Recent comments

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    The Dc gun control issue is about guns in your home. It has nothing to do with guns on the street.

  • Would a Change in Gun Laws Be a Threat to National Park Bears?   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I spent a summer as a back country ranger in the Chugach National Forest on the Kenai Peninsula. This included the famous Russian River, where the red salmon run attracts many of Alaska's bear/human encounters. I was required to carry a shotgun (unfortunately). The damn thing was heavy, and I'd much rather have pepper spray at my side. First of all, with pepper spray you're more likely to hit your target. Second, pepper spray is almost completely disabling in the short term, but not lethal in the long term, so a bear can survive to learn its lesson. A gun is largely useless in the short term (seeing as how adrenaline can mask pain, and a gun shot takes a while to kick in), but fatal in the long run. Plus, unless you are absolutely a crack shot even in a panic, anyone shooting at a charging bear is more likely to harm their companions than the bear. I came upon a few adrenalized adn breathless hikers in my experience who had recently been charged by bears (probably bluff charges, too) who fired their whole magazine, didn't hit the bear once, and nearly injured many in their party. The noise of guns didn't seem to phase these bears. They just decided a mauling wasn't worth the energy. So, if it's bears you're worried about, I'd recommend the pepper spray versus a gun any day. And even the pepper spray will probably just gather dust, as Ms. Stemann pointed out.

    I also saw fishing disputes escalate to the point of weapons being drawn. Had they not been readily accessible, a fist fight or fillet knife battle might have been the worst case scenario. At least then no bystanders would have been accidentally hurt. With handguns strapped to their hips, however, a fire fight was a mere hair trigger away.

  • How Many Tourists are Too Many in the Yosemite Valley?   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Hi Rick,

    In response to your comments, the “record Flood of 1997”, of which you speak, was actually deemed by the U.S. Forest Service as a one hundred year flood in the Sierra, north and south. Yosemite National Park however, has stated that it was a fifty year flood, but this does not corroborate with studies made by other professionals. There have been large floods, but this one was larger than any we have heard of or seen before. This said, it should also be recognized that camping in flood zones is a common use and recognized as acceptable use in a Wild and Scenic River, as long as it is included in the ORVs ("Outstanding Remarkable Values") when establishing the current historical uses of the river.

    The flood damaged man-made infrastructures, which included part of Yosemite Lodge and the campgrounds, as you say. The flood water actually covered many if not all of the campgrounds in the valley, but the park only took out, or refused to repair, the portions that complied with their wishes. If you recall, the year prior to the flood, the then park superintendant, Dave Mihalic, stated that they would like to remove all campsites on the north side of the Merced River, and interestingly, after the flood of ’97, this is exactly what they accomplished. The then park superintendent Dave Mihalic stated that nature had done what the public would never have allowed them to do by damaging these campgrounds, and he refused to talk about reopening them.

    The park service solicited congressional funds to repair the damaged campgrounds, along with other things damaged. They used a lot of congress’s money to replace the El Portal road with a new one at that time, wideningand straightening it, while also installing a new city like sewer line down the hill throughout most its length, most of which was not even flood damaged. They admitted at the time that they did this to pave the way for easier access by large tour buses and discounted the public's outrage.

    The park said that they intended to rebuild the campgrounds, as you say, but only while standing eye to eye with a congressional board, when they asked for flood recovery funding, which by the way they got. Once the money was in hand, their position changed immediately.

    The "Friends of Yosemite Valley" and "Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government" began a law suite associated with the issue that they felt the park had not adequately addressed the subject of a User Carrying Capacity for the park, among other things. The Federal Court agreed with that point, and some aspects of the park’s hastily completed Yosemite Valley Plan had to be put on hold until after the court’s mandates were addressed. Many in the public believe that no Yosemite Valley Plan from back then can be respected until they first demonstrate that they are following the guidlines of a Wild and Scenic Merced River Plan which adequately addresses user capacity mpacts, and how to control those impacts. To date, there is no Merced River Plan that addresses these issues, according the the court.

