Recent comments

  • Association of National Park Rangers Opposes Change in Park Gun Regulations   6 years 39 weeks ago

    Perhaps then, we should allow people to arm themselves in a school building...after all, you can have guns out on the road in front of the school and there have been rapists who turned out to be teachers, and doesn't the 2nd Amendment state that we can carry weapons? There's a chance of crimanals carrying guns in our schools, so shouldn't we be allowed to protect ourselves from that possibility?

    Why should the government place reasonable restrictions on me to protect other people?!

  • Do Professional Hockey And Yosemite National Park Belong Together?   6 years 39 weeks ago

    For those of you who actually care. The kids loved having the team up here to play. These are kids that make the choice of either going to a very small school (30 students Kinder. to 8th grade) where they don't have the same opportunities offered to them that most kids get in larger communities or being gone for school from before 6AM until around 5PM and still going to at least a small school (in the winter it's dark when they leave for school and dark by the time they get home from school).

    The team being up here had less impact on the environment than your average everyday tourist, they didn't go tramping through the meadows that we are trying to restore just so they could build their cute little snowman, they didn't leave their trash all over the ground, they didn't try to pet the newborn deer (making it's mother reject it). No, instead they made a lot of little kids, who really don't get the opportunity to see a real hockey team everyday, very happy. So what if it was a stupid media thing, the kids had fun, the kids are our future they are what matters (these are kids who are growing up GREEN unlike most of the 'outside world').

    And for those of you who don't like the tourism (which I'm right there with you even though it pays my paycheck)...It's just one of those unfortunate things in life, while the tourists may be 'loving the park to death' they are also what keeps it alive, for without the money they bring in there won't be money for National Parks at all.

    BTW was anyone able to see it on TV?

  • Association of National Park Rangers Opposes Change in Park Gun Regulations   6 years 39 weeks ago

    I don't see the strength of the argument. It's the same story of banning the law abiding citizens while ignoring the fact that the bad guys (criminals, poachers etc) will be armed with or without the ban. If you have passed all the checks and are deemed to be a responsible adult then it shouldn't make a difference when you walk from state woods onto the NPS woods. Either you can affect an outcome in a life or death situation or you trust to the whims of the predator that your facing.

  • Association of National Park Rangers Opposes Change in Park Gun Regulations   6 years 39 weeks ago

    that is true, also what do they mean by negligent discharge, any law abiding citizen who has a legal ccw or cancealed carry firearms permit is not going to just be letting off rounds in the park for no reason if any citizen with a legal ccw is discharging there firearm its because of a rabid wild animal or bear or mountin lion which are EVERY where!! we all have a right to protect our selves from 2 legged AND four legged creatures, for crying out loud people are even getting killed by animal IN FRIGGIN ZOO'S!!!

  • Great Basin National Park's Air Could Be Compromised By Proposed Power Plant   6 years 39 weeks ago

    First of all, I want to say this might seem like I am picking on Lone Hiker but this is directed to all people who mix in a lot of emotion with a small amount of facts when they post an article. We all have our own ideas about how things should be and that is right and good but you better know what you are talking about and the finer details involved. Unless you know how the utlilities operate internally and how the U.S. electrical grid is operated, you really shouldn't make assumptions to motives and reasoning. Get the knowledge and understanding first, then suggest REASONABLE changes that fit the context of what you are discussing. That's just better for everyone.

    Apparently you (Lone Hiker) do not understand what immediately means. Of course there is potential for a balanced renewable portfolio in the future but right now all of the references you made are not mass produced enough to provide any stable baseload generation. Solar is a great idea in states like Nevada, Arizona, etc. but no one is producing enough right now to make a dent in the demand requirements. Furthermore, it appears you make conclusions based on your emotions about this topic. I am thankful you are not a legislator. You can whine and complain about money grubbing capitalists but guess what, you live in a capitalist country.

