Recent comments

  • Crews Remove Garbage From Marijuana Farms in Sequoia National Park   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Perhaps the reason more is not done to stop the growing of pot on national park land is because the govt is taking action on other dangerous criminals, such a private livestock owners, cattle ranchers, pot belly pig owners, 4H kids, horse owners, I am not trying to be funny...I only wish this were a conspiracy theory.

    I know that protecting our national parks is important and certain tax money should go to protect them but instead the govt has given the USDA over 100 million of our tax dollars to fund a program that will keep track of every last livestock animal in the USA...geesh, they can't keep track of illegals, drug dealers and sex offenders but they want to know where granny's egg hen is at all moments...

    think I am kidding? only wish I were because if this program (NAIS is the National Animal Identification System) is not stopped I and countless others will be forced to register our premises, (like sex offenders must do) microchip our critters at our cost and file reports on every birth death and off property movement those animals make...if disease is suspected in an area, the USDA can come in and kill all animals in a 6 mile radius (140 sq miles).

    why? they say it is to protect our food supply but the real reason is to give the appearance of a animal disease tracking program so big corporate ag can sell meat on the global level and say it is disease free....but they get just one lot number per groups of animals, no microchipping and very few reporting events ....

    yup, sounds like you are getting the same shafting we are...let the pot growers go unchecked but the govt has to know where my horses are at all times....

    see for more info on this awful program and how it will affect all who eat.

  • Creature Feature: The American Marten   6 years 26 weeks ago

    I just saw a male on Fern Lake trail in RMNP at 8AM. I was walking quite fast, and I think he misjudged my speed, and I caught him scrambling across the trail. I stopped, and so did he - on a rock about head high, under a tree by the trail. We looked at each other, rather shocked to see each other. The animal is beautiful, with perky ears and a wide face with big eyes. The fur is luxurious. What a treat!

  • National Park Service Agrees, Conditionally, to Keep Yellowstone's Sylvan Pass Open For Snowmobiling   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Ok, so how do they come up with almost 4 million in costs. In the past it's only ever cost about $300,000 to keep the pass open??? Interesting.

  • National Park Service Agrees, Conditionally, to Keep Yellowstone's Sylvan Pass Open For Snowmobiling   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Kurt took some flack for fingering Cheney on this decision (see this); now the Associated Press is fingering Bush and Cheney as getting involved.

    Kurt, are you writing about this? Very cool that someone is following up on what seemed to be a plausible conjecture given the players involved and how this decision was reversed.

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

  • Is the National Park Service Obligated to Better Promote Proposed Change in Gun Regulations?   6 years 26 weeks ago


    With all due respect, Wake Up! The Los Angeles Times reported in a story about the possible National Park rule change, “The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults ...” I think there is VERY clear reason why one should be allowed to carry a self-defense firearm in a National Park.

    Remember: When seconds count, the Police are minutes away. And in a National Park, the Rangers are often many, many miles and minutes away.

  • Traveler's View: Concealed Weapons Have No Place In Our National Park System   6 years 26 weeks ago

    If you honestly believe that there's no crime in National Parks then I invite you to come spend some time on the Ozark Scenic Riverways during the summer. Better yet, have your teenaged or early twenties daughter camp in one of those parks, alone. Locals here know better than to use those parks during the summer tourist season because of the drunken, rowdy, and dangerous urban detritus that show up during that time.

    And no, the above statement in no ways lessens the argument for guns in the hands of those obeying the State laws. State law already makes it a Class C felony to possess a firearm while intoxicated, a Class D felony if it's loaded. So the drunkards would not be suddenly allowed to carry, not that they'd care one way or another. The people you seem to fear, the people you're in favor of keeping disarmed and helpless, are the responsible, law-abiding, well-behaved folk who would be no threat to anyone except those who threaten them.

    Our state has had a "shall issue" concealed carry law for about five years now. We've not seen the promised cowboy shootouts on Main Street. We've not had the road rage gun battles predicted by those opposed to citizen self defense. We have had a few would-be carjackers come to a bad end, a few pizza deliverymen shooting armed robbers, a few convenience store clerks who fought back successfully instead of being killed.

    Even one death by a criminal in a state park because the victim was disarmed by her government is one too many. Maybe you wouldn't care for your daughter to be armed, but I'd rather my daughter be armed in a National Park than be the next Meredith Emerson.

    If it saves only one life, CCW in national parks is justified.

