Recent comments

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I am so sorry to see this ruling come about. I have hiked and backpacked in parks for years and felt safe. This is a most unfortunate turn of events and to be expected from an outgoing president. Carrying a firearme does not mean you won't be overpowered by two legged predators. It may mean the gain access and use it on you. I do not look forward to seeing bullet holes in signs and structures all over the park.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I live on the olympic penninsula in the state of Washington if you look at a map this is 80% national park, all mountains. We hike and camp this park all the time, over 1 million acres. I also have a carry permet for the state of Washington and I am very happy about the new ruleing to allow me to protect my family and myself. In the past, Washington state has had some trouble in our parks by NONE law abiding people, I will feel much more at ease when I meet someone or something on the trail 20 miles in the back country now. I think that this is one for the law abiding citizens. I would just like to thank President Bush for opening his eyes to this. I use to only carry70% of the time, now I can carry 100% of the time, it's like a cell phone or wrist watch I'll never leave home without it!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    "Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law..."

    I find it shameful but VERY typical of the Bush administration that officials at the DOI could care so little about respecting it's own established processes of examination. (Scientific fact-based review? Bad. Reactionary paranoid legislative decisions? Good.)
    It's very clear why the administration has chosen this path yet again: to try and push a political agenda they clearly fear will have little support if the general public were to closely examine the issue. If it weren’t afraid of failing, why did it wait until now to put this law through? Once again the Bush administration blatantly ignores professional opinion (and for that matter the majority of public commentary) on an issue that effects us all in order to push a political agenda based on fear and paranoia. Absolutely shameful.

    As for readers of this blog, if everyone here is such a great fan of The Bill of Rights, The Constitution, and the FULL legislative processes that have made our country so great, why are they not questioning the administration's disregard for the very laws and processes that help protect our public lands? So far, the published commentary here in favor of this new radical gun decision seems NOT to mention the administration's continual blatant disregard for established legislative procedure. How come??

    The issue of environmental impact should be utmost in every legislative and procedural change that effects our public lands, especially our National Parks. Unfortunately, gun rights advocates conveniently have chosen to ignore this aspect of legal process so as to serve their own political agenda.
    Gun rights advocates need to question the administration's motives in ignoring this crucial part of the process, for the administration had to realize it would be appealed (and most likely overturned) BECAUSE it ignored this part of the process. So one could infer that the DOI, Secretary Kempthorne, and President Bush knowingly pushed through this lame-duck decision to purposely appease the NRA and it’s more vocal supporters. But you must all realize that the current administration really has no interest in any rule, law, or short-term decision that will not improve it’s own public approval rating, even if it only lasts for the next 4 weeks.

    Scientific logic dictates that more guns (or more of ANYTHING) in the National Parks will have an environmental impact which must be thoroughly examined before any final decisions are made. If you truly love these national treasures, why not fully support the laws and procedures created to protect them for us and for future generations?

    As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt "threatened" by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments' notice.
    I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?

    Gun rights advocates also continually ignore the secret undercurrents of this issue that the Bush administration is certainly well aware of: The roots of contemporary gun rights arguments that are based in 18th and 19th century ideas of classism, oppression, and racism.
    As a society, let’s finally put these aspects of this issue on the table and have a REAL debate about gun rights that truthfully examine why the dialectic of fear is still so prevalent in personal gun rights issues.
    But please, keep your guns locked up in your safe at home while we bring this debate to light, and please please please keep them out of public parks.
    They just don’t belong there.

    The need to keep a loaded gun on your person at all times in order to feel like a righteous citizen is an issue for yourself to examine and decide on, but do you need to force that personal ideal on me while I’m trying to look at birds in the forest??

