Recent comments

  • Climbing is Capped at Mount McKinley and Climbers are Left to Wonder What’s Next   6 years 2 weeks ago

    As far as I can tell, Beamis, empirical evidence is the root concept here, not scientific research and analysis. Experience has taught the NPS that the current number of climbers, which is well below the cap, may already be too many. Climbers already clog the trade route (West Buttress) during the brief episodes of reasonably non-rotten weather. SAR capabilities are already stretched dangerously thin. Warming temperatures have already melted enough ice and snow to expose large amounts of human feces originally buried 14 feet beneath the surface.

  • Climbing is Capped at Mount McKinley and Climbers are Left to Wonder What’s Next   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I'd be interested in seeing what sort of documentation and scientific evidence the NPS has on hand that prompted this move. I seriously doubt that there is much in the way of tangible information besides the burning desire to close and restrict yet more access to the public who are out to "trash the park". Can anyone tell us what methodology was employed to arrive at this number?

  • Reading the Fine Print – Did the NPS Ever Manage This National Monument?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Jim, Wilderness in Alaska does not mean the same thing as in the lower 48. In an Alaskan Wilderness some buildings are allowed such as cabins, and sea planes flying in the wilderness and landing on the lakes. Either to bring visitors to their trailheads or cabins or just as day trips from Ketchikan, which usually include a landing on one of the lakes. IN their 2006 monitoring report the FS concludes that the noise from overflights and just seeing all those planes landing and taking off seriously impedes the perception of solitude in the wilderness.

  • Is Someone Missing in the Backcountry of Sequoia National Park?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Twin Lakes is one of my favorite spots to stop for a night in the SEKI backcountry. I hope no one is in trouble up there.

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Anonymous, I have refrained from using ad hominem attacks and arguments and would kindly request that you do the same. You might be new to the site and might not know of my repeated condemnation of interest groups and lobbyists, but that doesn't give license to attack or mischaracterize me in an attempt to discredit my argument.

    J Longstreet, you are quite right in several regards. I also bet Kurt "gets it" and am willing to guess the topic drives traffic to this site. The comment activity seems to reflect it. Controversy sells.

    Kurt, on this thread, I was posting the Founders' sentiments regarding the right to bear arms in response to the assertion of user "VERY knowledgable [sic] of US history" that Second Amendment proponents do not examine the issue in historical context. I've quoted the founders to put the debate in context, because, as Jefferson wrote, "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    As far as slavery, many Founders were against it, especially northerners like Adams. Jefferson, himself a slave owner, wrote to Edward Rutledge, "I congratulate you, my dear friend, on the law of your State, for suspending the importation of slaves, and for the glory you have justly acquired by endeavoring to prevent it forever. This abomination must have an end. And there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it." He also initially wanted to blame England for slavery in the Declaration of Independence, but that was struck from the draft. Unfortunately, political, social, and financial factors prevented him from freeing his own slaves.

    So Jefferson, and many other Founders, did see the justice in freeing slaves. Should we dismiss the entire Constitution, rule of law, and the noble concept of individual liberty because they were postulated by (of course) flawed humans?

    I have not read the Supreme Court decision in the DC gun ban case. The Supreme Court is not above reproach, however. It has evolved into a partisan, activist, unelected committee with total disregard for the original meaning of the Constitution's text.

    As Lincoln said, "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

  • Reading the Fine Print – Did the NPS Ever Manage This National Monument?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    d-2:

    Excellent analysis.

    There's no doubt in the The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 that the USFS would manage Misty Fjords. This article was forwarded to another forum, and a couple of NPS veterans on that board pointed out that Misty Fjords was carved out of the huge Tongas National Forest, and there was no way the Forest Service was going to give up that territory to the NPS.

    As stated earlier, the key is that this prime piece of Alaska was protected in a timely manner. Based on my very limited peek, it is a magnificent area.

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Frank,

    I don't see it as a red herring at all. Here and in comments to other posts about the guns-in-parks issue you've trotted out the Founding Fathers and their intent and that what they viewed more than 230 years ago rings just as true today, or that it should.