    I have inserted practical, realistic responses to your rantings below.

    Regulators no longer permit coal plants to be built.

    RE: The regulators are appointed by the government and as such the people elect the state government. Like it or not, that is how this country works.

    Tell that to the people in east-central Illinois, who were just awarded a $1.5 billion dollar "new generation" generating plant which is coal fired. The energy companies haven't abandoned the fossil fuel sources, much to the disdain of many of the population. All they know is profiteering, not conservation (which they ignore due to it's negative impact on their ledger sheets and therby their stock ratings) or environmentally friendly energy sources (which their "data" continually discount as impractical, again due to the negative dollar flow), which leaves the people of this nation little option but to take the bull by the horns and fight for our individual energy indepencence. Funny how we have to jostle with our internal suppliers (and our "concerned" government) and not the foreign sources of our own pollution.

    RE: Apparently you believe that corporations are evil and only have concern for the bottom line. That may be true but in my experience dealing with electric utilities, they have a conservative approach to adapting new technologies until it has proven itself. That's why many renewable projects currently coming online are a private venture and are benefitting from government grants and subsidies (though most are very small). The investor owned utilities are accountable not only to the shareholders but also to a commission that controls how they set their rates. They have to be frugal or the commissions will often come down on them hard by either not allowing a rate increase or imposing penalties upon them which in turn will hurt the investor. These commissions actually limit the amount of profit the utility can make and that is why utility stocks have often been referred to as your "widow stocks" because they are pretty much guarantee you a stable but low rate of return (low risk - low reward). IOU's (Investor Owned Utilities) have to be conservative or they go out of business. Like it or not, that is how it works. However, as stated before, many (not all) still go ahead and contribute a great deal to universities and research firms to develop technology that can either improve current generation or develop newer cleaner sources of generation. Our generation (Baby Boomers through Gen Yers) has an "I want it now, I don't care how much it costs" attitude that really goes against the way we became a great country...by saving rather than going into debt. We have to be patient but insistent as infrastructure (a proper transmission grid to transfer this new power all over the U.S. and Canada) takes time to build. Research the industrial revolution if you want to see the effects that moving too fast can have on the people of a nation and the world at large.

    what do you do when the sun doesn't shine? Same for wind, what do you do when the wind isn't blowing?

    Sun not shining in this region? Oh brother......
    Locally, the percentage of available solar radiation received is approximately 85% of total availability, which ranks among the highest in the nation, as in top 2% of the national average. Due to the advent of technologically superior storage cells, any locality achieving a ranking above 60% is highly viable for utilizing solar panels exclusively as an energy source. Few parts of the nation, excluding the Pacific Northwest and the area surrounding Mount Washington qualify as "poor" candidates for solar inclusion, at the very least as a supplemental source to the power grid.
    As far as the wind not blowing you have a slightly improved arguement. If one investigates historical meteorlogical data on average wind speeds, you'll find these data to compliment the solar generation "soft spots" quite nicely, since the windspeeds tend toward increasing in frontal boundry zones, which also happen to be areas of storm generation and therefore, politely stated, not as sunny as the desert regions. In these areas the percentages are easily reversed from mainly solar to wind generation units, with solar as the supplement. This is quite a potent combination of power generation resources for use by our nation. But power company propaganda has instilled fear into the American consumer, and as the saying goes, "People are always afraid of whats different". It is this fear of change that energy companies use to keep the consumer "in line". Case in point.......how long did the Bell System litigate against integration of other phone networks, claiming that if allowed the consumer service levels would be negatively impacted? What a load of crap that was.
    But overall, the instillling a fear technique works like a charm, doesn't it?