  • Interior Officials Want to Allow Concealed Carry in the National Parks   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Thanks Anonymous. I wish I had your skill with words. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said here. See you in the Parks.

  • Visiting the Parks: Kakaying Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park   6 years 26 weeks ago

    My husband and I just returned from a Colorado trip that included a visit to Black Canyon of the Gunnison. What a hidden treasure! We aren't experienced enough to kayak those waters but the hiking on the North Rim was glorious. If you visit the South Rim, the park service runs a boat tour on the river. That's on my list for next time.

  • Why Stop At Golden Gate National Recreation Area? What Other NRAs, Monuments, Etc., Should Be Renamed?   6 years 26 weeks ago

    There is at least one pratical reason for the name change that is not, and will not, be mentioned in any of the news articles. For many years Golden Gate has struggled to proactively preserve its natural resources from organized dog walker associations. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but San Francisco is a crowded city with multi-million dollar homes that have no yards, and each resident seems to own at least two dogs. Dogs are hard on the environment, and the Presidio unit alone is home to about 13 endangered or threatened plant species. Some of these plants grow nowhere else in the world. Golden Gate also sits on the Pacific Flyway, and its protected lands have become an important stop for migrating birds. During one bird count in 2006 one birder spotted over 100 species of birds in one day, again, in the Presidio.

    One of the key arguments the dog walkers have made against the Park's leash law has been that the park was a "Recreation Area" and not a "National Park" and therefore not as valuable as, say, Yosemite.

    This name change puts a crimp in their case, and elevates the park (symbolically) to a status I think it richly deserves-- because, the Presidio is more than just a former military base it is home to the Presidio Clarkia. Alcatraz is more than just a former federal prison, it is also the site of the little known story about the struggle for Native American civil rights. It is also Muir Woods, Marin Headlands, and Crissy Field.

    While I don't disagree that hosting Lucas and Disney on park lands sullies the mission and the purpose of Golden Gate, I do believe there is enough rich natural and cultural history existing on those lands worthy of federal protection and our respect.

  • Interior Officials Want to Allow Concealed Carry in the National Parks   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Some years ago, while fishing at a local lake that is in an "out of the way" rural area adjoining the city I live in, I was accosted by a group of drunken teenagers. These five punks had knives and clubs. If it had just been me, I might not have been so annoyed, or I might have just run away. However, I had my wife, 9 year old daughter and 6 year old son with me. After locking my family in our pickup, I stood there, confronting these hooligans, with just my bare hands. Luckily, a park ranger (armed) drove by and forced them away.

    I had never felt the need for a gun before that day, but as soon as concealed carry was permitted in my state, I took the necessary classes to obtain one. I , to this day, do not routinely carry a gun, even though I am legally able. I only carry one when I am away from the mainstream of my urban life.

    It is my opinion that those who feel threatened by a person carrying a handgun legally are totallly lacking the understanding of many of us who have a concern of the person carrying a weapon illegally, or with antisocial intent. You have nothing to fear from me unless you are threatening me or my loved ones. I will not accidentally shoot anyone, because I do not "play" with my tool for self-defense. I go to great lengths to make sure my weapon is both protected from accidental handling by someone else, and locked and in a safe posture at all times. Everyone of the people, that I know, who has a legal permit to carry shows the same concern for safety. We know only too well how quickly we could be on the wrong side of the law by misusing this privilege.

    Those people who are most vocally against the legal carrying of handguns are so incrediblly insensitive to the realities of our world, it staggers me. I am not a violent or "John Wayne" type, but I do not feel I should be forced to subject myself to someone who has no social conscience. We are supposed to be living in a free country. How free are we when we must fear for our safety when just going fishing?

    If you don't like guns, don't buy one and stay away from people who have them, if you know. Don't automatically assume that you are in danger because a responsible gun owner has one in your vicinity. You are probably safer.

  • At Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Things are Not Always as They Seem   6 years 26 weeks ago

    A lecture and a stern "don't do it again" doesn't cut in my book for punishment for carrying a potent AK-47 into a National Recreation Area. There's nothing cute about this weapon, for it's main purpose is to annihilate and kill as many people possible. This weapon should never be in the hands of the general public to use or own...except for the military, police and most governmental security forces. Again, as I quoted before: NO GUNS IN THE PARKS!

