, yes, are entitled to a certain degree of basic respect by dint of being human. But to grant any such claim to ideas is to raid the treasury of science and throw its capital to the winds.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Kurt, I thank you for the privilege of commenting on this site and am glad to see you taking a stand on ad hominem attacks. (I again apologize for falling prey to this trap in my earlier comments here.)

    However, I don't believe that we should necessarily respect opinions. I've quoted Jonathan Rauch before, and here's a paragraph from Kindly Inquisitors that I have repeated for the last dozen years:

    . . . only after an idea has survived checking is it deserving of respect. Not long ago, I heard an activist say at a public meeting that her opinion deserved at least respect. The audience gave her a big round of applause. But she and they had it backwards. Respect was the most, not the least, that she could have demanded for her opinion. Except insofar as an opinion earns its stripes in the science game, it is entitled to no respect whatever. The point matters, because respectability is the coin in which liberal science rewards ideas that are duly put up for checking and pass the test. You may not get rich being show to be right, you may not even become famous, and you almost certainly will not be loved, but you will be paid in the specie of respectability. That is why it is so important that creationists and alien-watchers and radical Afrocrentrists and white supremacists be granted every entitlement to speak but no entitlement to have their opinions respected. They should expect, if for any reason (including minority status) they refuse to submit their ideas for checking by public criticism, that their opinions will be ignored or ridiculed—and rightly so. Respect is no opinion’s birthright. People, yes, are entitled to a certain degree of basic respect by dint of being human. But to grant any such claim to ideas is to raid the treasury of science and throw its capital to the winds.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    T-Fly You pose a bigger problem to visitors to the parks pgrowing your illegal weed there and somking it !!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 37 weeks ago

    I have been a hunter and gun advocate all my life but could not disagree with this more. I see no need to carry a gun in a Nat Park. This can only lead to needless human and animal suffering. What can you expect from a lamme duck president like Bush.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    All anyone has to do is read Mr. T-FLY to realise what a twit he is? He accuses the "goobers" of using lots of caps and exclamation points all in caps and exclamation points. His argument is as inept and illogical as is his undeniable assumptions. Have you ever had an original thought in your life, T-FLY, or do you just normally go around in a daze? See my previous post for the truth about concealed weapons and ownership. The most law abiding segment of the public at large are concealed weapons holders. Significantly more law abiding per capita, than our illustrious congress in Washington.
    The Macy's Christmas Baby of 1938
    approves this message.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Editor's note: Today's developments are certainly not surprising. The reaction from those in support of the regulation change and those against it is not surprising, either. However, please respect the opinions that are espoused, even if you do not agree with them, and do not resort to gratuitous attacks. As long as those two simple rules can be adhered to, the Traveler is interested in hearing what you have to say.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Editor's note: Today's developments are certainly not surprising. The reaction from those in support of the regulation change and those against it is not surprising, either. However, please respect the opinions that are espoused, even if you do not agree with them, and do not resort to gratuitous attacks. As long as those two simple rules can be adhered to, the Traveler is interested in hearing what you have to say.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Concealed Weapons holders are the most law abiding segment of the public at large. They are hardly the fools that this anonymous coward intimates. They are much more likely to err on the side of caution and sensibility than are the general public. It is a fools argument to say that people will feel safer if they know no one is carrying a firearm, when they have no way of knowing if any one in their proximity is carrying a firearm. In addition it is at least as likely that a criminal or lawbreaker will have an illegal firearm and I certainly would feel very uncomfortable visiting any Federal park if I was unable to protect myself with my legally owned and concealed firearm. That is the purpose of concealed. Know one knows except the concealed License holder. What I suggest is that those who do not want to carry a firearm, not carry a firearm. I find some books to be much more dangerous to the uninformed than a trained person with a legally owned concealed firearm. I will respect your rights in the park and you respect my inherent right to protect myself and my family from harm, legally.

    The Macy's Christmas Baby of 1938
    approves this message.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Well said!!!

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    As a gun owner who is also a concealed carry your argument does not have merit when you say (the fear factor would go away if one could had a firearm) When I am carrying a gun concealed or other wise I am very mindful of my responsibility and fear does not go away because I have a gun. Only a fool would think such a thing.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Is that all you got, name calling law abiding citizens. Get a grip

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Have you really been to the Islands?
    ATV's are not allowed.
    Jet skis are also banned.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Have you really been on the Islands?
    ATV's are not allowed.
    Jet skis are also banned.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 37 weeks ago

    I have always loved being at Hatteras. It feels to me like some of the wildest country in America. Somebody's loud, poluting ATV is destructive and out of place.

  • Leave it to the Beaver   5 years 37 weeks ago

    AS a retired NJ State Trooper of 25 years service, I can relate to the many various characters that Law enforcement officials run into in the course of performing their duties. It always makes the job more fun when you can pull off a prank on a pinhead.