    This is why the park should not be allowed to move forward until the first court order is addressed, unless the higher court does not approve the lower court's rulling. If the higher court agrees with the lower court, the Yosemite Valley Plan should be deemed outdated, once the new Merced River Plan is completed. The appellate court has not yet responded to the park’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling. But, there is a court order in place right now that mandates that the park comply with that court’s ruling, and until a higher court says otherwise, the park should be moving in that direction. If the appellate court does not overturn the lower court, the first court will want to know why the park has wasted time by not complying with their mandate.

    These injunctions halted the park service from making some other changes to the campgrounds, where they claim they want to put in some RV campsites, some drive-in and walk-in campsites, but they were and still are not willing to address the previously flooded campgrounds. Lets look at their numbers:

    Pre-1980 General Management Plan: 800 drive in sites

    1980 General Management Plan: 684 drive-in sites

    Merced River Plan: 432 "interim" drive-in sites (402 auto-based + 30 RV sites)

    Yosemite Valley Plan: 330 drive-in sites (282 auto-based + 48 RV sites)

    Does this look like the park is really serious about camping in Yosemite Valley?

    The park had agreed to adhere to the prior park manager’s 1980 GMP (General Management Plan) when they embarked on a new plan to revise previous park plans, in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, as it relates to the valley’s campgrounds. This is because many years of study and thousands of hours of public input had gone into those plans, where they relate to these former campgrounds. The public would have been outraged if all their years of effort was tossed aside. And, in the end it was, and yes, the pubic is outraged.

    The park refused to discuss the repair of the campsites in these former campgrounds, even though these areas should have been listed in the "Outstanding Remarkable Values" (ORV) section of the Merced River Plan as having an historic camping use, which would have allowed camping in what the park now calls a flood zone, though other areas that were flooded along the river were spared, such as Housekeeping.

    North Pines Campground is also listed in the Yosemite Valley Plan record of decision to be removed, though current park managers claim that for the time being they have decided not to move forward with that part of the plan. They do not say, however, that they will rescind the YVP record of decision in this regard, leaving the door open for future park managers to remove North Pines should they care to, from that record of decision authority. The Yosemite Valley Plan needs to be resinded and public planning needs to be started anew.

    The road work that you referred to and the new sewer line from Yosemite Valley to El Portal were performed prior to the litigation commencement. The portion of the sewer and road repairs that were held up by the court, of which you are speaking, pending the park service’s acquiescence to the legal mandate that the Merced River Plan establish a more specific User Carrying Capacity, were allowed to proceed after the park pleaded with the court that these improvements needed to take place due to pending hazards. That road work from hwy 120 and 140 intersection east, is moving forward.

    Some of those supporting the NPS are groups like The Yosemite Fund, the primary solicitation arm for park funding of special projects, who would not have a reason to exist if it were not for the projects that they fund in Yosemite. The Lower Falls project is their biggest project to date, where they brought in their own architect, Mr. Larry Halprin, while the park service stepped aside. Mr. Halprin designed a colossal project there, which was clearly over built, literally doubling the pavement of the area. I’d love to be more specific, but in the interest of time I will avoid that topic unless you would like to talk about it. You also mention The Access Fund and The American Alpine Club, both organizations which have been promised by the park that they would see a Climbers Museum in the valley, which pledges their allegiance to the park’s side of the court case. The local Southern Sierra Miwok (unrecognized tribe) also sides with the park. But, of course the park has promised a new Cultural Center for them for their allegiance. With respect to these organizations and another large group of partners that side with the litigants, one can only speculate as to the many special interest reasons any group has that dictates their allegiance to one side or the other.

    You are correct that the 9th District court has not yet rendered an opinion in the appeal of November 2007, as we see the park dragging their feet when it comes to addressing the previous court’s mandate to address the User Carrying Capacity better than in their V.E.R.P. position. The recent Symposium on the matter held by the park last month placed people who would support the park’s position on the V.E.R.P. method of crowd control at center stage, i.e., Mr. Robert E. Manning, who wrote the book. Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without Tragedy The park is hoping to sell the appellate court on their position that they are doing all they can do to address the issue, but have yet to discuss any other method than the V.E.R.P, which the court has deemed inadequate. They would like the public and the court to believe that the V.E.R.P. system is the only way to address the subject, because as Mr. Michael Tollefson has stated, he doesn’t want to turn anyone away. His predecessor, Dave Mihalic used the term that they “want to accommodate all who want to come”. How is this park management ever going to ever get their arms around subject if all they can do is think along the terms of accommodating all who want to come?

