Recent comments

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    When liberals like Frank N refer to goofy TV shows like "West Wing" ya know they are in deep trouble with their argument. Garbage in, garbage out.
    Uh...pssst...Frank...West Wing is produced by flaming liberals!

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Ya NAILED it, Frank C!!!!

  • Yellowstone National Park's Wolf Population Down More than 25 Percent   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Can't they inoculate the wolves against distemper as well as giving them rabies shots at the same time to control both diseases. This will give us a healthier population. Before anyone complains that we are messing with nature we already have that's why their populations are low in the first place. We exterminated them and then brought them back.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Frank C: The goal of law enforcement officials is to "get the drop" on criminals, just as the goal of criminals is to "get the drop" on their victims. I submit that guns are very effective on offense, somewhat less so on defense.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Frank N. wrote:

    Guns do not stop crime.

    And conversely, banning guns doesn't stop crime.

    And if guns really do not stop crime, I suggest all law enforcement park rangers give up their Glocks. Oh, yeah. It's a twist on the ol' favorite: Guns don't stop crime. Park rangers stop crime.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Kurt –

    Here's some information on the shelf-life for bear pepper spray from a paper ("Bear Pepper Spray: Research and Information") by Dr. Tom Smith, who at the time was at the USGS Alaska Science Center. I'd rate him as one of the top bear researchers in the country:

    Know how old your can of bear pepper spray is and discard it when the manufacturer’s published shelf life expires. Safety in bear country is serious business so why trust your well-being to an old, out-dated can of bear spray? As I understand it, the chemicals used in bear pepper spray are stable over time (i.e., contents are good for quite a few years), but that the seals holding the pressurized contents in the can age and will eventually fail, resulting in leaks. So what is the shelf life? I recently browsed a number of bear pepper spray web sites (June 2003) and found that most did not post their product’s shelf life, although a couple did ( e.g., Frontiersman and Counter Assault have shelf lives of 4 years). If the date of manufacture is labeled on the can you are in good shape, but if not, you might do well to write the date on the bottom of the can for future reference. Occasionally I see some very old, nearly empty cans of bear pepper spray out on the trails in Alaska. My peace of mind and personal safety are worth more than that.

    I'd say use your '91 vintage can for practice, or as a demo for someone who needs a chance to become familiar with how the spray works :-)

    The best news is you've had it this long and didn't need it!

  • What Priorities Should The Next National Park Service Director Address?   5 years 28 weeks ago

    GlenW:

    My suggestions for recruitment of passionate believers in all aspects of the NPS mission is not limited only to college kids. There are many folks in America seeking a second or third career that could bring fresh perspectives into all levels of the NPS. But I agree with you. Both the Youth Conservation Corps and the Student Conservation Association do a great job getting young folks into the parks, and we need a more programs just like them.
    Why should the over 40 crowd be given the Volunteers In Parks program as their only option?

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Well said, Frank N!

  • What Priorities Should The Next National Park Service Director Address?   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Frank N, the vehicle for NPS Director to deal with bison would be to insist that the Yellowstone superintendent withdraw NPS's participation in the Interagency Bison Management Plan until a plan that can be developed that is consistent with NPS's mission. That plan must be transparent and have an important seat for the general public as well as the tribal communities, and it must have as its immediate goal the establishment of year round habitat in Montana. Yellowstone in particular is being hurt by having these animals stuck on the Northern Range and the interiors of the park. If Yellowstone the wildlife zoo were allowed to spill out, our favorite place would grow to become even more beautiful.

    I agree that the bison issue and related wildlife issues must be a priority and more so than winter use, though if we can make that go away just to shed light on these other issues, I'd be for it. Morale does strike me as low among those rangers I've met in large part because of buffalo (though admittedly, that's how I tend to meet rangers - in passing because of my work organizing on the issue). Also, it's just more acute. Buffalo are dying now, you know?

    The other issue I'd like to see NPS address is tolerance for homeless populations in the city parks under its purview, especially in Washington, DC. While they aren't rounding up the homeless and shipping them to slaughter, the lack of respect is just as palpable. That is, I don't want NPS to be a law enforcement agency first and foremost, but in all these issues we are touching on, that seems to be the driving emphasis - management is essentially an issue of control, not an issue of respect and stewardship.

    Also, the permit regulations for free speech in Yellowstone are draconian. Those have to go and anywhere else where they are similar.

