Recent comments

I have read Andrea's book. It is very well researched and extremely well written. Each story captivates the imagination. For those who enjoy a night out in the parks, sleeping with one eye open, this book is a must read.

Kurt-- Yellowstone is America's gift to the world. The creation of our first national park has sparked similar conservation efforts across the globe. Even the smallest of counties have their own "Yellowstones". We should be proud of our status as a pioneer in national park conservation movement. Millions of Americans have and will visit our Yellowstone and deserve the opportunity to comment on the standards of care being proposed for the park. The National Environmental Policy Act provides the framework for gathering the public's point of view of matters that are environmentally significant or controversial. Yellowstone's roll out of its third major draft EIS on how to manage winter use in the park certainly meets the NEPA test. Unforturnately, instead of making a good faith effort to hear what the public wants to say about the preferred alternative, Yellowstone has chosen to gather public comment in only 4 places. Three of these places, Cody, Wyoming, West Yellowstone, Montana, and St. Paul, Minnesota, are in the heart of snowmobiling country. There is no way for the park to obtain a representative sample of public opinion on this issue by holding the meetings in these places. Only in Denver, Colorado, the site of the only other hearing scheduled, is the park likely to hear public comment that favors one of the non-selected alternatives. I therefore urge the park to take a larger slice of public opinion by scheduling additional hearings. Failing that, I recommend that the decision documents record that the hearings were biased and not truly designed to seek a wide range of public comment.

Read your article and just wish that the skywalk was "Advertised as floating 2,000 feet above the canyon floor". Although it is floating 2,000' above the floor, they're advertising it as being 4,000' above. Julie Cart's article includes that false statement. The only article I've seen so far that gives the correct height was one on Bloomberg's website. "Gawkers Don Booties, Fight Vertigo at Grand Canyon's Skywalk"
By Mike Di Paola on April 17. http://www.bloomberg.com/ap...

Then there are the new "field institutes" that are popping up in places like Zion and Canyonlands, where you can pay big bucks to be guided on "exclusive" tours by park "experts". Meanwhile private tour operators on motor coaches and informal tour leaders with church groups and such are being bled to death with ever more regulations and liscencing fees just walk on the trails and give out informal interpretion to their own privately gathered groups. Check out Zion Superintendent Jock Whitworth's elaborate paperwork and regulatory exercises just for the privelege of talking to your own tour group, which includes passing a written test on Zion regulations!

At the same time these parks are claiming poverty when it comes to funding free interpretative services that have always been a hallmark of the national park experience. With entrance fees averaging $25 per park you have to wonder how much longer the paying public will tolerate more for less? I think the recent downward trend in park visitation is an accurate indicator of what that type of business model will ultimately yield.

It's going to take more than podcasts to get the public coming back as regular visitors to these increasingly over-priced, over regulated and elitist parks with their high priced institute tours and over burdensome and meddling mountains of governmental red tape.

National parks have been great for increasing the visitation levels of BLM and Forest Service lands. Keep up the good work green & gray!

The article I wrote was an attempt to express my displeasure over the way many senior instructors were 'cast aside' over the last several years. The way in which this transition to a newer set of instructors was handled was disrespectful and disappointing. We worked with Bill Orr for years and got used to being valued for our knowledge and appreciated for the time we spent training the new ranger recruits. Somehow, that professional demeanor has changed. In my frustration to deal with these dismissals, I felt I had to make some bold comments. I didn't think people would ask serious questions and review the effectiveness of the program without someone speaking up. I feared this would be considered a 'rant' from a disgruntled (sour grapes) employee, and be dismissed without asking how we can ensure the program maintains a high degree of professionalism and effectiveness. I hope the discussion which results leads to discovering all strengths and weaknesses within the program in order to move forward in a positive thoughtful manner.

Scott Dunn tells of internal turmoil within the program that distressed Bill. All of this could have been resolved easily and painlessly if addressed directly by the new Director, with open communications and a willingness to begin a dialogue focused on working together to improve the program. Bill was quick to get in touch with instructors to coordinate their course of study and address problems immediately. Communications between staff and the director must be two way and focused on benefiting the students and following required guidelines. Mandates by email and failure to address issues directly will adversely affect any program. I am sorry if I offended Scott Dunn, as he is one of the many dedicated and experienced instructors currently with the program.