    RE:
    All of your info is fine and dandy, but the transmission grid is not set up that way currently. If you have worked for or have been involved with the operations of a transmission grid, you would understand that. Sure, the sun may shine most of the time but currently there is no one who manufactures battery banks large enough and cheaply enough that would keep it even feasible to implement a solar baseload system. Once again, infrastructure and investment become the issue. Products have to be produced...they don't just fall out of the air. So to recap, no products available to make your suggestion a reality and if you skipped the batteries, the power would not be available and even then how would you get it where it needs to go. Just like water, we have plenty of it in my city, but I can't help the guy in Africa who has none available to him simply by wishing it to him. You need the "pipes" to get it there. The last time I checked, most people depend on electricity to function nowadays and rolling blackouts would not be a welcomed option if you remember when California had them. You are talking about culture change and you can slander all the businesses you want but that won't change the culture. People have to make a choice on an individual level and then band together financially to demand that change. These are the things the media usually doesn't bother to mention and I am not sure why. By the way, maybe you should research the Bell claims you made and what really happened behind the scenes a little better. The government had to hold a lot of emergency sessions to make sure things became balanced in the long run. It actually did run Bell out of business and many people lost jobs on all fronts after that integration took place. Talk to the technicians on both sides who had to work with the integration..they will tell you that many times the system could not handle it and it was a nightmare for them to eventually get it to work. Besides, the phone system had a release as cell phones were becoming popular and offered another source for people. What would be your source for power if the electric grid shut down? It is not currently designed to operate just on a local level. I was not designed that way and would really decrease dependability to the point where more business would move overseas for the dependable power.

    many/most utilities offer a program where your increased rate pays for renewable energy.
    I find this statment of fact to be the most telling statement of all. The energy suppliers are ready, willing and able RIGHT NOW to grant us our wish, provided that WE foot the bill. That speaks volumes about many topics...
    a) the technology for delivery of alternate sources is not only available, but in place
    RE: Really? That is a flat out lie. Why don't you go to MISO or any of the other government dispatching utilities and tell them that and see what your response from them is. There are some small units in place but most are owned by private companies or investor groups and they don't add enough generation to even account for it in the load forecasting. Even without adding any new generation anywhere, the lines are running right at the minimum reserve capacity much of the time in many places across the country. Call it instilling fear or whatever you want... it is what it is. We need more transmission capacity and anyone who runs a system will tell you that...even if they don't own the generation source.
    b) it is proven to be reliable, since they wouldn't dare compromise their networks with "experimental" sources
    RE: If it were proven so reliable and cost-effective, they utilities would be all over it because they are responsible to the shareholders and would love to cut costs and increase their potential revenue stream. With the potential shortage in available reserve capacity, the utilities would love to be the ones providing the service and again increasing their revenue stream.
    c) they basically refuse to change, though they readily could
    RE: What are you talking about? Utilities have been investing in wind projects so fast that the wind material manufacturers are barely keeping up and building new plants all over the place. Take a look at Florida Power and Light and see how many large wind projects they have put up in the last 4 years...it's quite impressive.
    d) the whores are running the bordello, since the only issue we're haggling about is price for services rendered
    RE: I think I covered this kind of comment/assumption in my introduction.
    e) IT'S TIME FOR MASSIVE CHANGE
    RE: No kidding. China and India are gobbling up resources and that has sent the price of all the electric materials through the roof in the last 4 years. It's very expensive to do any electrical construction. China has coal plants that their own regulatory commission has admitted to not even knowing about that are in service. They also have next to zero emission regulations. Are we going to set the example by making sure we use the cleanest and best available technologies. I hope so!

    All of our national energy generators, from Big Oil to utilities believe they have the American consumer bent over the table. And NOTHING will be changed until we, in unison demand it. The REAL power within this economy lies with the consumer, since nothing can be traded that there is no market to support. But as long as we permit, or encouage there behavior and support them with our habits, expect nothing from them and you won't be disappointed.

