Recent comments

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Sigh, so much for trying to bring a little levity to this worn-out topic.

    Perhaps it is time to take on the roads and all those killer cars, trucks and buses. At least then we'd know for sure what was driving the decline in national park visitation!

  • NPCA, PEER Voice Concerns Over Proposed Mountain Bike Rule Change In National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago

    IMTN, re: "No one I know of has offered, with similar convincing detail, a kindred personal account about being displaced or forced to hike radically damaged trails because of bicycles. Moreover, the available science runs counter to Anonymous's assertion that mountain biking damages trails more than hiking."

    I'm not sure what kind of "kindred personal account" you'd like or "available science" you read that shows biking is no more damaging than hiking, but I've been on some trails in the Stanley Basin of Idaho that very easily could be described as "thrashed" by bikers. Trails where rocks rise 6-8 inches and more above the trail bed because tires have eroded away the soil, trails that pass through riparian areas that have been shredded by bikers not wanting to follow their friends' tires so they swing a little wider each time, trails where the elbows of switchbacks have grown wider and wider and more and more concave from biking pressures.

    As for the courtesy of some mountain bikers, I was riding a single track with my wife and a friend when two bikers came upon us so quickly and quietly that they were on our rear tires before we knew it and somehow managed to pass us.

    Sadly, your belief that the majority of mountain bikers "ride politely and with sensitivity to others" runs counter to my personal experience and certainly would seem to run counter to IMBA's perception as to what mountain bikers want. Here's a snippet from a post I wrote three years ago (so perhaps IMBA's position has changed):

    The other day Jenn Dice, IMBA's government relations director, told a member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees that the organization's members want to see single-track trails in the parks because a majority of the membership finds dirt roads "boring and mind-numbing, and not the kind of fun they are looking for."

    In fact, IMBA's official stance when it comes to developing mountain bike tourism is that "single track is essential." A little box attesting to that tidbit can be found on IMBA's website. Elsewhere in the website is this gem: "Mountain bikers crave single-track and designing interconnecting single-track trails will bring them in droves."

    Also, for what it's worth, a mountain biker had his bike confiscated in a Midwestern national park unit last year for "poaching" an extreme ride in that park. And there was an instance at the Grand Canyon a year or so ago when two or three mountain bikers on a cross-country trip actually managed to ride rim to rim -- even though it's against the park regs. They were caught when they chronicled the ride on their website.

    Do these instances/comments reflect the majority of mountain bikers? Maybe, maybe not. As we all know, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. But in the case of a speed sport like mountain biking, when compared to walking, it wouldn't take too many bad apples to create significant problems in a national park setting. I've never heard of one hiker running over another hiker, yet I've come very close while walking on a shared-use trail to being run over by a mountain biker a time or two. In fairness, I've also encountered some very considerate mountain bikers, and like to view myself as one.

    And, to be sure, there are bad apples in the hiking community as well, those who trash backcountry campsites and fragment trails by going cross-country because they can't be bothered with negotiating the entire switchback.

    Perceptions are tough to overcome. Just look at the bulk of the comments directed at equestrians. (For what it's worth, while horses are much larger and heavier than mountain bikes and do indeed exact a considerable toll on trails, I've never encountered a horse traveling as fast as a mountain bike on a trail and never had to dodge one to keep from being run over.)

    I can't help but return to what I've pointed out many times before, and what others have also focused on: national park landscapes are managed with a much different intent than Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management landscapes. Those areas have an institutional multiple-use bent, whereas Park Service lands foremost are to be conserved for future generations to enjoy. Why that is so difficult for some to digest I don't know.

    I think it would be an interesting experiment to follow the course of two landscapes -- one Forest Service or BLM, the other Park Service -- that share a common boundary, the first with mountain bike trails, the second with only hiking trails, and study the associated impacts over the course of ten or 20 years.