  • Critics: Changing Gun Laws in National Parks Would Open a "Pandora's Box" of Problems   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Pandora's box of problems eh? Give me a break. Believe it or not most people who carry guns are not wild crazies out to kill random people and animals. I can see the headlines now, "Random drunken wild west style shoot outs at camp grounds". Dumb, dumb, dumb. Now I can't speak for every state, but here in Wisconsin, the land of beer, during deer season there are quite a few people who drink and hunt. I am not saying drinking and firearms together are a good thing, but it happens. So if any one can tell me of an example of a hunting party suddenly getting ticked at each other and shooting up all their friends please enlighten me.

    Where I live (Central Wisconsin, Clark County) we have a fair amount of county forest. Everyone here wants an answer to the million dollar question, what happens when guns are allowed at any time in a publicly owned forest. Well since guns are allowed in the Clark County Forest I think I can answer that.

    Absolutely nothing. Thats right, nothing! I haven't heard of any wild shoot outs, people getting mysteriously murdered while hiking, and rampant poaching. I mean sure there are always retards who shoot wild animals just for fun, but then there are plenty of people who run down deer and other wild animals in their cars too. Maybe we should ban cars in national parks as well.

    So why do people carry guns out in the county forest? I myself carry rifles into the county forest from time to time to practice shooting. I am by far not the only person that does that, I have met more than a few people who do the same. There are other people who carry guns for personal protection, but I think that is a little overkill since I have yet to hear of any one getting mauled by a black bear or attacked by a cougar. However, being out in a National Park where there are documented cases of people getting killed by grizzlies and cougars I can see where having something to protect ones self would give one a little piece of mind. However I think that ones chances of getting killed by a nut job toting a gun in the national forest are pretty slim. I myself would be more afraid of having a tree fall on me and being killed than of a physco wandering the woods.

    Now what happens when I meet someone in the woods carrying a hand gun or rifle. Well it usually goes something like this:

    Me:"Hey how is it going?"

    The Gunslinger:"Fine, nice day today eh?"

    Me:"Yeah not bad."

    Then we part our separate ways. There is no tension, no face off. Just two people having a civilized conversation. I think too many people get freaked out when they see a gun. From my personal experience people who freak out about such things typically come from the big city. I guess it never enters their minds that not everyone that owns a gun is either a Virginia Tech shooter or a retarded big city gangbanger. I personally feel way more tension when walking around the streets of Milwaukee by groups of suspicious characters than when I meet hunting parties in the woods.

    If I ever met a bear in the woods, first thing I would do is see if the bear is angry or merely curious. But if there was a bear charging at me I would not have any qualms about shooting it. I wouldn't carry anything less than a .44 revolver. In my opinion anything less would just piss off the bear and at that point you would be better off with bear mace.

    So after having seen real life experience with guns in a public forest, I can confidently say that allowing guns in parks is a moot point.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    kath,

    My point was that there is no correlation between gun laws and crime statistics. That works both ways, whether they are strict or non-existent. I'm not arguing for gun restrictions in national parks. I'm arguing that the issue is a non-issue and that the two aren't connected.

    Jim Macdonald
    The Magic of Yellowstone
    Yellowstone Newspaper
    Jim's Eclectic World

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Frank -

    You're right, sending you a bunch of pro-gun stats is the same as you sending me a bunch of anti-gun stats. The website I listed was for the huge number of news stories you can read about the almost-daily occurrences of defensive gun use, not a bunch of stats. I read the hooey from the Brady site almost weekly. It would only be fair that you glance at some info from the "pro" side once in a while. You might be surprised.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I so hope that the law makers are really listening to those who have spent lived and worked in the many National parks . They have a wealth of experience behind their view points/observations/. I wonder within the stats reported how many incidents were between/involving indivuals who actually live and work within or near the National park area. Some destination /large parks have services within and in the community employing a large base of people . I simply think that the more guns people are encouraged to bring( and a kind of encouragement may occur simply as the product of this proposed law change...there seems to be a kind of fear promoting around why a change is needed) that there will be a higher probablity of tragic accidents...a shot out and about hits another person, children finding a gun in a tent, wildlife wounded by someone showing off. There are law abiding people who do careless things and/ or act with poor judgement. My take is that the increase of events will be primarly between one law abiding person and another law abiding person(s) . I worked many years in 3 large "destination" type parks, in the campgrounds and in the field .Some of those years involved commisioned Law enforcement positions.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    As I understand it, there are certain National Parks in Alaska where carrying weapons is permitted. It would be interesting to learn whether there has been any abuse of the weapons-carrying privileges in those parks. Have people been murdered there? Have bears been unnecessarily killed there? Have any crimes been prevented by guns there? Or are they just too remote and have so few visitors that any stats from those parks don't correlate to the parks in the other 49 states.

