Rick B, yep, that ignore button works about like Hillary/Obama's "Reset" Button.   Both working about the same (big picture:).

I

re: "And, finally, the ugly: the park ranger at the visitor center cash register was armed." This is a major digression from the original topic of this story, but one deserving comment.  

It's a bit ironic that a number of posts on the Traveler in recent years have complained about the specialization of disciplines in the NPS (i.e. "protection rangers only want to do law enforcement, and never have any positive visitor contacts"), so perhaps it should be a good sign that in this case, the ranger involved was actually working behind the visitor counter and help man the cash register.

Back in the 1970s there was a time when commissioned rangers were required to remove their weapons anytime they entered a visitor center or were engaged in any "non-enforcement" duties. It created a potential problem in safeguarding unattended weapons, and, like the comment above, presumed that the thankfully rare criminal activity in parks always occurred only after the bad guys made an advance announcement of their intentions, thus allowing plenty of time for pubic safety personnel to dig their guns out of desk drawers or the trunk of their vehicles, out in the parking lot.

I, too, yearn for days of a calmer, more peaceful world, when "arming" of park rangers was rarely needed. Alas, the days of Mayberry are long gone. I don't have current figures of the percentage of NPS uniformed rangers who are commissioned officers, but a quick Google search suggests perhaps 25%. 

At what point in American history did it become American to insist on branding? Are now all Americans to be identified by what’s between their legs and not their ears? Do what you will behind the wall of your tent—or bedroom. I don’t care. But how is it necessary to parade it? We might as well be running around like cows and bulls. See there! The LGBT brand of the old Bar X!

Civil Rights is not an industry, but millions of Americans have made it so. They have nothing else to offer their country but constantly waving the bloody shirt. Look what your ancestors did to my ancestors. Now you must prove you love me by doing what? By allowing me to wear my brand in public while condemning your brand as unfit.

Read the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. I see no branding of Americans there. I rather see greatness and a true love of country. I rather see an institution of which all Americans can be proud.

You want to brand that by insisting that your superiority derives from your sex life and not your public life? Go ahead, but remember this. No culture has ever survived that process, starting with the good people of Greece and Rome.

Al Runte

Brand: Heterosexual white male, age 67, but had a gay brother-in-law, now deceased. Does that count, Secretary Jewell? Then how about this. A mother who taught me to find the good in everyone and never to check their brand.

Hi, Jim — Thanks for commenting on my observation about the armed ranger. I appreciate your perspective, but have a different one.

Preliminarily, some months ago I did a Google check too on the percentage of armed rangers and came up with about the same percentage as you.

I find the presence of all of these armed personnel oppressive and unpleasant. You see them everywhere, on remote trails, etc. These are parks, not prisons. I've posted on here before that they have almost zero crime . . . I believe I found NPS statistics that showed this.

So why all the guns? I bet it's because the armed rangers get higher pay, and of course we all want a bigger paycheck. As with so many topics on this site, it probably comes down to bureaucratic motivations.

When armed violence occurs in a national park (as at Rainier a couple of years ago), call in the county sheriff and the state police to deal with it. Every park resides within a county and a state, territory, or the District of Columbia. Law enforcement is the traditional business of states and counties. Park rangers have more uplifting roles to play. The concept of an armed ranger seems almost like an oxymoron; at a minimum, it's distasteful and off-putting, at least to me.

Alfred, this is a generational thing. Except for fundamentalist Christians, hardly anyone under 45 agrees with you, even conservative Republicans. Obviously, sexual orientation is deeply rooted in our psyche and is far weightier than what one does with one's body parts. It's at least as fundamental as religion, and we're obsessed with promoting, discussing, denigrating, and generally arguing about religions. There's endless discussion about this, from literary works and popular entertainment (TV shows) to all sorts of historical, psychological, psychiatric, and neurological writing.

You're right that there is a civil-rights industry, which can be obnoxious, but that doesn't mean that civil rights are meaningless, trivial, or frivolous.

As for Greece and Rome, I don't know about Greece, but Rome fell because of some combination of excessive taxation, indifference among the elites to defending the empire (IIRC the army came to be composed of hired mercenaries and not the citizenry), imperial overreach (every empire has eventually bankrupted itself, the U.S. being well on its way to being the latest), lead in the plumbing that debilitated people, corrupt leadership, or simple fatigue. Sexual orientation had nothing to do with it, as far as I've ever heard. In fact, I don't recall homosexuality being much of an issue in Rome. It was an aspect of Greek life, but not in the way we think of the terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality," which, IIRC, date from 19th century psychological concepts and weren't thought of in those linguistic terms in Greece, Rome, or even Renaissance Europe.

"Obviously, sexual orientation is deeply rooted in our psyche and is far weightier than what one does with one's body parts. It's at least as fundamental as religion"

And if the park service decided to spend money on the contributions of xyz religion to America I would be just as opposed.  My view is unpoplular these days as I am all for examining peoples contributions to whatever the issue may be regardless of their race, gendoer or sexual preference.  It baffles me that having this viewpoint makes me the biggot in so many eyes.  Then again I am over 45. 

imtnbke:

re: "I bet it's because the armed rangers get higher pay..."  Unless something has changed in the past dozen years or so, that's incorrect. A GS-9 protection ranger gets the same pay as a GS-9 interpreter. Protection staff may work a few more shifts on nights, Sundays or holidays, but that differential pay is the same as  for any other federal employee.

As to let the " county sheriff and the state police" handle law enforcement, most parks cultivate and enjoy good cooperative relationships with state and local agencies, but the reality is response times to parks can be very long for officers from outside agencies, and their resources are already stretched way too thin for them to be willing or able to take on the extra workload, especially in heavily visited parks.

In the tragic death of the ranger at Mt. Rainier that you mention, most of the analysis indicates if the ranger had not confronted the armed individual on his way into the park, there could have been many more deaths among the nearly 100 visitors - and unarmed employees - trapped by a dead-end road inside the park. After his involvement in earlier shootings, there's no reason to believe this criminal was just coming to play in the snow. This story, from a non-park source, gives a chilling look at that incident: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/exploration/The-Devil-on-...

I'm sorry you find having armed protection staff in the parks "distasteful and off-putting," but I'm a lot more comfortable during a park visit knowing that in case of a problem, help is a lot closer at hand than a distant county sheriff or state policeman.

Thanks for correcting me on the pay issue. Indeed, I think I may have made this point before and been corrected before! It may be time to attach jumper cables to my ears and see if I can fire up some of those dormant neurons. :-)

I did look at the Outside article, thank you, and it left me with the impression that if the hothead soon-to-be-murderer had been shrugged off when he failed to stop at a chain control, nothing would have happened; he probably would have kept going through the park and found some other place at which to unleash his pent-up rage. Instead, it was Code 3: lights, then siren, then a roadblock with those big Chevy Tahoes, as though he'd run a border crossing. I think of the old saying that to a hammer, everything is a nail. I know this is an emotional issue, so I'll stop there.

I'd be curious to know if the parks' strikingly visible law-enforcement aspect has kept marijuana growers out of them. If so, I'd be swayed to rethink my views. If not, then I'd wonder what all of those people driving around in those large NPS SUVs all day are doing, as I couldn't help but notice at Great Basin National Park a couple of years ago.