    If anyone knows of such a present-day study, please forward it.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Great topic and I'm glad it's come up again. First of all anti-gun people refuse to accept the fact that not just anyone can carry a handgun into a National Park and when they do, it cannot be into a concession area or park office. Secondly, only licensed and trained concealed carry persons would be allowed to carry and only in states where there is a reciprocity agreement with their home state where they are licensed. So someone from Texas cannot carry a handgun in Yosemite because California doesn't recognize a Texas CCW license. Simple. Illinois and Wisconsis don't issue CCWs so they don't recognize anyone. Personally, I feel this is a mistake because U.S. tax dollars are going to support all fedaral parks and a bona fide CCW permit holder should be allowed to carry, but the argument came up that in the event of a violation, the CCW holder would be prosecuted under the laws of the state the park is in.

  • Freeze On New Regs Could Impact Efforts to Expand Mountain Biking in National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Is it just me or is anyone else getting tired of all these special interests raising a ruckus crying out, "What about me!?!” Whether it be natural resource extraction (oil & gas, coal, etc.), snowmobiling, or in this case mountain biking, in and around our National Parks, it appears that no one will be happy until they all have their short-sighted wants & needs met. When did this country become such a bunch of whiners?
    Before I go any farther, let me just go on record that I am a staunch Republican and a member of the Sierra Club. I am a hiker, a road cyclist, and a mountain biker. And I am a firm believer that OUR National Parks are not some playground that needs to open themselves up further to the type of destruction that mountain biking can cause----I've seen it on other lands, and I've admittedly helped contribute to it.
    The key distinction is that I did this where it was permitted or at least not restricted by law. I, unlike some other commenters in this post, appear to have no problem adhering to the status quo and biking in any of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of acres where it is currently allowed. "But I can't mountain bike where I WANT to." I have just two words---Boo Hoo!
    Zebulon, I'll give you credit for articulate arguments, but let me address some of the problems I had with them here:
    - "Betty, our parks belong to all of us and not to a favorite minority of users. Whether there are other places to bike is completely irrelevant to whether local parks should decide whether to let bicyclists on existing trails." Well, you got it half right. The parks do belong to all of us, not just those of us that mountain bike (the minority of users). Whether there are other places to bike is not irrelevant, it is precisely the point because that is what the LAW tells us it is okay. Don't like it?---BOO HOO!
    - "Joan, all great points. Let me address them if I may. "I can still use the trails; I just need to walk them". How would you feel if we turned the argument around and banned hiking? You could still use the trails; you would just to ride a bike like the others."" If that is what the LAW states then that is what you do. If the hikers didn't like it, then --- you guessed it! Bad argument.
    - As for not want to road bike in a National Park because it "1) it hurts my back too much and 2) I don't get the same kick out of it. :)" You don't get the same kick out of it---wait I feel a single tear welling up. Wait. No. Sorry, my mistake.
    - And lastly, the biased study that you referred to (, is only biased because you don't like what it said. As a mountain biker, I saw nothing wrong with the science.
    OUR country's National Parks were set aside in perpetuity for the enjoyment of ALL of its people, and the best way to accomplish this and still enjoy them once the pavement ends is by going forward on foot. Don't like it, go somewhere else and bike. But by all means, stop your whining.

  • Singer Dolly Parton Named Ambassador for Great Smoky Mountains National Park's Anniversary   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Larry, did you see Dolly on "Larry King Live" a few days ago? She was great.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Camper shot by bear who found drug dealer's hand gun left on ground in the National Park... oh this is good, what a storiy for the media.

    Does anyone here actually think that drug dealers bother with taking classes for a concealed carry license? They break laws! This will have no affect on them one way or the other... And they didn't go to thier local gunshop and purchase it legally either.

    God forbid, I wonder how attitudes would change if a child was being attacked by a bear for getting just a little too close by accident and a law abiding licensed gun owner camping next to you saved that child's life? This is a more realistic scenario. This is not the big city that you live in, this is Wild life and we are invading thier territory. We need to protect it, understand it and respect it. But there is nothing wrong with being prepared to deal with it when things go wrong.

    Too bad the anti-gunner's don't have any idea just how many guns travel through the National Parks system on a daily basis right now without incident.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    What about "controlled" burns? Doesn't this activity kill lots of animals in the name of "ecosystem management" ? What about the seemingly arbitrary decision to let a forest fire "burn itself out" ? Depending on the time of year these ghastly infernos can burn through a lot of wildlife.