    For the same reason, I don't think one can use the stats from DC as reasons for carrying/not carrying a gun in a more typical national park.

    The sad fact is that women traveling alone or in small groups or without men are vulnerable to sex crimes or worse. There are no phones, no doors to lock in a tent, no one around to hear cries for help. There is no way I would ever hike alone or with just one or two other women in remote areas in our national parks.

    Haven't most of the victims of murder on the Appalachian Trail been women?

    It would also be interesting to learn the gender stats on crime in the national parks.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Fred, sending me to a pro-gun web site is kind of like me sending you to an anti-gun web site. Each will have tons of statistics that will "prove" each of our points. I do not believe that if a "law abiding citizen" stepped up and stopped a mass shooting such as the Nebraska shopping mall or one of the school shootings, or a bank robbery etc. that it would not make the news. Especially when we see stories about some kid donating money she raised selling lemonade to charity.
    I know that some people have successfully defended themselves with a gun. I know that many have done so with pepper spray, mace or a taser. Many have been killed or injured trying to. Some have had their gun taken away from them and used in later crimes. Some have had their child get possession of their gun and shoot themselves or a playmate.
    When this debate started, I decided to ask my friends and relatives. Mind you, I live in Montana where gun laws are pretty lax. I asked simply, "Do you carry a gun with you when you go out?" Some are hunters, many said that they have one or more guns in their homes, but not one said that they carry one for self defense.
    This is all meaningless. What is really telling is the quote from Anonymous above, "You have to go out seven decimal places on a calculator to determine what percentage of Park visitors got killed in 2007."
    I lived for awhile in Los Angeles. A place that I guarantee you is far more dangerous than Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon. I never owned a gun, much less carried one; but I also tried to use common sense. There were certain areas of town that I avoided, especially at night. I would suggest that, if you find that National Parks are just too dangerous, that seven decimal places on the calculator is just more risk than you are willing to take, don't visit National Parks. Meantime, there are 273 million of us, who are willing to take our chances, and will continue to enjoy them.

  • Park History: Kings Canyon National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Excellent article, both Kings Canyon and Sequoia Parks don't get the attention of Yosemite, both are true gems in the park system and a must see if you are in the area.
    Thanks
    Ted
    www.campingsierra.com

  • Park History: Hot Springs National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Kurt,
    Thanks for sharing such interestings statistics about our home town National Park! When my husband and I visited here six years ago, we were so impressed that we moved here two months later!

    Recently geographer Warren Bland named Hot Springs, Ark. the No. 1 place in America to retire.

    I gotta admit, Hot Springs is a pretty cool place to live, even for those of us who aren't yet retired.

    To get a sneak preview, check out Spa Vlogger.

    Rebecca McCormick,
    Travel Journalist, Hot Springs Village Voice

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Frank -
    I'm sorry to say that you'll never see stories in the newspapers, etc. about firearms being used for defensive purposes. It just doesn't make "good story" and it's not "news". The media prefers to report bad news because it sells newspapers and increases viewership of news programs. There are many, many instances of firearms used to protect the lives of the innocent, but you won't hear them by watching the 6 o'clock news. Try doing an internet search of "defensive gun uses" and see what I mean. There are several hundred thousand defensive uses each year. But it's not "news".

    If you really would like to read some of the actual reports check http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/.