    If they were so omniscient when it came to bearing arms down through the centuries, how could they not have seen the justice in freeing slaves and giving women the vote?

    And beyond that, as I recall the most recent Supreme Court opinion did not in fact uphold one's right to carry a sidearm anywhere they wanted, but restricted that right largely to their homestead, AND held that the federal government was within its rights to restrict where guns could be carried.

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Kurt,

    I guess there's no getting around it. No matter how many times you raise the issue of HOW the gun regulation is being developed, your readers refuse to discuss process and need to drag up the pros and cons of the issue. Folks, how many times do you have to debate the same issue? Do you actually think you are convincing anyone? It's obvious that NPT readers feel strongly and there are many of you on both sides of this issue. I get it. I'm sure Kurt gets it.

    What seems highly pertinent to me, whether or not I agree with the substance of this regulation, is that it is being promulgated -- if, in fact it is going to be promulgated -- in a way that will make it suspect. Every regulation issued at the end of an administration, no matter what the substance, is one that looks like it was hurried through because the administration ran out of time. The best regulations are issued earlier in the four year cycle, so the process they are issued under is above reproach.

    Even if you are a fan of this rule, you should be concerned at how and when it may be issued, and the company of questionable rules that are also being issued in these final weeks of the Bush administration. It will taint it and make it that much more likely it will be vulnerable in a lawsuit.

    J Longstreet
    A national park superintendent

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Sounds to me Frank C, just loves to jump on the bandwagon about any issue that favors more guns, or any issue that supports the gung-ho gun lobbyist. But, to be frantically obsessed Frank, I think is bit super overkill on your behalf. Right to bear arms...yes! But, keep your nasty guns and peashooters at home and not in the National Parks. For god sakes come up for air!

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I was a Weapons Specialist in the Army. No one claims that a gun will protect you all the time. As far as my last fact goes, YOU HAVE PROVED IT TO BE TRUE. Guns have been allowed in National Forest Areas with min. problems. If your anti gun, more power to you! I'm pro gun and also by the way, an NRA MEMBER and Proud of it (more power to me).

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Kurt, respectfully, I believe the argument you've broached to be a red herring, an "argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument."

    We the People can "tweak" the Constitution through the amendment process, and if times have changed so much that we no longer have to worry about government tyranny, and we feel comfortable giving government a monopoly on gun ownership and use, I suggest that Second Amendment detractors use this process rather than ignoring the Constitution, as even Obama, a Constitutional scholar, seems prone to do.

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Frank,

    Purely for argument's sake, those noble men you mention had the chance but did not outlaw slavery nor give women the right to vote, so should we now rescind the Emancipation Proclamation and the 19th Amendment because the Founding Fathers were silent on those two points? Or, should we accept that as times change it wouldn't be so outlandish to tweak the Constitution a bit?

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    VERY:

    I urge you to study the "historical context" in which the Bill of Rights was written and the Founders' statements on the individual right to bear arms:

    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson

    "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

    "[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms. . ." Richard Henry Lee

    "[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made." Roger Sherman

    While the British crown was the tyrant of the day, the Founders recognized government, in a much broader context, as having the potential to devolve to tyranny. George Washington wrote, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

    Patrick Henry echoed that sentiment when he said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

    It goes on. Adams. Washington. More from Jefferson.

    Please read about the Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment for more illumination.

  • Reading the Fine Print – Did the NPS Ever Manage This National Monument?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    One hint in President Carter's language about who is to manage can be found when you compare the subsistence provisions in Misty Fjords with a national park monument, such as Kobuk Valley.

    -- In Kobuk Valley, President Carter says:

    “The Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate such regulations as are appropriate, including regulation of the opportunity to engage in a subsistence lifestyle by local residents. The Secretary may close the national monument, or any portion thereof, to subsistence uses of a particular fish, wildlife or plant population if necessary for reasons of public safety, administration, or to ensure the natural stability or continued viability of such population.”

    Because the land in the Kobuk Valley had been managed by BLM, but would be taken over by NPS, the President identifies the need for new regulations, promulgated by the Secretary of the INTERIOR.