    Again, as Frank has already pointed out, and I was a ranger too, the biggest single killer of wildlife in parks are ROADS. I can't tell you how many critters I've had to scrape off the road or shoot after being wounded by a car.

    This issue is a non-starter with me and as I've said before: guns, the more the merrier whether it be in the city or the wilds of God's great open spaces.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    What would wildlife say about cars in national parks?

    Cars kill tens of millions of animals on our nation's highways each year. It's really not a pretty picture.

    CCW permit holders do not use their weapons on protected wildlife, and I challenge the editors and readers of this site to produce any evidence to the contrary.

    Those who drive in a national park, however, are guilty of killing some form of wildlife, whether insects like dragonflies, beetles, bees, or endangered butterflies, or chipmunks, squirrels, birds, deer, bears, endangered panthers, kangaroo rats, coyotes, skunks, bob cats, snakes, bats, foxes, raccoons, tarantulas, toads, turtles, opossums, and on and on.

    Why, when this site covers repaving park roads, do the editors and commentators of this site not ask if we have "considered the wildlife's point of view"? Not to do so--while embracing a red herring, appeal-to-fear fallacy that law abiding CCW permit holders will illegally kill wildlife--is pure hypocrisy.

    Oh, and by the way, just in case anyone takes that photo seriously, the gun has clearly been photo shopped into the photo, and poorly; it's pure propaganda being spread by the anti-gun lobby.

  • NPCA, PEER Voice Concerns Over Proposed Mountain Bike Rule Change In National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago


    Muir woods has plenty of dirt trails (hiking only of course :)) that start from the bottom and go up toward Mt Tamalpais. I heard that they are quite fun to ride as well. :) Anyway, the point is that Muir woods is a huge attraction to hikers of all stripes, but the vast majority of them sticks to the asphalt portion of the park, which I found to be quite ironic.

    Lee: you're stuck on that nonsensical definition of mechanized. Somehow, bikes are mechanized while carbon fiber poles, snow shoes, and pedal equipped cayaks are not. That is irrational. Just be honest and come out and say that you don't want to share your public parks with others. BTW, the dimishing number of people visiting the parks does not seem to support your vision that a growing number of citizens want to escape mechanized society. The truth is that a growing number of people can't seem to escape their couch.

    Anonymous: the vast majority of park users are not dedicated hikers, they're casual strollers. They come in, walk around for a couple miles and go home. Equestrians are by far the smallest user group, and diminishing. Out here in CA, they're somewhere below 1% of all park users. The last statistic I read said that there were 30ish mountain bikers for every equestrian.

    Trail impact of bicycles: if trail impact was the real reason for not allowing bikes, horses would have kicked out a long time ago based on how badly they trample everything they ride on.

    Bottom line: this is all politics and established user group selfishness and nothing else.

  • Pine Beetle Outbreak Leads to Fewer Campground Sites in Rocky Mountain National Park   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Shame that the beetles are damaging so many trees. Would low grade forest fires also kill beetles ? If not we could spray the tree with liquid nitrogen which would lower the temperature enough to kill beetle where they want to diminsh the population like campgrounds.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Oh I am glad you all enjoyed my caption.

    Maybe someday there will be parks where the game animals hunt humans and vice versa. I read SF story where that happened. I would not be surprised if hunters would not take that challenge.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    CCW allowed in NPS should not have any effect since it would only be used in dire circumstance and all here has indicated NPS are generally very safe. Normal prudent human behavior for animal encounters should keep any need for a CCW holder to use the weapon to shoot an animal.

    Visitors shold not be aware since it is concealed. The big diiference is for drivers not having to disarm every time they cross a NPS boundary while driving.

    Enviromental impact is non existant since discharge except for self defense is not allowed and not the purpose of CCW holders.

    As to Mr Bane, I disagee why should not Americans enjoy the second amendment rights in NPS? Why are we to be restricted to National Forests? The restriction is not logical.

    No one has the right to deny another of their rights. So NPS visitors do not have a right to deprive gun holders of their rights. The only right the non gun people have is to their own choice. They can not decide for me what rights I should enjoy or not. I do not have that right to tell them what rights to exercise or not!