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

  • University Researchers Suggest Solution To Yellowstone National Park's Bison Problem   5 years 28 weeks ago

    I went on my first ski patrol ever with Buffalo Field Campaign on Saturday. I didn't see any bison on the western edge of the park out by Duck Creek. It was quite an education to see how close the trap was to the boundary of the park (and in the north, the trap is actually INSIDE the park). The snow isn't particularly deep for this time of year, and last year was such a cruel year.

    Today, a couple of my friends from BFC are staying with my family in Bozeman; they are attending the Board of Livestock meetings, where tomorrow brucellosis is on the agenda. They don't have particularly high hopes for the meeting; news recently is that a management zone around Yellowstone is getting push back from some stockgrowers groups and an increasing number of state vets.

    We have known for a long time that even if you aren't an ideologue like me who wants to see bison roam free all the way back into their historic range that there are pragmatic solutions for people who want something in between. Brucellosis need not be a bugaboo for ranchers; what is the bugaboo are outdated APHIS rules that penalize them unfairly for a relatively harmless disease that is easy to contain. Fences could be built in the few areas where cattle are. Year round tolerance is possible in the many areas where cattle are not. Negotiations could be made on a rancher by rancher basis (several wouldn't mind seeing bison on their property), and bison could be managed as are other wildlife.

    Now, of course, once the boundary shifts, people like me are certainly what the stockgrowers worry about - people who will continue to push the boundaries and challenge a way of life that uses cows as a commodity to use over the land. But, frankly, they worry too much - there aren't a lot of people like me. They'd be better off cutting people like me off from the majority of people around here who think that their stance is extremely unreasonable. However, when you control the levers of power, as the stockgrowers do in Montana despite their lack of similar influence on the overall economy of our states, there's not much incentive to change. Cost isn't the issue; power over the land is. Therefore, the outrageous cost is worth it to those who hold the power and see the price as a way of maintaining their power and their own bizarre notions of what the land should allow.

    Jim Macdonald
    Buffalo Allies of Bozeman
    The Magic of Yellowstone
    Yellowstone Newspaper
    Jim's Eclectic World

  • What Priorities Should The Next National Park Service Director Address?   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Thanks for your post Warren Z. I think recruiting and hiring more college students through a paid intership program, especially geogrpahy and anthropology majors, would help bring enthusiastic NPS employees.
    As for Roger (not verified). Allowing the public to carry firearms into parks is likely to create more problems than it may solve. Seems that the noise and fumes produced by the snowmobiles I've been around, by those characteristics, makes them invasive.

  • What Priorities Should The Next National Park Service Director Address?   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Certainly each National Park has its own unique problems that need to be addressed. As a resident of the GYE I have a vested interest in the Parks there. Two issues I would like to see settled once and for all are the snowmobile and bison issues. Anyone who believes that snowmobiles have a place in Yellowstone should take a snowshoe (or CC ski) trip in the park when eight or ten of these machines whizz by. The way bison are treated, both inside and outside of park boundaries, when attempting to migrate to winter forage is a national outrage.
    When decisions regarding such things as snowmobile use, keeping Sylvan Pass open during the winter etc., they should be made according to best available science; not politics. And they certainly should not be made based upon how the decision effects a few local businesses or ranchers. These are National Parks.
    Many, if not most, Park Service employees I am acquainted with are disgruntled. One told me that he did not join the Park Service to harass wildlife, round them up and ship them off to slaughter, as he has been ordered to do with bison. He joined to protect wildlife and other resources. I would think that moral would be high on the priority list.

  • What Priorities Should The Next National Park Service Director Address?   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Infrastructure should be Job 1. Nothing can be done about climate change. Guns rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment; the only change to be made is to make no unconstitutional restrictions on where one can carry.
    Snowmobiles are non-invasive as long as laws already on the books are enforced to protect wildlife, etc.

  • Forget the Camp, Send Your Kid to Yellowstone National Park This Summer   5 years 28 weeks ago

    What a great project. When I was a pre-teen, I went to Quonset Point Naval Base in Rhode Island with the Police Athletic League and had the time of my life. I fired a machine gun, went on the JFK Aircraft Carrier and put out a flammable liquid fire in full firefighting gear. Later on, I became a firefighter.

