Recent comments

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

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.