  • Glen Canyon NRA Releases EA on Castle Rock Cut Deepening   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Oh my GOD!!!! will you people get a life the dam is not going anywhere and thank god. if it wasn't there the water wouldn't be there to drink or grow food. as for recreation i love boating on lake powell and all you people out there with your so called enviro cars where do you think the elec comes from, the dam! it is dirt just dirt you know what the bottom looks like it looks like the top once again dirt. you wanna hike then hike away why do you have to make everyone misriable because you wanna hike somewhere you can't (the bottom) you know what i wanna boat everywhere so i say lets cover it all up so i can boat. why not, because it wouldn't be fair so get off your high horse and let us (the majority that is what this country was founded on) go out and play with our sea doos and our house boats and enjoy life with a motor or a sale or even a kayak! as far as i am concerened hiking causes more damage than boats so stay at home and search the web. oh without electricity because that is where the power comes from remeber the DAM!

  • Of Geologists, Paleontologists, And Science in the National Park System   6 years 30 weeks ago

    We spend 12.5 million daily in Iraq - We spend $49 billion a year to incarcerate our inmates - We spend so much on crap (cigarettes, junk food, Big TV's, etc.) and yet we can't employ a few thousand scientists. It's appalling statistics like these that reaffirm my assertion that the Religious Right is quietly winning America. I dont have a problem with agreeing that Muslim fundamentalists are the #1 enemy of this nation. But Christian fundamentalists are a close second. In 20 years, there will be a Theocracy in this country. I'm going to start laying my emigration plans soon.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Millions of women live in big cities with high crime rates, yet they stay safe without resorting to carrying weapons or staying indoors all the time. You can carry pepper spray, an airhorn or mace. Firearms aren't needed.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    You have to go out seven decimal places on a calculator to determine what percentage of Park visitors got killed in 2007.
    I'll leave my guns at home and take my chances.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I'm curious why we rarely see stories about how "law abiding" gun carrying individuals stepped forward and prevented a crime? If carrying guns prevents so many crimes, it just seems logical that we would see hundreds of stories of this nature. On the rare occasion that we do, it tends to be a Bernie Getz type. It's highly unlikely that any of the crimes listed in this story would have been prevented if the victim was carrying. I too remember the three women who were attacked and murdered OUTSIDE Yosemite. The key here is that they were, in fact, OUTSIDE of the park where guns were legal. Would have a gun saved them? Maybe. Would have pepper spray saved them? Maybe. Would have a taser saved them? Once again, maybe, maybe not. It's not like no one carrying a gun has ever been raped or murdered. When a criminal sneaks up behind you (or gets you in your sleeping bag) and sticks a knife to your throat or a gun to your ribs, all bets are off. One can certainly turn the argument around to crimes where the victim survived, and say: if they had tried to pull a gun, would have they been killed? Maybe. In any case, if this goes through, loaded guns will still be illegal in Yosemite because they are outlawed by the State of California in any park within the state.
    Even in areas where carrying guns is legal, the vast majority of people do not carry. The same will be true in National Parks. Probably even to a greater degree, because your average park visitor is a family man with his wife and children on vacation. He wouldn't think of having a gun around his children. If anything, he may reconsider traveling to a park that allowed guns to be carried. There are much safer alternatives for self defense.
    I propose that they do a survey of ACTUAL Park visitors. Hand out questionnaires at Park entrance stations across the country. Ask one question: "Do you believe that people should be allowed to carry loaded guns inside National Parks?" I believe that most ACTUAL PARK VISITORS will say "no".
    Another alternative would be, if someone feels some overwhelming need to carry a loaded weapon they could stop at a ranger station and apply for a temporary carry permit? At least rangers would have some control.
    Personally, I have hiked, backpacked, horseback ridden, camped, run rapids and just generally hung out in National Parks all of my life, from Canada to Mexico and from Washington to Texas, and I have never felt threatened or the need to have a gun. I currently spend over one hundred days a year in National Parks.
    Sec. Kempthorne and the United States Senators supporting this should be ashamed of themselves. National Park employees both present and past (individuals who "lay it on the line" day in and day out for us) are pleading with them, literally begging them not to pass this measure. Shouldn't we listen? Shouldn't they listen?

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I agree, the hot heads etc. are already carrying guns illegally. It is not the permitted weapon carriers that people need to worry about. It is the untold number of people that already carry them illegally. In most states where permits are allowed, brandishing the firearm irrationally is illegal anyway. Not many people that have a permit and carry do so for illegaly purposes. I carry mine for my family's protection. Changing the rules would allow this to be done legally.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Marie, I wouldn't say we're "thinking like guys."