  • Memorial Ceremony for Pearl Harbor Day   5 years 46 weeks ago

    How ironic that on this date I should read this story. A story about a soldier asking for asylum in Germany because he didn’t want to fight, didn’t believe in the war in the middle east. Here is a volunteer who took an oath to serve and wouldn’t and the comments were mostly praising him for his decision. Thank God he and those who support him are the minority. Where would this country be if they were the majority? They disgrace the memory of the self-sacrifice and bravery of those who gave their lives in defense of our country. He and anyone like him should be shot for desertion. I, like many others was drafted, didn’t want to go but did what we had to do. Fly the flag tomorrow to honor all who made the supreme sacrifice.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    Yeeeeee haw! Ride 'em, cowboy, ride 'em! Was there ever any doubt but that this rule would be made by Bush & Co.? We will all remember Bush for many years to come. At least, I hope we all remember what he has done to this country!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I will definitely feel much safer now in the backcountry from predators...the 2-legged kind!
    Thank you, President Bush for allowing us women more security and freedom to enjoy the parks...I never felt safe in campgrounds alone (a lot of weird people out there), let alone the backcountry! A tiny lady like myself could be so easily overpowered by some of the big guys I see on the trail. Now they will think twice, not knowing whether I am armed!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    YES!!! It's about time that our citizenry's right to protect themselves doesn't end at the park gate!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I have been a gun owner and licensed carrier since I was 18, when I turned 21 I became a police officer. I have visited many parks across our country over the years with my wife and kids. One comment I have shared with my wife was that I would like to have my gun with me when we are out on walks and just driving around the parks. I am away of the different issues that officals will face, but if I had my choice I would prefer to have my own protection with me at all times. If people are going to do illegal acts, a law will not prevent this action from happening wether it's one way or the other. As I have visited many parks, I have never seen a ranger on any of the trails and very few, probably no more than 3 the entire time I have been in the diffrent parks I have visited. I believe everyone should be able to protect themselves if the are responsible to due so. As with any firearm, I believe you shold be responsible in order to carry and follow all laws and regulations for the area you are in. If people want to poach they will, and if people want to carry in the parks, they will which I'm sure they have been already. We just need to be very responsible and punish the illegal actions of the criminals that shouldn't be carrying in the first place.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 46 weeks ago

    Wow, the comments of many in here are downright scary at times and simply retarded at others. The simple fact is that someone who goes to the trouble, training and expense of obtaining a CCW is 99.99% of the time a person I, and my family, are not in any way shape or form concerned about having a firearm on their person. The simple fact is there have been many instances of people being prayed on in a national park, not only by criminals, but yes, wild animals. You people do realize that wild animals do exist in a National Park don't you? How would you like to come across a bear with your young children and realize you have no way of protecting that child should a wild animal decide to attack? This does not mean that any gun owner wants to have to shoot an animal, or a person for that matter, ever! It means last resort, me, my child, or a bear I'm going to protect my child and my family. If you want to be a victim, if you want to be forced to stand by while you or your family are attacked, you go right ahead, however, the Constitution of this country states that I have an implicit right to self protection and an implicit right to a firearm for that protection. If you don't like it then that same Constitution has a mechanism to change that Constitution and you are free to try and do so. Until that day, tough beans. And for the record, I am a gun owner, I don't have a CCW and I have never felt the need to have one nor carry my gun, but that doesn't mean I, or anyone else doesn't have that right. If you can't handle that, then as I said, change it or go somewhere where you don't have those rights. If you're a Park Ranger and you don't like, retire, go do something else, but don't you dare for a second think you have the right to take away my rights. We employ you, not the other way around.

  • The Green Blood of the Coalition of NPS Retirees   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I always hear the mantra:
    LETS SAVE OUR PARKS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS... Sounds reasonable? Right now the Parks are trying to limit traffic and visitors to "Save" the park for future generations. Well let me explain the facts to you... The proper way is to allow the Public right now to take FULL advantage of the parks now because: In the future as population increases there will be NO Parks.. Go ahead and save Yellowstone and keep people from using it limit the traffic,, go broke because people quit coming and spending money funding the parks.. This goes for all National Parks. It takes only one body of Congress to sell off the parks, to allow condos to be built and allow very rich private individuals to build estates in them. There will be no parks for the future!!! Use the Park to its fullest now, develop it for the tourists now. A hundred years from now it will be a rich mans condo complex. Political winds change and so do the perception of the "right thing to do" Save the parks for future generations?? Develope the parks for the present, allow corporate sponsorship.. When the money is shunted of other projects, parks will be neglected, closed, and eventually with the federal drain and present fisical realities become apparant, the Feds will sell off the parks piecemeal... Open your eyes, look at the present and forget the future... Yellowstone probably will be a Chinese Amusement Park in 100 years!!!