    So people who prefer to be where guns are not permitted want to restrict others rights, but think they have a right to dictate what rights other should enjoy and where they can enjoy them.

    Sorry I do not believe that is good reasoning. No one has superior rights to say that another can not exercise their right to free speech, own, keep and bear arms, free expression and practice of religion, and the right of free assciation. My fourth amendment rights are the same in NPS lands as in any city.

    So Mr Bane's suggestion is inherently unfair.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    oh yeah - not to steal RAH's thunder, but his comment was a bumpersticker in the late 70s/early 80s

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    I really wish someone would explain to me why anyone thinks they need to carry a concealed weapon in a national park... In fact, why are we the only country obsessed with the desire to carry guns everywhere we go? Any questions about how we got to the point of believing we need to carry a conceal weapon in a national park? This seems ridiculous! & I was raised with rifles & handguns, enjoy recreational target shooting, & have worked in a pack-in hunting camp in Wyoming, so don't tell me I'm anti-gun!

  • Secretary Salazar Calls for Review Of Gun Rules in National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago

    MRC, Thanks for the links. If I interpreted the bear info it indicates that bluff charges are rare and considered 'encounters" that should be reported. It also says what to do if the charge turns from bluff to real. Which is curl up and offer no resistance. But the advice if how to resist a bear attack to a tent is quite different and indicates to fight back any way possible. So if a bear charges and attacks why should we not take the advice that is given for a tent attack? Any bear that charges a human is dangerous. It seems that bear charges can lead to real charges if the bear gets in the habit of doing bluff charge. Adverse conditioning seems indictated in bluff charges like loud noise ,large size and maybe pulling a gun to shoot if the bear continues the charge. That is if you have enough time.

    As to your expereince with the moose, that behavior in herd animals is common to protect young and usualy will swerve away. I have had horses for decades and they act the same. I would expect a bear to charge if I got too close to a cub or between mom and cub. I still would like the ability to defend myself if the bear means business.

    Yes, I was asking if any here have had a bluff charge? The moose charge is not quite the same since moose are not predators. Bears and cougars are predators.

    Also any info on how to distinguish from a bluff to a real charge before you allow contact?

    Like I said east coast advice does not talk about bluff charges and is not normal bear behavior and any deliberate approach of a bear to a human is considered dangerous.

    I have heard that grizzlies being more aggresive will charge, but I do not believe that I have to suffer a charge and an attack before defending myself.

    If bear bluff charegs are as rare as indicated then the numbers of violant encounters between a bear and a CCW holder would be rare indeed and would not be a significant enviromental impact.

  • Arches National Park Finds Its Birthday Overshadowed By Drilling Concerns   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Connie, you are creating a false choice between two scenarios when the real answer is that wind power AND oil drilling are problematic eyesores. It is not right to drill helter-skelter just because wind turbines are hypocritical (and I agree they are).

    AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not a "religion" just because some uneducated AM DJ says so. It's common sense that people are causing it, unless you can prove that CO2 has no ability to trap heat, or that people are not releasing it in vast, unnatural quantities. Get with the science.

    There is nowhere near enough oil in the U.S. (including Alaska) to supply our 20 million barrel per day habit (in good economic times it will grow again). Few right-wing reactionaries bother to do the math. To make it very simple, at a conservative 20 million barrels per day we are using a BILLION barrels every 50 days. Estimated reserves in ANWR and coastal drilling combine to about 30 billion barrels in best-case scenarios, so do the math. That's only 30 x 50 days, which equals about 4 years of "independence from foreign oil."

    Independence? All it will do is keep us stuck in an increasingly desperate oil rut, relying more and more on Canadian tar sands or the truly land-wrecking spectre of shale mining, which has yet to be proven practical. Fossil fuels simply have downsides. There was no contract that guaranteed an easy ride forever when the first well was discovered.

    Nuclear may be the best semi-sustainable (electricity) solution that doesn't wreck the landscape. New mini nuclear reactors hold a lot of promise for small towns and rural areas. You bury them deep in the ground and they require very little maintenance. Fear of everything nuclear needs to be overcome.