    -- In Misty Fjords, President Carter instead refers to the existing statutes, which of course are Forest Service laws, part of the Department of Agriculture:

    “Hunting and fishing shall continue to be regulated, permitted and controlled in accord with the statutory authorities applicable to the monument area.”

    The National Forest had no conflict with hunting, but, a national park monument would usually prohibit all forms of hunting. This was a very big deal at the time.

    So, President Carter indicates here that existing Forest Service law and regulation would apply, with the difference that under the Antiquities Act/National Monument withdrawal and the parallel withdrawals by Secretary Andrus, all new mines, leases, homesteads and other private reservations were excluded from Misty Fjords.

  • BLM, NPS Modify Oil and Gas Lease Auction near National Parks in Utah   6 years 2 weeks ago

    There's still plenty of consternation about the reported "compromise" between the BLM and NPS.

    A recent letter to the Salt Lake Tribune by a Vernal, Utah resident makes a good point:

    Like previous energy booms, this one will eventually subside and tourism will help take up the economic slack -- unless heedless development has engulfed Dinosaur National Monument in an industrial zone that nobody wants to visit.

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    LOL! Somewhere long ago I read a long report on the amount of trail dirt various hiking boots displaced with each step, average stride and X miles hiked = much more maintenance than I thought.
    Anyway, IMHO mountain bikes no way in hell enhance the National Park Experience.
    And the idea of slashing even more trails through our parks for these playthings is ridiculous.
    For me Our National Parks are a place where nature rules and with humility we humbly get to visit, for a while.

    “Recreational development is a job not of building roads into the lovely country,
    but of building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind.”
    Aldo Leopold

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Thanks for the even-handed responses, especially dapster.

    I couldn't believe I was reading that bikers were being singled out for scaring away the precious wildlife experience. I take it someone's never been on the trail with certain groups that include, but are not limited to, families with younger children, teenagers and the ubiquitous wilderness drunk. And careless hiking destroys more "off trail" environments simply by damaging cryptobiotic soils (that most hikers wouldn't recognize even as they tread through it) than bikers do with their machines.

    That said, not all terrain is suitable for biking anyway, in particular the venues which I frequent. A good majority of hiking trails will remain as such. While I personally don't much care to coexist with that segment of the biking world that is too inconsiderate (or arrogant) to announce their passing intentions, give a slight clue as to how many are in the pack to follow, or attempt to use an inordinate percentage of the available path, I have no qualms with intelligent, respectful trekkers. Just don't ask for funding to expand your particular "sport" from my coffers and I'll reciprocate with the same decency towards your kind. Now if only the powers that be would offer that same guarantee to both sides.

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Ask any number of competent soil scientists what the soil rate of erosion would be if mountain biking were to be totally allowed in our national parks, and if the general consensus DOES show and prove that mountain biking is more harmful and damaging to the National Parks environment: Then would the IBMA be screaming afoul by the AHS. Probably so! I think it would be wise to have a complete and comprehensive soil impact analysis on all of our National Parks before allowing any mountain biking. If the soil scientist say:NO GO! Then what, another snowmobile fiasco, where pollution studies have shown that the fuming gas sleds do create a health hazard to the general Yellowstone environment. No!? I suppose sound science would get trumped again by greed and more of the same gross mismanagement by the NPS. I see the same original sin of greed (from potential biking outlet shops) occurring within our National Parks if the IMBA gets entrenched.

  • Reading the Fine Print – Did the NPS Ever Manage This National Monument?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    d-2

    Thanks for the additional background on Misty Fjords and other areas in Alaska!

    I didn't intend to suggest in the original article that only the NPS could manage national monuments, but to point out that there was a bit of confusion about the early days of Misty Fjords. Given the fact that the majority of Misty Fjords is designated wilderness, the area about as well protected as is possible today from major changes on the ground, no matter which agency manages the site.