  • The Green Blood of the Coalition of NPS Retirees   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I see the Coalition is against the Modificaton of the Firearms Ban in all National Parks. I am a ex Police Officer, and have EXTENSIVE experience working for the D.O.D. I have traveled the entire country and have spent many days in the National parks. What is so "Dangerous" about Law Abiding Permit holders posessing a weapon? The group claims some sort of confusion with the issue? What would be the source of the confusion? I have been in many states, including the one I live that that permits conceled weapons, there is no confusion here nor have I seen any... Wouldn't it be a perfect world if there were no two legged Preditors but unfortunately the ones carrying the ILLEGAL weapons are the ones accosting people in the parks!! I am a TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND A TRAINED SOLDIER.. I would rather know that a few people around me have LEGAL Permitted weapons on their person. The ones that are the danger are the Criminals that don't care what law they are breaking. If weapons are not permitted in the Park does that mean the Criimals will not bring weapons into the park? Is there a database that tells you how many people have been accosted by armed Thugs in National parks, harmed or Murdered? What about the murdered women found in the car trunk in Yosomite? I have heard all the arguements before even when my state passed a conceiled weapons possession bill.. They all swore it would be like Dodge City At High Noon.. Check the FBI stats.. Every EVERY STATE THAT HAS PASSED A WEAPONS PERMITTING LAW HAS HAD A DROP IN VIOLENT CRIME!! I could try to appeal to LOGIC but it is all the same ole Liberal Mantra.. Yada Yada..... The thing that scares me worse in a National Park than an honest legal permitted weapons holder, is one of the dozens and dozens 85 pound female Park rangers carrying a weapon five sizes too large for her size. Strap a weapon on a female that size and she instantly thinks she is SARGENT YORK! My opinion is most 85 pound female park rangers cannot be trained well enough not to be disarmed or even be able to take a 200 pound man into custody. As I say, I have been in some pretty bad and rank places.. I have NEVER seen a woman ever be able to protect themseves in a combat situation.. With the current stage of world events, Terrorism, and such.. perhaps we Americans need to go back to the days of John Wayne.... If you can figure a way to eliminate all weapons from a National Park including stones and wooden clubs, I would be happy to leave my handgun home. I welcome some "Licensed gun slinger to come to my rescue when the THUGS TRY TO ATTACK ME. Oh yea, I have been threatened in a National Park when hiking... an armed Ranger at the Main Gate ten miles away does not instill the feeling of safety for me. This is not the old days of Opie and Mayberry. The world has changed and with the influx of foreign cultures you need to learn that the person next to you will slit your throat just for looking at him the wrong way....

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 46 weeks ago

    I'm very glad to see this passed. As a law enforcement officer, I recongnize, unlike many others, that there are hundreds of tousands of folks just like myself who carry a concealed firearm while off-duty, solely for the protection of myself and others.

    Criminals don't care about laws. With the old law, the criminals would still carry their weapons onto the federal land, while the law abiding citizens would follow the law and not carry. That would create federal lands, with only criminals having firearms.

    With the passage of this law, you may still have the criminals carrying guns where they aren't suppose to, but at least you will also have people like myself there able to defend my own family, and maybe even yours.

    It is common sense, but unfortunately many people don't have that, it just can't be taught...

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 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 46 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 46 weeks ago
  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   5 years 46 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 46 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 46 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 46 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 46 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 46 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 46 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 46 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 46 weeks ago

    Well said!!!

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   5 years 46 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.