    The long term solution to energy problems is halting mindless population growth (with global replacement-level birth control) and permanently stopping demand growth. Only then can we get a baseline for rational policies that don't involve continuous pillaging of the land under phony "green" banners or through old extractive industries.

  • Singer Dolly Parton Named Ambassador for Great Smoky Mountains National Park's Anniversary   5 years 48 weeks ago

    I love Dolly, who does'nt? I love the way she works for the preservation and promotion of the Great Smoky Mountains. I wish we could get her to help us stop the destruction of our beautiful mountains us here in East Kentucky by the Mountain Top Removal coal mining process. I was raised in the mountains of Kentucky as poor as Dolly was and she was always adored up here for the duration of her country music career. Dolly darlin if you ever slow down and get some time come up here and help us save the mountains of East Ky. We come down to DollyWood and support the area around Severville with our tourist dollars, beautiful place and it may be the only way we will be able to see a mountain if someone will not help us save ours.

    and then sing "BlueRidge Mountain Boy" to

  • NPCA, PEER Voice Concerns Over Proposed Mountain Bike Rule Change In National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Anonymous of four posts above describes himself as a mountain biker but admits that he rides heedlessly ("I get mad when I have to slow down"). He wants to assign his misconduct to a whole generation of mountain bikers in his region. (Maybe it's midtown Manhattan.) It's fine that he admits to personal misbehavior, but I and thousands of mountain bikers don't want to be lumped in with him, because we ride politely and with sensitivity to others.

    Regarding Anonymous's assertion that "the trails (wilderness) that don't allow bikes are not as shredded as the ones that allow biking (nonwilderness)," here's what one backpacker wrote of his Wilderness experiences with commercial horse pack trains in 2006:

    "My trip to Stanley Hot Springs was full of surprises. This was my first trip into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, which was the 1st Wilderness Area designated in Idaho and one of the first of the entire United States. It lies directly north of the massive Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, and is separated from the Frank by only one road, the Magruder Road.

    "We broke camp at Wilderness Gateway Campground at 4 a.m. in an effort to beat the heat. We were unfortunate to arrive during a week-long heat wave of mid-90s to 100+ temperatures. The last part of the hike down to Rock Creek was rough. There was little water, the trail was thrashed and loaded with horse poop due to extreme outfitter activity—in many places it was like hiking up jagged stairs. And, horse traffic on the trail proved cumbersome as the heat ratcheted up.

    "Horses have the right-of-way here, so every time they are encountered backpackers and hikers have to get off the trail, approx. 5-6 feet below the horses and crush beautiful foliage as a result while the horses pass and kick rocks and dirt all over the party below. This makes for slow going, and if you have heavy backpacks on can really suck. We had to do it 4 times. Some of the outfitters were actually upset at having to deal with us backpackers, I think it was because our dogs spooked their horses and one of them spilled their beer. All in this particular party were drinking beer and smoking cigars while on the trail."


    No one I know of has offered, with similar convincing detail, a kindred personal account about being displaced or forced to hike radically damaged trails because of bicycles. Moreover, the available science runs counter to Anonymous's assertion that mountain biking damages trails more than hiking.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    I have owned and used firearms from my pre-teens. My father trained me to be a hunter. I certainly am not an anti gun nut, but I believe that there should be limits to the right to own and possess firearms. All rights have reasonable limits. I have no problem obeying laws and regulations limiting the carrying of personal loaded firearms on airplanes, trains, busses or in most parks. For those who feel they cannot feel safe without a gun strapped to them, simply go where you are permitted to carry. There are lots of national forests and other public lands that allow the possession of a firearm. Why not respect the right of people who prefer the idea of being where guns are not permitted by the general public? To me that seems a fair exchange.