    Thanks for the laugh, and keep up the good work.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    It would appear that NPCA needs to moveon.org
    http://www.bighammer.net/timeline.html#12/05/08

    Final regulation approved by DOI will allow weapons.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Well, all I have to say about this is
    IT'S FAR FAR BETTER TO BE TRIED BY 9 THAN CARRIED BY 6.

    Also there are those that feel that something is only illegal if you get caught.
    Our government works that way and so does Wall Street.

    It wasn't that very long ago that the NPS would NEVER recommend going into the back country "unarmed" I have older park brochures that can verify that.
    It was only changed recently at the behest of some people that persuaded Pres Regan.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 37 weeks ago

    d-2, you paint a really nasty picture of what you must think the seashore is becomeing. I live here and that's not how I see it at all.

    "For "EVERYONE" even if it means the destruction of the very special qualities that caused the creation (for "EVERYONE") of the National Seashore in the first place?"
    What destruction are you talking about?

    "Maybe "EVERYONE" is beginning to realize America is not so big that it can any longer afford to let its resources be abused, poluted, and twisted beyond recongition for the thrill and diversions of a "FEW"
    Polluted ? Twisted beyond recognition ? Have you ever even been here ?
    We had an intermin plan with closures as needed. It worked and we coexhisted with the wildlife. The enviromentalist's are the special interest groups who want it all their way. As far as polution, I never see any enviro groups participating in any clean-up efforts in the park and the most trash I ever see on the beaches are on the ones that are closed to all humans.

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   5 years 37 weeks ago

    December 5, 2008
    Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update
    "WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov"

  • Leave it to the Beaver   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Wow, that's great!

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Anonymous,

    You're making assumptions. My "whole life" is not "consumed on the gun issue".

    When I was a national park ranger, on ten occasions I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Not part of it. ALL of it. All ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. All articles and sections. As a park ranger, I took that oath seriously, and as a private citizen, I still consider that oath binding.

    I have never advocated that people should be able to "pack heat...to anywhere and everywhere." You are intentionally misrepresenting my argument, setting up a strawman. Of course the Second Amendment does not apply to private property. It does, however, apply to federal lands. I do not "fan the coals toward more hell bent gun ownership". I don't care if people own guns.

    But I do care that the Constitution and its civil rights protections are protected and enforced. Like it or not, it is the law of the land.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 37 weeks ago

    Anon/Anchorman,

    How about we let the court decide just whose attempt is "pathetic", shall we? Ginny covers the details quite concisely and thoroughly, so I'll take your stance to task.

    Remember, this issue has already been in the courts for a decade. Environmental groups petitioned and sued to get critical habitat designated, CHAPA sued to get it overturned, the FWS took three years to redesignate it, and now here we go again.

    So, by your own words, you cite who began all the lawsuits over this issue. Enviro groups, who would've ever guessed? The fact of the matter is, it's pretty obvious that the Federal Courts agree with the pro-access groups, since they've sided with them twice! Now just who is wasting the taxpayers money and tying up courts yet a third time?

    And the irony is this suit won't do anything except waste money. NPS still has to do an ORV plan.

    Enviro groups don't seem to care about money wasting or tying up the court system. How very nice of you to employ a double-standard when the lawsuit comes from your foes. How about the millions of dollars that have been spent since the inception of the Consent Decree, with only a few more fledged birds to show for it? How about the money spent on signage for closures? How about the fact that the CHNSRA park rangers, who used to dress like the "Crocodile Hunter", now look like Marines on patrol, body armor, sidearms and tasers worn to protect against "Perceived" threats? How much taxpayer money has been spent on these items alone, not to mention all the other mandates required by the CD? Don't preach about wasting taxpayer money. It's the DOW creedo!

    We would not be having any of these conversations if the Enviro groups had not left the negotiating table and filed their own lawsuit while everyone else was attempting to hammer out the final plan. They are the one who left good-faith negotiations, and they hold the distinction of being the first to sue over this matter. It's like an analogy of the brat on the football field who actually owns the ball. They took said ball and went home when they didn't get their way.

    This lawsuit will likely shine the spotlight on much of the fuzzy science and questionable tactics employed by the enviro groups in both this matter and the matter of the final ORV plan, as they are intertwined. Much of this will not stand up well in court. You and your pals need to face that fact.

    I'll leave this thread for now with a parting picture for you. Below is the front cover of a brochure for ther Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area Circa 1955. This is just a gentle reminder that the intention of this area is, and always has been, to be used as a playground for Human Beings. The fact of the matter is, we can coexist with the other wonderful species that inhabit this area, just like we always have, ORV's included.

    The area must be managed, not shut down.