  • What Priorities Should The Next National Park Service Director Address?   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Some random thoughts:

    -Consistency of leadership across a few administrations/presidents would greatly benefit the agency. How can political appointees, leap-frogging over one another, even hope to effectively lead? I personally think the agency is in need of a leader that has not only been a long-time employee of the NPS but is a demonstrated visionary that could establish a Mission 66 type initiative. (I assume the Centennial Initiative is an attempt at just such a program, but it's merits, aside from hiring increases, are dubious to say the least.)

    -Not one of our panel of experts mentions training or recruitment. Absolutely essential to any organization, public or private, is attracting and developing a staff that is well educated, well trained, and passionate about the enterprise at hand.
    Specifically concerning interpretive staff, the NPS desperately needs folks who are not only qualified for the job but genuinely like working with the public. (I think we've all had plenty of experiences with front line staff that are seemingly uninterested in the visitor's presence...) A genuine dislike for the visitor has led us to the iPod/cellphone tours that, while mostly well produced, are antithetical to principles of stewardship.
    I worry that some folks currently in permanent positions are just glad to have a paycheck and could care less about what kind of experience they provide the visitor.
    Am I correct in the knowledge that in the earlier decades of the NPS one was assigned a park to work at upon initial hire? Such an intake system would certainly help to weed out those folks that are just looking for a comfortable government job within their own community.

    -I have to personally wonder how ongoing comments about the "worth" of existing units must effect the morale of the employees that work so hard to care for and interpret those places.

    -I've personally witnessed a great divide, if you will, between natural resource management and cultural resource management. I would seriously doubt that few Chiefs of Resource Management are equally passionate about (or have the educational background) to successfully meet the needs of both cultural and natural resources.
    Would NPS units that are (by definition) wholly "cultural" or "historic" be better served by their own dedicated agency? While this wouldn't guarantee safety from the kind of mismanagement that Richard Sellers alludes to, it might help to attract and keep the folks that are truly interested in preservation, maintenance, and interpretation of these resources that are just as vital to our nation as the natural ones.

    Just some thoughts and possible answers...

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    I just finished watching an old "West Wing" episode where the President and an advisor had recently been shot. A conservative pundit is arguing about how the ability of "law-abiding" citizens to carry guns makes us all safer. One of the President's men points out that three people (including the President of the United States) had recently been shot despite being surrounded by the most heavily armed, best trained security team in the world; and that they had been shot with a weapon legally purchased. Fiction, yes. But seven US Presidents have been shot in real life, four have died. Guns do not stop crime.
    Someone above wrote, "When I went to Yellowstone, I had a .44 Mag. revolver in my back back when I hiked and camped in the wilderness areas." Another states that he keeps one in his RV. I have read many such statements on these pages over the past several months that this issue has been debated. How can these individuals argue for the rights of "law abiding citizens" when they themselves are not?
    Most people who have actually spent a considerable amount of time in National Parks (as I have, back country and front) will tell you that there is no need for guns there. My daughter spends quite a bit of time hiking (alone and with her girlfriends) in Yellowstone, as well as in the Gallatin National Forest. She has never felt the need to arm herself. However, I do understand that there are grown men out there who are afraid to do so. So be it. Let the buckaroos have their toys. As Kurt implies, there are a lot of issues facing our National Parks. The fact that a handful of machos are walking around our parks with their chests (or something) all swelled up in second amendment pride, thinking that they are protecting the rest of us, is of little consequence in the big scheme of things (a shame, but of little consequence). My daughter, myself and millions of others will go about our business as usual. As has been pointed out, some law-abiding (read that law-breaking) citizens have always carried in National Parks. Carrying and discharging are two different things, after all. I believe that the millions of (truly) law abiding citizens who visit our parks safely every year should be able to expect that, in the event of an illegal discharge, the full weight of the federal government would come down hard....and I mean hard....on the perpatrator. As long as that happens, let the children play cowboys and indians while the adults get back to exploring our beautiful National Parks.
    Kurt, get rid of the bear spray. Most manufacturors recommend replacing it about every three or four years (the date on mine is an expiration date).

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Gentle souls... you have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens who are willing, unlike yourselves, to assume the responsibility for legally carrying a firearm. In fact you should find comfort in the thought that help may be near by rather than far away at the ranger station should trouble befall you. Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away. In the national parks that may be hours.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Jim,

    Regarding bear spray, perhaps you could resolve a dilemma I've been faced with, and my bet is that more than a few other carriers of bear spray also have been confronted with: What's the shelf life on a can of the spray? I've got one that dates to 1991, and I'm guessing I should probably toss it. Do you know of any guidelines pertaining to the viability of the stuff? I've never seen any notation on the cans themselves. But then, perhaps they've added something since '91;-)

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Anonymous -

    You've summed up the correct approach for bear safety:


    The best thing is to be smart when you're in the woods. Be kind of loud, and watch where you're going. And have a big can of pepper spray in a holster.

