Recent comments

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 42 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 42 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 42 weeks ago

    Well said!!!

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 weeks ago

    Wow, that's great!

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   5 years 42 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 42 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.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 42 weeks ago


    So, george53, tell us what "for EVERYONE" really means to you?

    For "EVERYONE" all at once? For "EVERYONE," with each one bringing in an ATV? For "EVERYONE" with the same level of use and the same technology used at the time the Seashore was established? For "EVERYONE" without regard to more recent environmental laws, passed by the representatives of all citizens of the United States, because of the recognition that America's environment was deteriorating, and those citizens had learned no national park exists in isolation?

    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?

    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."

  • Leave it to the Beaver   5 years 42 weeks ago

    I love it! I'm guessing those two boaters went snipe hunting for their next outing! Great story, Thanks!

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago

    One would think the change in administrations would make a perfect time for the folks at DOI and Ag to sit down and sort through their maze of properties and see which really fit best where. From time to time one hears rumors of the Forest Service being moved over to Interior. Perhaps BLM would fit better under Ag. But that would be just for starters.

    When one starts talking about trends, I think one of those that is obvious is that there are more than a few questionable NPS properties. In light of the current economic crisis, and the NPS's long-term fiscal crisis, would it be unwise to not just consider where the various BLM, FS and NPS properties best fit, but which ones should fit? We'll examine this question a bit more closely in the not-too-distant future.

    The challenge if one went down this road, though, is producing a sound and amenable solution. What one person sees as a waste of federal time and dollars, others see as a personal favorite.

  • Climbing is Capped at Mount McKinley and Climbers are Left to Wonder What’s Next   5 years 42 weeks ago

    Sabattis, as attractive as your ration-by-price scheme might seem at first blush, I doubt you'd find many Americans who'd endorse an access rationing system for our premier national park experiences that unabashedly favors wealthy people (especially foreigners) over people of ordinary means. Yes, let's cap the number of permits at a reasonable level. Yes, let's price the permits in relation to the park's cost for providing the services. But let's distribute the permits via a lottery or other means (such as a reservation system with waiting list) that doesn't ration by price. In any event, when the crunch comes -- that is, when the demand for permits far exceeds the supply -- we should never employ a rationing process that allows wealthy internationals to push aside Americans and go to the front of the line.

  • Climbing is Capped at Mount McKinley and Climbers are Left to Wonder What’s Next   5 years 42 weeks ago

    It seems self-evident that some sort of limit is the right way to go. After all, the capacity of Mt. McKinley is not infinite - if you think 1,500 is too low, could the mountain handle 3,000 climbers? 6,000? The real question is how should the National Park Service allocate the slots. It doesn't seem like its on the table, but the one that would have the most benefit to the Park System would be an auction - and given that climbing Mt. McKinley is an activity primarily for the wealthy (and very often for international travelers that are not contributing tax dollars), an auction seems a very reasonable way to go for allocating the permits once the limit starts being reached.

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago

    I've noticed an interested connection between several Traveler articles recently, including this one, the article on China's "First" National Park, and the article on "Did the NPS Ever Manage this National Monument". It seems that many National Park issues are arising from the fact that the "Big Four" Federal Land agencies no longer really have definitive lines drawn between them based on the purpose of the of the lands that they manage. I mean you have protected places of National significance like Misty Fjords being managed by the Forest Service, large remote tracts of wild land that are not really suitable for visitation like Bering Land Bridge National Preserve being manged by the Park Service, a mix of the same resource being split between BLM's Canyon of the Ancients National Monument the Park Service's Hovenweep National Monument (which although it came first, is now a National Monument within a National Monument), and there are probably any number of other combinations in between. With the various Federal lands such a mess of designations, its no surprise that there is no right answer to figure what is the right level of use in one area vs. another.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 42 weeks ago

    My comment was directed at those who wish to take away the area,s that was designated as recreation area,s That is what Hatteras seahore was set aside for.. For EVERYONE not just birds And turtles. It has been proved time and again all can coexist.

  • Interior Officials Release Draft Reports on Climate Change   5 years 42 weeks ago

    Ummm, scroll down to the third graph from the bottom and click on that blue link that says "this site" and you'll be taken to the page where you can download the reports.

  • Interior Officials Release Draft Reports on Climate Change   5 years 42 weeks ago

    where's the report? this only tells us what they're supposed to do and who they're made up of, what happened to the report? is this just to tell us we're to stupid to know, just pay someone to pretend they're doing something?