    RE: Once again, you resort to name calling. Are you a kid on a playground and is this a way to make you feel better about yourself? You throw in random personal attacks with partial truths...if I remember my Media class from high school I believe that is the definition of "propaganda".
    Sure the utilities offer this program, but investment is made after the program is supported, not before. Utilities have to perform load studies to see where access to the grid would be viable and useful. And to be completely honest, interest has not been high enough to invest the hundreds of millions it would take to build the large scale farms we think of. You can't just add a wind tower here and there and a solar panel here and there and hope it fits into the local grid nicely. In fact, most of the small wind farms or towers that have been installed by the utilities aren't even accounted for in the load forecasting that utilities use to determine how much spinning capacity they need.

    By the way.......are you aware that a replacement source for your natural gas usage lies within your compost piles? Imagine that, totally FREE gas and electricity, right there for the taking.
    RE: Once again, you offer hope but can deliver none. Sure, it would be a solution for a small rural town with lots of animal agriculture. What do you do for the large citys? I agree that it is a good idea with a future potential, but it is only one part of a balanced energy portfolio.

    I'll be happy to elaborate for anyone who has a serious interest.

    RE:
    I would just like to say I grew up as an environmentalist and I love to be outside enjoying God's creation in all its splendor. I would no longer call myself an enviromentalist as I believe people and the peoples' welfare come first. However, that falls right in line since the quality of air and damage we may do to the planet may cause a lot of problems for my children and future generations, we have to try to leave as small a mark as possible while we are here. What we can't do is just shut everything down to make this happen. We have to insist to our legislators to grant tax breaks and continue to enforce legislation that is already present to make sure companies start/continue to be responsible environmentally. On a side note, anyone who thinks they are being so green by buying a Prius is being lied to. The plant that produces the batteries for the Prius is in the middle of litigation because they have been dumping toxins into their local waterways which has killed much of the local animal life and such. You can buy a Honda Civic that is not a hybrid that gets near the same mileage for a lot less and get the increased dependability as well. Feel free to do the research yourself as I have spent too much time on this topic already.

  • Climate Change and the National Parks   6 years 39 weeks ago

    I wouldn't worry too much about the giant sequoias. They predate the dinosaurs and have lasted for 70 million years. In fact, more types of sequoias flourished when the world was hotter. As climate changed over the millenia and the earth became cooler and drier, their range became much more limited. The 2,000 year old trees still living today have borne the ups and downs of the days when Greenland was warm enough for wine growing and the little Ice Age.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 39 weeks ago

    Good point Kurt. That is exactly what conservatives (when we actually had 2 parties instead of the hodgepodge we have now) have been saying for years. Leave such laws to the state and not the federal government. This then lends to the point of the proposed law change. Let the individual state (who knows their citizens better than the fed) determine how their laws are legislated and enforced.

    Further, let's get the states out of the city government's business and let's get the city out of the community's business. The fact that we keep having all these national organizations (National association of park rangers) saying they don’t want us to carry in their parks just further lends to the national control government usurps on its constituents. It’s not the park ranger’s park; it’s the individual citizen’s park.

  • Association of National Park Rangers Opposes Change in Park Gun Regulations   6 years 39 weeks ago

    It is my beleif that the Second Amendant givies everyone the right to Self defence. It follows that everyone that is every person has the constitutional right to Arm themselves for self defense agaist any enemy, be they human or not. If a person citizen does not have the right to self defense niether does the State or nation or the people emloyed by said nation and or state.

  • Climate Change and the National Parks   6 years 39 weeks ago

    Well, if it helps any, Whitnam Mission NHS out in Walla Walla, Washington is doing more than its fair share. In 2006, the park won the US General Services Administration's "Real Property Innovation' Award, focuses on “demonstrating innovation, creativity, and leading practice in Federal real property asset management and sustainability.” Later that same year, NPS at WHIMI won three seperate awards from the EPA, selected as top in the nation for renewable energy, environmental leadership and innovation, and alternative fuel use

    In 2007, the park won the 2007 Department of the Interior Environmental Achievement Award, for excellence in "Renewable Energy Use, Energy and Water Conservation, Green Purchasing, Pollution/Waste Prevention and Recycling, Alternative Fuel and Fuel Conservation in Transportation, and Environmental Management Systems" The park then went on to be honored with the 2007 Governor's Award for Pollution Prevention and Sustainable Practices - the top environmental award given by the State of Washington.