    Others who want more in-depth information on the political maneuvers surrounding the various Alaskan monuments will find one source in the "Administrative History -The National Park Service and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980"

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I'm pretty well resigned to the conclusion that IMBA and the Traveler are going to "agree to disagree" about the benefits of better policies for mountain biking in national parks, but I do want to make sure that we keep the facts straight.

    IMBA applauded the USFS for recognizing the need to broadly manage recreation as motorized or non-motorized, and to recognize that bikes belong -- quite obviously -- in the second category. The topic of Wilderness was not addressed in the release that the Traveler cites.

    Wilderness legislation frequently makes use of the term "mechanized." Although there are some obvious problems with that terminology -- namely that many types of mechanical devices are commonly used in Wilderness -- IMBA has no nefarious plan to unseat that language.

    There are several other problems with the analysis of the proposed NPS rule making given above. But, as I said, at the end of the day there are simply going to be those who think that the national parks could benefit by adopting more shared-use trails with options for mountain biking, and those that see things otherwise. It's good to see that many in the Traveler's readership are willing to speak up for the value of responsibly broadening the park service's recreational offerings.

  • Hikers, Bikers and National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Oh, boy. Here we go again...

    The NPS should not allow bikes on trails within the national parks. There are so many places that mountain bikers can ride, we do not need to open up the parks to bikes as well. There need to be some places that we can go for slow, contemplative travel on foot, and bikes definitely destroy the experience for hikers. Not only that, bikes cause massive erosion and scare wildlife.
    What no one seems to mention is that when bikes are banned, it does not mean that bikers are banned. They are still welcome to travel on foot with the rest of us.

    Say what? Please note that these places are called "National Parks", and not "Pedestrian Parks". There are already many miles of places set aside for "slow, contemplative travel on foot". Why must other human-powered means of travel be denied? Where is the equality? What if hikers are destroying the experience for bikers? Why not have trails designated for single-purpose and multi-use, to give this balance?

    Hikers also cause erosion and certainly scare wildlife, not matter how stealthy or careful you might think yourself. The same rationale that you use to demonize Mountain Biking, (to the end of banning it entirely within all the NPS units), could just as easily be applied to foot travel. Trail erosion, trashing the area, scaring wildilfe, loud sounds, illegally entering wilderness areas, etc. can all be attributed to human foot-bound travel. There are irresponsible hikers out there too, to be sure. Must we utilize the "Kindergarten" mentality, where the entire class in punished for the transgressions of a few individuals?

    Watch out for what you choose to demonize. For one day, you just may find your favorite pasttime in the crosshairs of groups with the same closed-mindedness that you exhibit, taking your rights to your participate in favorite sport away.

    Even hiking...

  • Reading the Fine Print – Did the NPS Ever Manage This National Monument?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    TO: Jim, and others interested in whether or not National Monuments should only be operated by the NPS, and fans of Misty Fjords:

    From the beginning of the creation by President Carter, it was planned that this area be managed by the US Forest Service. It was never managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, nor, the National Park Service.

    The background is, there WAS a fight inside the Carter Administration on the designation of Misty Fjords, but it happened several years BEFORE the Presidential Proclamation on the Nat Monument (NM). By the time the Misty Fjords NM was proclaimed by Pres Jimmy Carter, there was no serious consideration of national park service management.

    Officially starting in 1971, five federal agencies were looking all over Alaska for the creation of conservation units. The original focus was on undesignated public (federal) land, managed by the Bureau of Land Management. One of the agencies was the US Forest Service, who ultimately identified large areas in interior Alaska (by which I mean the huge block of Alaska, but excluding the Aleutian Pen. and Southeast Alaska). The Forest Service recommendations in Interior Alaska were in conflict with proposals made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and by the National Park Service, each of whom advocated for parks or refuges where the Forest Service proposed extensive National Forests. Forests may permit commodity development via its multiple use legislation, including timbering and mining, but also has very tight wilderness management where designated.