    My wife won't go out for a run by herself because she fears for her safety, and we live in a pretty darn safe area. I understand her fears, and I can understand the fears of a single woman or even two or three women out hiking in the backcountry. I certainly wasn't trying to minimize a woman's fears. Sadly, they're justified.

    But I feel a lot more insecure walking the streets of New York or Washington or Philadelphia than I do the backcountry of a national park. I do think parks are different than national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. For one reason, most parks, unlike national forests and BLM lands, have specific entrances and exits and you have to pay to enter. I think that right there reduces the criminal element in a national park.

    But as I said earlier, I'd like more information on crime in the national parks to get a better feel for how safe or dangerous they are. The statistics alone indicate they're safe, and I'd wager that a close examination of where the assaults and rapes occurred would indicate that, by and far, the majority of NPS units are incredibly safe.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Gentlemen,
    I am a woman who camps alone or with my college age daughter and I agree with Fred. I have been all over the Southwest camping in a tent and sometimes I do not feel safe. There are long stretches of NV that are like Deliverence Territory. I carry a gun and I will continue to do so for the protection of myself and my daughter. Women are more the subject of violent crime then other men as we are seen as an easy target because we are not as strong. I remember what happen not only to those women outside of Yosemite but the young women who was hiking with her dog back east a few months ago and the guy attacked, raped and killed her. He cut off her head he hit her so hard. You would of thought her dog would have scared him off but it didn't. If she had a gun she might have been able to save herself. Please forgive me but you guys are thinking like guys put yourself in a woman's shoes and you would feel different.

    Marie

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Good questions Kurt. Perhaps these stats are non-issues. But since I know that I am a responsible person, and I've received many hours of expensive training, received three separate FBI background checks, and purchased a quality conceal-carry handgun I'll continue to carry. But I will be responsible and safe. I only wish you and I could say that about everyone. Our Parks and our world would be better off.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Fred, I hear what you're saying regarding the rapes. Still, I would be curious to know the details and locations of those crimes.

    How many were in the D.C. metro area? How many were in the backcountry? How many were "date rapes." How many involved women hiking alone by themselves?

    Without the full details, I'm not sure we can make a complete judgment on exactly how safe the parks are...but I'd venture they're a lot safer than most parts of the country.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Snowbird06
    Fred, your taking more of chance of being wiped out in a major car crash then the "million-to-one" chance of being a crime statistic in the National Parks.
    Personally, I think the NRA plays on the fears and minds of the common folk (and perhaps create a bit of paranoia) to enhance the profits of the gun industry...and besides it's good for business! I'm sure Fred your probably cool as a cucumber with even temperament but I wouldn't worry to much if you left your hand gun (or get rid of it for good) at home. The odds do give us some welcoming relief that the National Parks are still relatively safe to visit.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I like to think that I'm one of the level-headed guys you mentioned and not one of the stressed-out guys. I carry in case I encounter the one-in-a-million people who should be in that anger management class.

    I repeat myself when I mention that these instances are incredibly small. But I wonder what you would say to YOUR daughter in the emergency room if she had been one of these victims; "Gee honey, there was only 35 rape victims in 2006, so I never carry a defensive weapon when we hike the back country". Sounds pretty thin to me.

    I'm just trying to point out here that these aren't just numbers on a piece of paper. They represent people just like you and me. I just don't want to take that million-to-one chance that someone in my family might be a "number" on a piece of paper.

  • Violent Deaths in the National Parks   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Snowbird06
    Fred, I just hope that your a decent soul that uses good rational judgement if you have to use your (concealed) hand gun and not someone that is hot-headed with a quick temper. I see too many border-line misfits that are terribly hot headed (with the "outa my way" attitude) visiting the National parks today and basically should be in some kind of anger management class. Stresses in are society today are at the max: the economy, the housing crises, the medical care fiasco and the phony Bush war. How we cope with these issues on a daily basis as individuals is a matter how strong are thresh-hold for stress and pain is. Let's face it, some of us aren't going to make it (or just plain loose it mentally). In my estimation carrying a concealed weapon into the National Parks is NOT a good policy considering the stress mood of this nation. The National Parks are to unload and unpack are weak and weary minds and to leave the heavy metal at home. Who needs more NRA propaganda stress to buy more guns...and more guns...and more guns!!!