  • At Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Things are Not Always as They Seem   6 years 26 weeks ago

    It reminds of the great scene from "The Naked Gun":

    Mayor: Now Drebin, I don't want any trouble like you had on the South Side like last year, that's my policy.
    Frank: Well, when I see five weirdos dressed in togas, stabbing a man in the middle of the park in front of a full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards, that's my policy.
    Mayor: That was a Shakespeare In The Park Production of Julius Caesar, you moron! You killed five actors! Good ones, too!

  • Had a Good Laugh Yet Today? Congress Wants You to Believe that the Lower Taunton River is “Wild and Scenic”   6 years 26 weeks ago

    A few points of clarification. 1) I certainly did not mean to imply that supporters of this Wild and Scenic River designation are "lining their pockets." Ron may prefer to speak for himself in this matter, but I think he meant "up for sale" in the broad, generic sense of the term. 2) I agree that curbing water pollution is an important goal, but Wild and Scenic River designation isn't meant for that purpose. Pollution control per se is a separate issue that should be considered in the context of the Clean Water Acts and other existing federal and state water pollution laws and regulations. Whether this legislation is enacted or not, the pollution problems of the river and the bay will have to be addressed. You have to admit, the tremendous media attention attending the river designation is sure to put the area's water pollution problems in sharper focus. 3) Regulating gas lines running through populated areas is a related issue, but not central here. The hazard posed by the proposed LNG terminal is the principal concern, though it's obvious that gas transmission lines are hazardous to some degree.

  • Had a Good Laugh Yet Today? Congress Wants You to Believe that the Lower Taunton River is “Wild and Scenic”   6 years 26 weeks ago

    I like your point about the Narragansett Bay.

    Will this act, "legal" or not, prevent further pollution??

    Will this act help to clean up any polluters??

    If the Congress were more honest, they would 1) go after the polluters; and 2) write a law to prevent gas lines in so tightly congested populated area.

    Yes, if you have answers to my questions, please send news!

  • National Park Service Agrees, Conditionally, to Keep Yellowstone's Sylvan Pass Open For Snowmobiling   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Man, Over 8,000 per smowmobiler. In todays society that is an incredible waste. I am glad I stopped machining a few years ago. I couldn'd see my pleasure ruining the future of others. Stop this maddness.

  • Had a Good Laugh Yet Today? Congress Wants You to Believe that the Lower Taunton River is “Wild and Scenic”   6 years 26 weeks ago

    No offence, Bob:

    but I don't think there is anything in this story or any of the comments showing that elected officials are lining their pockets, regardless of whether we may or may not feel this legislation ought to be passed. Do I miss your point somehow?

    These elected officials are trying to block a Liquid Natural Gas plant. If they wanted to line their pocket they WOULD be supporting the plant. LNG plants are hugely importanta to gas companies and those who prefer natural gas over other forms of fossil fuels. Local people fear they can blow up, and take local communities out with them.

    My issue above re elected officials was only if the park service's nearby staff, who I am guessing are fans of Rep Frank to boot, were inclined to over-value the locally significant Taunton, and recommend that it be considered qualified for the Wild & Scenic River system.

    Again, I don't think there is any money in that, either. We are dealing either with sloppy thinking, or a misuse of environmental laws to block something else, rather than protect recognized natural resource excellence.

    I personally believe it is dangerous to misuse environmental laws just to block, because it creates cynicism among the vast public opinion in the political middle, who began to distrust environmentalists when they thought their motives to be perverse. That is what happened with the famous "snail darter" case, or how it was presented, and the damage has not stopped. And it conceivably harms the national park service if the public believes the quality of areas in the Park System (with wild rivers) and/or the Wild & Scenic Rivers System is slipping.

  • Had a Good Laugh Yet Today? Congress Wants You to Believe that the Lower Taunton River is “Wild and Scenic”   6 years 26 weeks ago

    It just goes to show you that this country is still up for sale, even by those that we elect to protect us. As long as they can line their own pockets then the "end does justify the means".

  • National Park Quiz 12: The Fair Sex   6 years 26 weeks ago

    "Among the first" (1834, 1836) is a true statement, though obviously not as conceptually tidy as you'd like. :-) There were several strikes (then called "turn-outs"), including at least three in the textile industry, in the late 1820s and early 1830s. (There were some "strikes" (worker mutinies/rebellions) before that time, to be sure, but the wages & hours criterion becomes a bit dicey.) Anyway, the statement in the item stem doesn't lead you in the direction of a wrong answer. I'm glad you enjoyed the quiz.