In my earlier exposure to the students during practical exercises at the end of the course of study, I felt there needed to be more instances involving the use of weapons and deadly force when students practiced and displayed their skills for testing purposes. Due to the serious nature of the law enforcement job in today's parks, I worried that we may be letting people graduate after 9 weeks as certified LE rangers who may not be up to pulling a gun and shooting a felon should that be required. We had instances in the past when students 'freeze up' or refuse to use lethal force when confronted with scenarios requiring action. This is simply unacceptable and led to changes being required.

Andrew's response shows that felony exercises have been added back into the final testing scenarios. In addition, after-hour practices have been added during the last class intended to expose recruits to more practice time doing simulated visitor contacts and arrests. These changes should improve the students' performance and allow the extra time needed to become proficient.

I also work with the regular police academy, evaluating recruits that have spent 16 weeks solely devoted to law enforcement training. Even after this extended period, we find certain individuals lacking the skills and personal fortitude required during lethal encounters. As I now look at the issue of ranger academy graduate preparedness, I wonder if we are expecting too much of our graduates after just 9 weeks training. The addition of CA 832 training by the former Director, although a great idea to reduce time and money spent by CA parks to send recruits to another week of LE training, causes additional strain on the program which is already hard pressed to prepare our recruits properly in our short time frame. Because our time to train the recruits is so short, we must work harder to ensure they graduate with the skills and information needed to keep both themselves, and the public safe when performing their LE duties.

In conclusion, I want to make clear ' my beef is with the current Director who I hope will learn from the discussion and address areas of concern. The SRJC Ranger Academy has a tremendous team of dedicated and experienced instructors and staff who remain in the program and work in a new, well appointed and equipped facility. I apologize for starting the conversation on a negative bent, and want to encourage the Director and all instructors to work together closely to ensure this program resembles what Bill Orr intended, a quality ranger training program, always seeking ways to improve itself and continue offering excellent training and guidance to students aspiring to work in our local and national parks.

Erik-- You bring up a good point. I don't want Mtn. bikers in the arms of the Blue Ribbon Coalition either. Certainly the impact of mountain biking on park service area roads is much less than the impact of snowmobiles on the environment of Yellowstone or jet skis in the various park service areas where they are now permitted. That said, I still favor the ban on mountain biking in NPS wilderness areas. There are plenty of dirt roads in parks where biking is a perfectly acceptable use. But NPS wilderness areas are different. They represent some of the most pristine places we have left in America. I am not in favor of cutting new single tracks through these areas so that bikers can use them. And that's what we would have to do. Biking and hiking aren't very compatible on the same trails. The argument that stock use is more harmful in wilderness than biking is is a good point. At least in the American West, stock use is very traditional. It would be very difficult to regulate this use more than it already is. I read somewhere that Death Valley has 785 miles of dirt roads open to mountain biking. Big Bend, one of the pilot projects within the NPS-IMBA agreement has great dirt roads for biking. I see no reason to cut more trails through parks to augment the already-existing opportunities. If one googles "mountain biking in national parks", one finds information on the areas in parks that are already open to this activity. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

As a graduate of this program, a former park ranger, a Sheriff's Lieutenant and a current and long time instructor in this program (since 1988), I am deeply offended by the allegations made. This program is outstanding. How many programs offer the quality of instruction by working professionals active within their area of instructional expertise. When Director Scott Verse took over the program there were only three working NPS rangers teaching, now there are ten and more on the way.

How many programs have the learning environment we have at the Santa Rosa Public Safety Training Center' on-site range, EVOC course, simulators, computers and a scenario village complete with a visitor center and campground. Bill Orr was very proud of this program, and taught as long as his health would allow. Bill's pride, was illustrated in the letter submitted to the NPS Signpost, days before he lost his battle with cancer.

Yes there has been some internal turmoil with the program. Much of this has been spawned by instructors who were resistant to complying with way the program is now being administered. A program meeting compliance with new regulations and adult learning concepts. The director's requirement of instructors to update and submit resumes, lesson plans, and handout materials brought an amazing amount of resistance from many of the long-term instructors. Why? Perhaps because they were reluctant to change their old fashion ways, outdated materials and stale lectures. Many of which were still using materials dated from the 70's. One who was even telling students to remove a bottle out of a drunk's hand with a Bruce Lee style spin kick'. It appalls me to see the petty undermining and backstabbing occur due to this resistance to change. During my visits with Bill, weeks before his death, I know this pettiness saddened him too. I see a small group of sour grapes trying to spoil the program because they refuse to get with the program and get with the times.

PS. I do know Mr. Foster and have always gotten along well with him. He is entitled to his opinion, but I don't believe he is speaking for the majority.

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