    Soon after the Forest Service floated this proposal, the NPS planning team, under Al Henson in Alaska and Randy Jones in Washington, began pushing for two national parks in Southeast Alaska, within lands ALREADY MANAGED BY THE FOREST SERVICE, in Mysty Fjords and in Admiralty Island. Back to the 1930s, the NPS had conducted recons of these places, but the Forest Service was livid, because the idea of the study in the 1970's was to be focused only on the large tracts of lands managed by the BLM as undesignated public land. Some Alaskan Indian groups in the Southeast also were raising challenges to the Forest Service and in favor of the NPS because of dissatisfaction toward the development plans and lack of 'subsistence priority' in the Tongass National Forest.

    The real clash, and ultimately the basis for how the National Monument decision was made AND how the lands are currently managed, came as the Carter Administration struggled over how much land to conserve, what parcels, and what restrictions or special management should apply to the new conservation designations in Alaska.

    The main opponents to the Department of Interior proposals by Secretary Cecil Andrus (especially the national parks and wildlife refuges) were the Department of Defense -- DOD wanted aids to navigation and ability to conduct maneuvers, the Commerce Department, who complained about locking up economic development opportunities, and the Department of Agriculture -- the department that manages the Forests and supposedly advocates for the National Forest recommendations. Amid all this, the simple decision was to cut the baby in half: there would be no new national forests in Interior Alaska (on lands already managed by the Dept of Interior), and the National Park Service would back off of pushing for a Misty Fjords or Admiralty Island national parks (on lands already managed by Dept of Ag/Forest Service). The concern about the development would be addressed by wilderness proposals to Congress, to protect Misty and Admiralty from development under the USFS' multiple use policies.

    In effect, the Forest Service adopted wilderness recommendations to protect Misty and Admiralty from the National Park Service.

    And, it is the nature of government to find a way to stabilize the political situation as Carter and Andrus prepared to face Congress with the most sweeping, most controversial conservation action in the history of the United States.

    Leaving the Forest Service in place is consistent with that, and 'Wilderness' designation was the tool for both the Forests and the Refuges to block development, rather than converting those areas into parks.

    When the time came to create the National Monuments -- the study-area protections in place from development since 1971 would come off in 1978, and Senator Gravel blocked the simple extension of those protections -- President Carter and Secretary Andrus saw the National Monuments as the only way to provide solid protection, but also were forcing Alaska back to the legislative table to win back all the special exceptions for Alaska that legislation would bring. They expected and wanted a new bill in the following Congress to erase the Carter Monuments, to be sought by all parties including Sen. Stevens and Rep. Don Young. They expected the Carter Monuments were too inflexible to be livable to Alaskans, and they believed the National Park Service and Wildlife Refuges NEEDED congressional legislation to be finally accepted by Congress and ALL the parties, or else effective mangement would be impossibly difficult for the ranger-on-the-Ground.

    Because of the earlier deal, in 1977, on what agency would be the lead on what areas, what agency had developed the expertise for what area, and because of the outstanding quality of the lands designated by Carter as National Monument, and to provide political continuity and maximum leverage, the decision was made to break with tradition and permit the Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service to manage those national monuments that would have been managed by those Agencies if the Carter/Jackson/Udall bill had passed in 1978.

    POSTSCRIPT: The Carter/Andrus strategy was to get a quick agreement with Sen. Stevens and the Governor, based on the bills that had been emerging up until that point. However, the environmental organizations decided to use the leverage Carter created to either kick up to much stronger bills, including much larger Wilderness in Southeast Alaska, and claimed they would be happy PERMANENTLY with the comparatively inflexible management of the Carter National Monuments. (the only significant exception for Alaska was access for subsistence hunting and fishing on all the national monuments). This tactic led to Rep. Udall being defeated in his own Committee and loosing the Commerce Committee (refuges) as well. MANY Members of Congress were turned off at how cynical the environmentalists had become, to push for more just because Carter's monuments put pressure on Alaskans. (they even tried to take over management of eagles on State-owned land in the Southeast) But Udall ultimately won on the House Floor due in part by a tremendous effort by Andrus and Carter to go political on what had until then been lobbied pretty much on the merits alone.