  • NPCA, PEER Voice Concerns Over Proposed Mountain Bike Rule Change In National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago

    I am always reassessing the nature of trail-use conflicts. I no longer toe the party line of some of my fellow mountain bikers that nonmotorized user groups can all get along on every trail. And as I stated in my prior post, I acknowledge that the social impact of mountain biking can be, in certain senses, in certain places, and at certain times, higher than that of hiking. The environmental impact is usually the same, or even less, but the social impact on the trails is sometimes greater because we move faster (enabling us to scare people) and are more able to range farther into remote wildland interiors (enabling us to disrupt others' sense of solitude, which a number of people prize; I know I do). I believe we mountain bikers must acknowledge these issues and offer shared-use models that take them into account and neutralize (or minimize) any problems.

    The question, though, is whether other user groups will work with mountain bikers in good faith. I doubt it. A number of Wilderness purists have been so fanatically devoted to their model of hikers-and-horses only that they have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice: a virtual halt to Wilderness expansion for many years. This attitude shows that ideological purity prevails over the putatively fundamental goal of wildland protection. Given such a mindset, I fear that mountain bikers have little to offer that the purists will be willing to consider.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    To all those who respect their First Amendment rights but have no respect for the Second Amendment. Show me any animal in any park, anywhere in the world, not just our national parks, that can carry on an intelligent conversation against the second amendment, & I'll give up my rights under the second amendment!!! Like the animal's in the article that cannot speak, those who trample our second amendment rights, also cannot conceive those of us who respect our second and first amendment rights!! I also find that most of them also cannot carry on an intelligent conversation about the second amendment! I feel truly sorry for those people who are ignorant about guns and the people that respect them and use them as many people who like to use Golf clubs.

  • NPCA, PEER Voice Concerns Over Proposed Mountain Bike Rule Change In National Parks   5 years 48 weeks ago

    I read the National Park Conservation Association and Wilderness advocacy group attachments. NPCA's position boils down to an argument that bicycles are fine for parking lots and for battling Winnebagos on NPS's paved roads. Despite NPCA's perfunctory statement that bikes may be OK on some trails somewhere, I've never heard of a trail that NPCA would find suitable for cycling. I wonder how many people under 40 would be excited to belong to an organization like this.

    The people and organizations, like NPCA, who/that oppose giving individual park superintendents authority to decide on trail usage and want Washington to decide everything, would be the first to support the idea that some states, like California, should be allowed to set their own more stringent air-pollution control rules and not have to follow dictates from Washington.

    So hypocrisy abounds. Nonetheless, one can dismiss the "concerns" (complaints) of hidebound groups and still acknowledge that mountain biking has an impact. All uses have impacts, some intrinsic, some extrinsic. Here's how I assess various traditional user groups' impact on wildlands:

    1. Mountain bikers: low environmental impact, moderate intrinsic social impact (i.e., on the trails; see my following post), low extrinsic social impact (willing to share with others, do lots of volunteer trailwork, not hostile to other users).

    2. Equestrians: moderate environmental impact, low intrinsic social impact (on the trails), moderate extrinsic social impact (hostility to mountain bikers and some other user groups; don't do much trail maintenance).

    3. Hikers: low environmental impact, low instrinsic social impact (on the trails), moderate to high extrinsic social impact (insistence on keeping parks off limits to almost all nonmotorized users but themselves; don't do as much trail maintenance as mountain bikers do).

    So no one can make a claim to social or environmental purity, notwithstanding the posturing of people and organizations who/that assert in substance that they possess a monopoly on both.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    I guess we really should ask the Bears. After all, we certainly know that all the rapists and robbers and murders don't want us to be able to protect ourselves. So I'm sure a bear would be plenty pissed off if he attacked someone and they pulled a 44 out on him? What do you think? Remember, once your dead, by ANY means, YOUR EXTINCT.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    Concealed weapons in parks don't bother me, as long as the guns stay concealed. If some idiot gets caught brandishing it, or poaches an animal, throw the book at him! It should be difficult to prove that some animal was a real bodily threat. Also, if they are making noise by shooting cans at dusk, they should be easy to find, and fined.

    While weapons might provide a level of comfort to some, I think most hikers would get tired of carrying a heavy hunk of metal in their otherwise lightweight pack.

  • What Would Wildlife Say About Concealed Carry in National Parks?   5 years 48 weeks ago

    If the bear shoots alot you could really be in trouble, unless he runs out or rounds