  • Had a Good Laugh Yet Today? Congress Wants You to Believe that the Lower Taunton River is “Wild and Scenic”   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Anon, I do understand the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; after all, it's been around for forty years. It's just that your first point addresses an issue that is not at all as simple as you seem to imply. The lower Taunton would be designated under the "recreational" classification of the act. That's the technical point. Now here is the IMPORTANT point. The supporters of the bill don't want you to dwell on the fact that the recreational classification will apply! In fact, they don't even want to mention it. They want to leave you to believe, if you will kindly do so, that the lower Taunton is conceptually the same as the upper Taunton -- which is to say, scenic, or better yet, wild and scenic. Elected officials who support Wild and Scenic River status for the Taunton consistently use the terms "wild and scenic" in reference to the whole river, from Bridgewater to tidewater. And why is that? Stop and think about it for a minute. Advocates of federal protection for the river want to keep that LNG plant the hell out of there. Put yourself in the place of those supporters. Given the choice between referring to the lower Taunton as a "recreational river" (honest descriptor) or as a "wild and scenic river" (politically expedient descriptor), which would YOU choose? No contest. I challenge you to use any sources you can find and tell me of even a half-dozen times -- no, make that three -- when a Congressional advocate of federal protection for the lower Taunton has, in a public forum, referred to the object of his affection as a "recreational river." That said, I absolutely love your second point.

  • Why Stop At Golden Gate National Recreation Area? What Other NRAs, Monuments, Etc., Should Be Renamed?   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Right on Jsherman; the GGNRA was established to provide a place for all of us to recreate in the numerous ways that we do: some on foot, some by bike, some on horse, some on surfboard, some with dog, some without, some in a car, some not. There are millions of us living in these here hills, and especially now we need land and sea access close to us because most of us can't afford to go to far afield.

    That brings up the question of who decided on this name change. Take a look at the Boards of the Presidio Trust and the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy (we should have paid closer attention to their name years ago), the members of these boards are a list of the rich and influential in the Bay Area (and Pelosi's friends). Easy for them to take out 'recreation', they can go to the ranch in Napa, or Montana, or...... I see this as a bit of class warfare.

  • National Park Service Agrees, Conditionally, to Keep Yellowstone's Sylvan Pass Open For Snowmobiling   6 years 26 weeks ago

    If the money from that were spent "helping" the bison and elk herds the way they've been "helping" the bison herds in the past winters - with all the slaughter; then no thank you.

    However, yes, this is completely ridiculous - from the point of view of direct public involvement in the process but most especially in what they're doing in bombarding Yellowstone to keep this pass open to a few privileged people during winter.

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

  • Is the Bear "Hunt" in Katmai National Preserve Sporting or Ethical?   6 years 26 weeks ago

    1: Thanks to all passionate thoughts on this issue, and please answer my more technical questions, below
    2: Dear Anonymous: your point about 'who pays for wildlife management' is ridiculous. What they mean by "management" is hunting. Rep. Don Young, (as a Republican in AK would surely have had a veto over Bush's appointment of Mary Bomar) in Congress famously said "Management IS Hunting." It is circular reasoning to say we need hunting to pay for wildlife being 'managed' when all they are is being hunted. Just ask Ron Summerville if he wants to sink more ADF&G money into non-game species.

    Huge numbers of tourists pour to AK to see unhunted wildlife. Federal taxes pay for Katmai. MacNeill's unhunted wildlife generates huge revenues, just ask AK vistor and tourism bureau.


    -- didn't NPS originally (1976) ask that this area be CLOSED to hunting because of what the NPS then called the "firing line?" where vulnerable migrating bears would get picked off in moment in their lifecycle when they are in concentrated habitat? Are these bears actually as habituated as is being said here?

    -- I understood that when the salmon are running, bear aggression and waryness toward humans (and other bears) decreases because of the rich feeding going on. Is this true? If so, why not ban hunting when the salmon are running?

    -- Someone was talking about hunting with a bow as 'fairer' than with a gun. While it is certainly true the gun does not even approximate fairness at this scene, I would think the danger to humans and bears both from bow hunting would be extreme. It is hard to imagine an arrow preventing a bear from charging and killing people in the vicinity, and likely that many wounded bears would leave the area to die. For those who believe in subsistence-only hunting, as opposed to trophy hunting, it would seem bow hunting would lead to a lot of waste and danger. I saw an angry brown bear once, from gangrened feet (not a hunting wound) that was extremely dangerous to other bears and people, but wonder if a wounded bear in an area that permits park visitation is an inappropriate risk to visitors generally.