    By the time it was over, the strongly environmentalist Senator Paul Tsongas, leader of the pro-environmental bill in the Senate, said he could even trust the word of Senator Ted Stevens more than he could the environmentalists. By that time, in the Southeast, all talk of a national park for Misty Fjords was gone, and right until the end the fight was over how much land in the forest would be designated Wilderness.

    When Carter was beaten in the 1980 election, the environmentalists finally folded, and Carter got his bill. Under Reagan, there was fear there would never be a better bill, and the monuments would never be fully supported. So, the idea that the environmentalists would settle for permanent national monuments was a bluff.

    At the time of the Hostage Crisis in Iran, it seemed in both cases that President Carter would be denied getting his victories before the Election, when possibly they would have helped him defeat Ronald Reagan.

  • Park History: Dinosaur National Monument   6 years 2 weeks ago

    The proposal for national park status for Dinosaur National Monument has been on the table for at least twenty years. Perceived conflict with the interests of the oil and gas industry in the nearby Uinta Basin has been the main reason legislation has stalled, even though former Colorado Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell supported park designation in 1989. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a name change-- the proposal has always been for Dinosaur National Park.

    More info: www.proposeddinosaurpark.org

  • Whatever Happened to That Rule Change To Allow You to Pack Heat in National Parks?   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Before we start the inevitable spewing forth the rhetoric, let's at least try to maintain some semblance of accuracy.........

    Accurate:
    The majority of CCW holders are most likely law-abiding citizens.

    Inaccurate:
    Criminals don't care what the law is.
    Correction: Criminals very often seek loopholes in the law to minimize the penalties for their transgressions. Or work well within the boundaries set forth by our legal system in terms of illegal search or other rights violations, and never sees the interior of a penitentiary due to what some consider legal "errors".

    Inaccurate:
    Something about who will follow the law?
    Correction: Many CCW holders who are regular contributors to this site freely admit personal violations of the current laws restricting loaded weapons within the boundaries of various NPS units. So, either nobody gives a damn about the current laws (or at least fewer people than you think), or there are far fewer CCW holders than you believe who are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens, or that segment of the CCW holder has transgressed into the criminal element domain. Choose any scenario of the three and the end result is that there are far less people following protocol than you tout in your "facts".

    Parks are safe??????
    Overall, yes. Like it or not, yes, far safer than other urban, suburban or rural areas with the same relative populace, and I mean in terms of the populace in the densest areas around the visitor centers, where most of the tourists gather. The crime rate on any given day in those regions is much less than in most equivalent metro areas. But on the other hand, if you're looking for ANY area of the country that, by your self-serving definition is "safe", forget it, it doesn't exist. Absolutely any area can be subjected to crime, but that simple "fact" doesn’t justify everyone and their brother walking around loaded for bear.

    The last statement is just plain ridiculous. This coming from a staunch anti-NRA gun owner who spent more time in special services than I care to remember and who was trained by our government to be quite familiar with how to use various forms of weapons against his fellow man. The "fact" is your firearm can't save your sorry behind in every circumstance, so maybe it would be more practical to be trained in alternative methods of defending yourself, your family and your possessions. The "fact" is that if you were, you would most definitely find yourself feeling "safe" in virtually any environment. Provided the paranoia can be effectively eradicated.

  • National Park Service Chastized For Poor Cultural Resource Oversight   6 years 2 weeks ago

    To Anonymous Nov 27,

    I like your point. I was recently backpacking in the San Rafael Wilderness (USFS) and was pleased and surprised to see they have allowed picnic tables to remain in some backcountry campsites.

    I while back when I read that the Sierra Club was suing Olympic NP for repairing backcountry shelters, I nearly had an aneurysm. Forcing the NPS to remove backcountry lean-tos from a rain soaked trail? Lord have mercy. Can't this nonprofit find causes with less Grinch-like motives to spend their supporters time and money on?

    (For example, why doesn't the Sierra Club donate money to helping the NPS preserve Cultural Artifacts instead of paying lawyers to steal Christmas trees from Cindy Lou Who?)

    Like Beamis, I see this poor management of Cultural Resources as another symptom of a malignant and perhaps fatal disease.