    It might be 'just' an NHS, but it's got more going for it than most of the big-time parks.

    Learn more at http://www.nps.gov/whmi/parkmgmt/awards.htm

    ---
    jr_ranger
    "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Emerson
    http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    Actually, how exactly the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted has been questioned for quite some time. Does it mean states can field a militia, or that individuals have a right to bear arms?

    We might soon have an answer to that question, as the U.S. Supreme Court this past November agreed to consider a case out of the District of Columbia that brings into play exactly what the 2nd Amendment means.

    The court's ruling, no doubt, will spur some serious reaction from both sides.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    The current federal law permits people to keep their guns while traveling in national parks, but it denies them the right to bear, or carry, guns on federal land.
    Wrong. The current law prohibits carrying LOADED firearms in the national parks. You can keep you weaponry cased and in your possession at all times, provided the piece is UNLOADED.

    Semantics.

    Suppose the Second Amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Now suppose the government makes a law stating you can keep your books on you in a national park, but the book must be kept in a case and you can't open it and you can't read it. Absurd, right? So is the current regulation. Thinking the founders would think "bearing arms" means keeping them unloaded and in a case represents delusional thinking.

    Again, if you don't like the Second Amendment, why not go through Constitutional proceedures to change it? Why ignore it or violate it? No one will address this issue. The government and its citizens should not be able to ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't like.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    Awesome...It's great to have Lone Hiker to tell us all how stupid we've been. With all the time he spends posting for the anti-gun platform we'll be singing sweet songs to each other in no time. Talk about a last word freak! If he truly feels that the data doesn't exist on either side of the isle then why would he feel it's a better option to limit the freedoms of those who have a preference? I'm not truly asking you to answer Lone Hiker (although obviously you will...it's called a rhetorical question). We know the reason you will answer is because you have to be the one to set everyone straight on each and every line item on national parks. When is the last time you were actually able to look at an issue and step out of your own experience? (Rhetorical questions again....you can't get out of your own experience) Stop trying to limit other people’s freedoms and worry about your own. If you don’t' want to defend yourself then stop trying to take the ability away from other people.

  • Tar Sands Development Could Impact Canyonlands National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, Glen Canyon NRA   6 years 40 weeks ago

    In situ ("in place") processing methods are designed to use steam, solvents, controlled combustion, and related techniques to remove liquid and gaseous fuels, bitumen, wax, and other valuable commodities from tar sands and oil shale deposits while leaving the waste rock and sand right where it sits. Because it eliminates the need for huge open-pit mines, in situ processing might be developed to the point where it has very little impact on viewscapes ("You can hardly see that it's there") and causes absolutely minimal degradation of wildlife habitat and other natural or cultural/historical features on the surface. Proponents are likely to argue that in situ processing is a win-win proposition, a sort of "have you cake and eat it too" approach to utilizing strategic resources.

  • Great Basin National Park's Air Could Be Compromised By Proposed Power Plant   6 years 40 weeks ago

    Regulators no longer permit coal plants to be built.

    Tell that to the people in east-central Illinois, who were just awarded a $1.5 billion dollar "new generation" generating plant which is coal fired. The energy companies haven't abandoned the fossil fuel sources, much to the disdain of many of the population. All they know is profiteering, not conservation (which they ignore due to it's negative impact on their ledger sheets and therby their stock ratings) or environmentally friendly energy sources (which their "data" continually discount as impractical, again due to the negative dollar flow), which leaves the people of this nation little option but to take the bull by the horns and fight for our individual energy indepencence. Funny how we have to jostle with our internal suppliers (and our "concerned" government) and not the foreign sources of our own pollution.

    what do you do when the sun doesn't shine? Same for wind, what do you do when the wind isn't blowing?

