Bears evolved by tooth and claw.
Humans evolved by tool and weapon making.
I'll give up my tools, when you remove the teeth and claws from bears.
Jul 30th - 12:46pm |
When it comes to personal self-defense,I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.By the way,the forest DOES NOT belong to the bears,or any other animal for that manner.Neither does the forrest belong to the hikers either.If the bear had been 100 yards away, I would have fired into the air to scare him off. How quick we are to judge when it is not our life that is at risk.
The outcome was predetermined by people that don’t fish. They want to swim around in an aquarium and look at fish and coral. If there is no take from the area then, yes there will be more fish in the area but that will do nothing for the resource. That is Mr Lieberman’s point and the FWC’s point. It is basically a lazy and unproven way to manage a resource.
It is the duty of these parks to maintain a safe environment for both the animals and the humans. Animals that show aggression towards people cannot be allowed to continue to do so.
Every other park puts bears to rest for attacking camp grounds. This case should be no different.
Jul 30th - 20:29pm |
at some point, man has to be responsible for his actions. Especially when he/she does follow the rules
Jul 30th - 14:38pm |
I can't understand how a judge can compare a wild animal in its natural habitat to that of an aggressive dog whose owner didn't properly handle. This is a wild animal and any human entering a national park should understand that and keep clear of it. The mans actions in protecting others was heroic, but ultimately his decision and not the parks fault.
I have to admit I'm disappointed in both my colleagues and in the inconsistencies in Washington. Kudos to Supt. Carlstrom and his staff at Biscayne for following the law and policy and doing what is possible to "conserve unimpaired." Unfortunately, the leaders of Big Cypress have succumbed to the pressure from the locals and the state.
I suspect you know your way around bears fairly well after spending most of your career in Yosemite!
Jul 30th - 12:40pm |
Please reflect on your own statement: "...locked dumpsters and locked food storage containers accomplish that..."
Jul 30th - 08:09am |
Julie you are not listening. They don't need a keen sense of smell. The place is already wreaking from the garbage dumpster and food storage. If the bears are going to be drawn to odors, it isn't going to be from my stove and pot.
Jul 30th - 07:33am |
A bear’s sense of smell is at least seven times greater than that of a bloodhound. They can detect even the smallest amount of food residue on items, no matter how thoughtfully a camper may have cleaned them.
So tell me Ron, why was my stove and coffee pot an issue?
Jul 29th - 22:27pm |
Thank you, I will definitely look for that book. Things have come a long way since Yellowstone's bear "lunch counter"! I can certainly appreciate the efforts of those, like Rachal, who put their field of study to use to promote change and awareness. Thanks again.
Julie, excellent post. There is an book, "ALL ABOUT BEARS", by Rachal Mazur, just a very educational read on the issues of bear management in our National Parks. Rachal is a pro, highly educated, been working on this issue her entire career.
"While this regulation and/or its enforcement may seem “inconvenient”, it is just one of the many efforts of the National Park Service to do its job. Which in this case, was keeping you and other campers safe,"
Jul 29th - 16:22pm |
It is unfortunate that you were “annoyed” by being warned about your grill. When you could have been thankful that this individual was looking after your safety, as well as letting you go with a mere warning, and not an expensive citation (and/or confiscation of your grill). This is a NPS regulation.
Increasing the operating hours that parks are open will certainly increase revenues for concessioners, and the franchise fees to the parks. But what about increased operating costs and maintenance due to the longer hours. What's the net benefit?
Actually, I should have clarified. Permanent Rangers who particularly worked their way through years of seasonal positions, survived by either ben lucky or pursuing training and experience wherever they could find it, rather than the Pro Ranger program, are far more experienced than the typical nearby police officer.
Jul 31st - 08:41am |
That's too bad you feel that way. Because, actually, most permanent Rangers are far more experienced regarding their park and crimes within it, as well criminal law and tactics, than their local counterparts, particularly in wilderness and rural areas. They also have access, like 4WD, and knowledge of access to areas that most of the local PDs do not.
Jul 31st - 05:45am |
In many parks there are local police forces available and they are the ones who end up coming to the rescue when there is a real emergency. They have more experience and they are the ones I am going to call when the you know what hits the fan!
Jul 30th - 18:53pm |
It's entertaining that the PEER study was about NPS Law Enforcement positions yet the National Parks Traveler picture is of an interpretive ranger. This just further shows the lack of respect of law enforcement in the NPS. Many in the NPS see LE as an evil, and in many parks an unnecessary evil.
Jul 29th - 10:21am |
The NPS and it's Superintendents have always had a love hate relationship with its cadre of Protection Rangers. Law Enforcement in the parks has always been considered a necessary evil by park managers. And with the ever shrinking federal budget, law enforcement continues to be short changed in many of the parks.
Jul 28th - 14:05pm |
Keep drinking that conservative kool aid buddy!
Jul 27th - 20:34pm |
The respectful and intelligent people have left or are leaving. I've noticed this change at two local parks. They are tired of environmental agenda dictating them and the leftist politicization. What do you expect?
I don't understand the kerfuffle. What am I missing?
"Not long after the device was activitated, rangers aboard a Teton Interagency helicopter hovered over the duo's location, and Mr. Selwyn signaled that he wanted to be rescued, the release said."
A title change; away from recreation area to National Park may instigate a different mind set. Nothing to lose. Congress should wake up and provide more funding for LE personal. Signs are also important shy of having Rangers present; No Littering for example, or no camping no fires. Would think too much goes for road repairs and trash removal, litter abatement is another story.
If you were given 500,000 acres from which to design a national park, how would you do it, where would you start?
It's already happened, Kurt. It is called the Great Smoky Mtns National Park and the land was given to the NPS by generous residents of North Carolina and Tennessee.
And now we have to pay the NPS to use it.
Great questions. The new park has to be accessible to be enjoyed. So, I start with infrastructure. I am mostly a developer with the primary goal of protecting. I'd try to do spoke and hub. Leaving sections more wild and some more developed. Try to give something for everyone.
My husband and I travel to a National Park once a month all over the country. We typically hike about 10 to 12 miles each day, carefully planning our itinerary. It is our experience that the trails are deserted after about 1 mile from the visitor center or road. For us, that is perfect as we enjoy the solitude of our beautiful parks!
Jul 28th - 14:08pm |
I am not brave and don't go too far, especially in the West. Thank goodness there are beautiful things to see close to the lots. We take boat rides, Ranger tours, and hikes of less than 3 miles. There are good things for all of us to see, thanks to fine planning by the Park Service.
And when Johannes, aka Al Gore, flies home, he writes a book about global warming. The penultimate paragraph here says it all. It is the many destructive, "profound" changes to the natural landscape that have caused the problem in the first place.
This article does a good job of illuminating impacts of tourism at the host location, but whether your chosen destination is 'eco' or otherwise, just the indulgence of travelling to it, especially by air, might have the largest worldwide "consequences":