    I supposed, on the video, it was the guide with the rifle and the tourist-hunters with the bows. I can appreciate the rage toward these guys when you see what is happening to the bears, because no way those guys would have made it back to their plane if the guy with the gun was not there to finish off the bear. And then the bow hunters did a 'high 5.' Go gigure.

    -- does anyone know if ADF&G considered limiting the hunt to males-only? Or are they justifying this as an overpopulated bear habitat?

    -- Isn't it true that the NPS has the responsibility and the authority in the law establishing the National Preserve to assess the question, raised by commenters above, that the lifecycle of bears is so extended and the habitat so vast that what appears to be an abundance of bears actually does threaten the natural population dynamics NPS is obligated to manage? And don't the federal courts hold federal agencies responsible for the management of non-migratory wildlife on federal land, and they are ultimately responsible and accountable for any management scheme ADF&G would set up? Or did Don Young and Ted Stevens arrange the law, in the same way as they have authorized 'bridges to nowhere' in Alaska, so that the NPS cannot overrule ADF&G inside the Preserve???

    -- Did Mary Bomar raise the issue of appropriate protection of wildlife at her recent superintendent's meeting/Extravaganza in Utah?? I heard she put a video together for the superintendents comparing herself to all the Great Directors of the past. . . . Maybe we would think better of Mary Bomar if she would take on Don Young, Don Summerville, and Ted Stevens.

  • Why Stop At Golden Gate National Recreation Area? What Other NRAs, Monuments, Etc., Should Be Renamed?   6 years 26 weeks ago

    As some on this site will know, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is on record (and pushing in every way we know how) for the establishment of a Centennial Commission to analyze many of the existing institutional processes and the overall governance of the National Park System. Such a commission could make recommendations to the Congress and the Executive Branch for changes that would increase the probabilities that management of the National Park System in the second century of the NPS would be the best possible. I'm not trying here to open up debate on the concept or responsibilities of such a commission, but would suggest that this issue of naming of areas in the System is exactly the kind of issue that it could take up.

    Bill Wade
    Chair, Executive Council
    Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

  • National Park Quiz 12: The Fair Sex   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Thanks for the interesting Quiz, Bob, but what if we don't want to rest on our laurels?? Or shouldn't !

    I am concerned that Lowell may be wrong in claiming their priority on strikes by women.

    My understanding is that in Pawtucket RI and Troy NY women had way larger and earlier roles in leading and participating in strikes than in Lowell. But I am no historian.

    So, before we let ourselves rest on the laurels of conventional wisdom, or Received Word, do you, or does anyone know the real truth about women in the labor movement, not just the Lowell hype??

  • Had a Good Laugh Yet Today? Congress Wants You to Believe that the Lower Taunton River is “Wild and Scenic”   6 years 26 weeks ago

    Bob -- two points on the Taunton:

    1. As was covered in a previous thread of yours, in the law, you are either a 'Wild' or a 'Scenic' but not a 'Wild & Scenic' river. It is called the "Wild & Scenic Rivers System," a system that also includes 'Recreational' as a category. What is the proposed category for the Taunton??

    2. It would be fun sometimes -- considering the poliitical atmosphere that is created in the NPS Boston office just a few miles away on an issue like this one with a congressman with the seniority and disposition of Barney Frank -- if you could get the NPS staffers who actually floated the river a lot, and met with local advocates and the congressman, to be interviewed in your column.

    somebody from NPS Boston like Steve Golden or Bob McIntosh, whoever is the mid-level coordinators or program leaders of the project, the step above the person who writes the report. Many of these studies are generated by the close relationship between these NPS staff in Massachusetts, and the interaction and coaching goes on for years before a proposal gets to Congress. The thinking of a Golden or a McIntosh on how they approach these resources, how they see them as comparable to other rivers in the W & S System, would be very useful for those of us who really would like to know what the emerging philosphy is inside the NPS. Are program criteria applied the same way today, for example, as they were earlier, in their opinion? I am sure there are questions you could ask, and only get an answer like "read the study" from these guys, so some of the broader background and day to day experience would seem valid. And all paid for by you, the taxpayer, so one would think they would love to share their thinking and experience !

    The last I heard, the Taunton in MA is the largest source of pollution to Narragansett Bay, the most precious environmental resource in Rhode Island. How 'wild' is that !