    Sun not shining in this region? Oh brother......
    Locally, the percentage of available solar radiation received is approximately 85% of total availability, which ranks among the highest in the nation, as in top 2% of the national average. Due to the advent of technologically superior storage cells, any locality achieving a ranking above 60% is highly viable for utilizing solar panels exclusively as an energy source. Few parts of the nation, excluding the Pacific Northwest and the area surrounding Mount Washington qualify as "poor" candidates for solar inclusion, at the very least as a supplemental source to the power grid.
    As far as the wind not blowing you have a slightly improved arguement. If one investigates historical meteorlogical data on average wind speeds, you'll find these data to compliment the solar generation "soft spots" quite nicely, since the windspeeds tend toward increasing in frontal boundry zones, which also happen to be areas of storm generation and therefore, politely stated, not as sunny as the desert regions. In these areas the percentages are easily reversed from mainly solar to wind generation units, with solar as the supplement. This is quite a potent combination of power generation resources for use by our nation. But power company propaganda has instilled fear into the American consumer, and as the saying goes, "People are always afraid of whats different". It is this fear of change that energy companies use to keep the consumer "in line". Case in point.......how long did the Bell System litigate against integration of other phone networks, claiming that if allowed the consumer service levels would be negatively impacted? What a load of crap that was.
    But overall, the instillling a fear technique works like a charm, doesn't it?

    many/most utilities offer a program where your increased rate pays for renewable energy.
    I find this statment of fact to be the most telling statement of all. The energy suppliers are ready, willing and able RIGHT NOW to grant us our wish, provided that WE foot the bill. That speaks volumes about many topics...
    a) the technology for delivery of alternate sources is not only available, but in place
    b) it is proven to be reliable, since they wouldn't dare compromise their networks with "experimental" sources
    c) they basically refuse to change, though they readily could
    d) the whores are running the bordello, since the only issue we're haggling about is price for services rendered
    e) IT'S TIME FOR MASSIVE CHANGE

    All of our national energy generators, from Big Oil to utilities believe they have the American consumer bent over the table. And NOTHING will be changed until we, in unison demand it. The REAL power within this economy lies with the consumer, since nothing can be traded that there is no market to support. But as long as we permit, or encouage there behavior and support them with our habits, expect nothing from them and you won't be disappointed.

    By the way.......are you aware that a replacement source for your natural gas usage lies within your compost piles? Imagine that, totally FREE gas and electricity, right there for the taking.

    I'll be happy to elaborate for anyone who has a serious interest.

  • Tar Sands Development Could Impact Canyonlands National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, Glen Canyon NRA   6 years 40 weeks ago

    Hey Bob, how 'bout some more info on this "in situ" process. I'd rather hear it from you before I start hearing the media spin.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    [i]The senators are only trying to keep otherwise law-abiding people from becoming convicted felons, if they should get caught with a handgun in their backpack.[i/]
    Doesn't make you much of a "law abiding citizen" if you're willfully disregarding the current the law, does it?

    [i]I find it unthinkable that I could be arrested for carrying a pistol in the dangerous back country.[i/]
    I've spent numerous nights in the backcountry. Just where is this alleged "dangerous" territory?

    [i]I would feel that my Govt. was at fault and forced me into unnecessary danger by denying me the right to bare arms in the wilderness.[i/]
    Oh, please.............

    [i]The current federal law permits people to keep their guns while traveling in national parks, but it denies them the right to bear, or carry, guns on federal land.[i/]
    Wrong. The current law prohibits carrying LOADED firearms in the national parks. You can keep you weaponry cased and in your possession at all times, provided the piece is UNLOADED. Let's attempt not to misrepresent the facts for our own benefit.

    [i]I think we/I have more respect for wildlife in their natural enviroment than you uneducated anti gun people,[i/]
    Funny how anyone who disagrees with our viewpoint is immediately tagged "uneducated". I take umbrage with your stereotyping, and will compare favorable in any educational forum you desire. Bet on it.

    [i]Laws are for the law-abiding, not criminals.[i/]
    Again, not quite true. Criminals are deemed as such due to their purposefully ignoring societal rules and regulations. Anyone can be a "non-criminal element". It's a choice we all make, every day, in many aspects of our daily lives, hopefully with some fore-thought as to the consequences associated with the wrong choices.

    [i]The tax code is confusing to most, should we stop paying taxes? [i/]
    DEFINATELY!!! You really need to ask?

    Well put Jon!

    [i]and all of us "hick" gun owners are so dumb)[i/]
    Guilty conscience? I never saw the term "hick" in the text of the Times article referenced above. And by the way, many laws vary from state to state, including basic automobile operations, business practices, warranties, schooling, marital prerequisites, etc. And as any judge or peace officer will attest to, "ignorance of the law is NO excuse".
    That was a pretty poor arguement on your part. One could just as well reply with sonething akin to "show me the data that purports to raise the safety levels in areas where persons with concealed weapons trod". In neither instance does the data exist.

    I like your logical tirade Barky. One a a pitiful few comments in this segment that elicits any manner of thought progression sans emotion and testosterone.

    I'm back Kurt!! Hope the holidays went well for you all.

  • Climate Change and the National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    what is the affect of camp fires on climate change and could this be banned in the near future ? what impact on camping could such a ban bring to tourisum ? my guess is the same impact as no smoking in public places. signed RV FullTimer...keep the campfires burning...

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    I have been hiking all over the US and overseas. For the most part I have carried a firearm every time, with the exception of Hawaii, and Europe. I have never needed to use it, but it gave me great comfort knowing it was at my disposal. I find it unthinkable that I could be arrested for carrying a pistol in the dangerous back country. Especially when you can go for long periods of time before someone could come to aid you after an attack from either wild animal or man. I would feel that my Govt. was at fault and forced me into unnecessary danger by denying me the right to bare arms in the wilderness.

  • National Park Status Proposed for Oregon, West Virginia State Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    Hmm, smells of pork...

    As a resident of Oregon, I have to admit the Silver Falls area is beautiful, but is already very well governed by the state. I don't know if every waterfall in the country needs an NPS designation; if so, the Columbia River Gorge would be far more deserving of NPS status than the Silver Falls area (the Gorge is currently a National Scenic Area under Forest Service jusrisdiction).

    If I look at the potentials for NPS designations, there are other higher priorities than these two areas. And an even higher priority than new NPS designations would be for us to take care of the ones we have.

  • Great Basin National Park's Air Could Be Compromised By Proposed Power Plant   6 years 40 weeks ago

    You state "I find this to be a little specious... Why not ask "What are the ways that we can retain visibility (and enhance it elsewhere) as well as improve the livelihoods of people and economies?"" Of course that is a question you can ask but for the immediate future (which is what we are talking about in the case of the coal plant being built for "Sin City") they will need to have power NOW which was really the main context being addressed. Your question is a long term question and does not address this issue. People will have to accept that coal plants will be built until 1 of the following things happen:
    1. Coal is no longer the cheapest source of baseload generation (baseload is defined as a reliable, consistent, and sustainable generation resource to meet required maximum capacity and does not include wind, solar, and many other renewables).
    2. People band together and open their wallets to pay more for their electricity by demanding it from the utilities that serve them (really a change of philosophy when it comes to a capitalist based economy).
    3. Regulators no longer permit coal plants to be built.

    However. whatever utility is installing this plant should be using the most recent, proven technologies to keep emissions at a minimum and if not they need to be held accountable by there regulators who they answer to. The regulatory commission/committee/legislator they are governed by should be your point of contact. In my experience, utilities are usually funding new technologies and installing proven ones as they become available. As was stated before, for the LONG TERM invest your own money in green technologies that seem to have the best potential and could potentially have economies of scale that will rival coal in the future. Or perhaps, you could even invest in technologies that could create near zero emissions from coal. There are currently many R&D firms and universities working with utilities to make this a not-too-distant reality. If this were the case, you could urge legislators to give tax breaks to utilities who install these technologies We could then market the technologies to the largest and growing users of coal in the world (China and India) which would in turn bolster our economy and lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy as we have enough coal in this country to last hundreds of years.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 40 weeks ago

    So all the wilderness and animal lovers actually believe that the concealed permit holders HAVE NOT been camping or hiking along side of them for years. Naive!
    I can assure you that many more people than you know have carried pistols in their backpacks. Haven't heard of any Dodge City shootouts around the campfires, or piles of dead wolves and grizzlies.
    The senators are only trying to keep otherwise law-abiding people from becoming convicted felons, if they should get caught with a handgun in their backpack. The same gun that they have probably been hiking with for years, and not felt the need to shoot man or beast yet.

  • Senators' Letter to Open National Parks to Concealed Weapons   6 years 40 weeks ago

    I believe that anyone who has a concealed weapons permit should have the right to legally carry in our national forests. After all, these forests belong to us. Recent events that have occurred in our national forests not only suggest that being armed could have stopped some very hideous crimes, but these crimes demand that since the government can not protect us, we must protect ourselves. Our police forces will tell you that they are there to protect us but really they are there to keep the peace. How often has someone called 911 emergency service with a life and death situation and then been found dead before the police could respond. I am not critisizing the police. They have a very difficult and serious job to perform, and I think they do a good job of it, but they can not be everywhere at the same time. So I feel very strongly in being allowed to defend myself, as I feel that others have that same right. So wheter they allow us to defend ourselves legally or we carry concealed illegally, the choice is up to us. Someone once said " I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six". This is my way of thinking and I hope more feel the same way.

  • Senators' Letter to Open National Parks to Concealed Weapons   6 years 40 weeks ago

    I'm glad to see this issue being discussed, and I believe some modifcations to the current "no firearms in national parks" policy should be made. In my case, I have come across two particular issues. First, as someone who enjoys the backcountry areas of national parks, I would like to be a "legal" carrier of a loaded handgun. My justification being self-defense from dangerous wildlife. (Given the changing weather patterns, I can envision bears becoming more aggressive in the future.) Second, in discussions with rangers/NPS law enforcement personnel, I have personally seen what may only be described as a bias against legal in-park fire arms possession--or a lack of knowledge of actual firearms regulations.
    At a minimum, national park firearms policy ought to reflect policies similar to a majority of city/county arrangements found throughout the U.S. (to include concealed carry provisions and associated safety/background checks).

  • Great Basin National Park's Air Could Be Compromised By Proposed Power Plant   6 years 40 weeks ago

    This isn't a park vs. community situation... The technology proposed in this plant is a major problem (not state of the art in 2008--what will it be in 2018?). Also, the energy produced in Ely will be sent to Las Vegas, so the whole issue of conservation becomes even more of an issue. People in Ely need economic development, but should they be have to settle with the something that threatens not only their environment, but also their health (remember Mercury?).

    Anon above states "As unfortunate as it is to lose visibility into the night sky, is that more important than the livelihood of the people and our economy?" I find this to be a little specious... Why not ask "What are the ways that we can retain visibility (and enhance it elsewhere) as well as improve the livelihoods of people and economies?"

  • Great Basin National Park's Air Could Be Compromised By Proposed Power Plant   6 years 40 weeks ago

    Anon has got it mostly right. All of us (yes, even Dick Cheney!) should understand that the cheapest, fastest, safest, and most intelligent energy alternative is to "use less energy and waste less energy."