    I'd like to note one comment about pepper spray for benefit of all readers of this post: it's essential that bear pepper spray be carried for defense against bears. The small canisters of "personal defense spray" purchased by many people for "urban" use are not the same product and are not effective against bears.

    Canisters of bear pepper spray have a larger capacity, discharge the product over a much longer range, and have a different formulation than the product sold for use against people. Look for EPA registration for use against bears when you purchase bear pepper spray.

    An informal survey of hikers in Glacier a couple of years ago found that about half who were carrying pepper spray had the "human" version, not the correct one for bears. It's an education issue.

    Incidentally, although it's not licensed for use against people, if push came to shove, I'd put my money on the average citizen having more luck defending himself against a human attacker by using bear pepper spray than a handgun. In a panic situation, some (many?) untrained shooters will have a hard time hitting their target with a handgun, but it's hard to miss at 30 feet or closer with bear pepper spray.

  • Studies Show Bear Spray More Effective Than Guns Against Grizzlies   5 years 28 weeks ago

    grizI'm taking both (gun and spray) on the trail where bears and cougars are known....whether blessed by the gov't or not. As long as drug cartels are growing pot in our national forests....to go unarmed for protection is foolish.

  • Resolved: I’ll Visit at Least These Five National Parks in 2009   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Gates of the Arctic is truly an amazing park. I vividly recall the trip with Joe McGinnis and the others in our party. I was privileged to be able to spend several years hiking, floating, dog mushing and flying in and around the Gates. I enthusiastically recommend it for those who want to immerse themselves in a wilderness setting. Winter travel in the park requires some in-depth planning and preparation, and you should have some experience in cold weather camping. Anyone thinking of trying it may want to hire an experienced guide and even take advantage of dog team trips offered by local guide/mushers. Back in the mid 1960s and 70s, very few people traveled into the central Brooks Range. My wife and I hiked the area for several years before we had our first on-the-ground encounter with other hikers. It turned out to be a small group led by a friend of ours.

    Ray Bane

  • Colorado Man Dies While Snowshoeing in Rocky Mountain National Park   5 years 28 weeks ago

    He died of a cardiac arrest. He had a very clogged artery.

    [Ed: According to the Larimer County Deputy Coroner, the autopsy revealed that the victim had heart disease and an almost fully-blocked artery in his heart.]

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    I've hiked backcountry in Yellowstone three times, many times in Washington, and even more in Alaska. I honestly do not feel the need to have a gun. However, the thought has occured to me that having one of those small .22 derringer 4 shots would be nice- it would make a loud noise and a big flash. Plenty to scare off a cougar or black bear.

    The best thing is to be smart when you're in the woods. be kind of loud, and watch where you're going. And have a big can of pepper spray in a holster.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 28 weeks ago

    RAH -

    I presume you're referring to the young woman who was murdered around New's Year Day in 2008, while hiking in Georgia. The case was widely publicized.

    Unless we're talking about a different incident, that case did not occur in a national park. As pointed out above, similar highly publicized cases near Yosemite in 1999 also did not occur in the park.

    I'd like to invite those who are convinced violent crime against park visitors is a significant problem to present even a modest analysis of how many of the extremely small number of cases actually: (1) originated on park property, (2) involved park visitors, and (3) could have been prevented if the victim had been armed. Feel free to use news reports, flawed as they may be. I think the results would be revealing.

    My personal experience during 30 years of performing law enforcement in 8 parks, including heavily-visited areas such as Grand Canyon and Lake Mead, is that many of the small number of violent crimes reported in park originated outside the park (example: a rape that is reported in a park actually began with an abduction of the victim outside the park, and a homicide reported in a park is actually a body dumping after drug-related violence that occurred outside the park.) Whether or not park visitors are armed is a moot point in preventing such incidents.

    Furthermore, many of the small number of violent crimes that do occur in the park are premeditated incidents involving family members or acquaintances (example: the man who pushed his wife over a cliff is a homicide reported in a park, but I doubt that the outcome would have changed if the woman had been armed. If your spouse who is standing behind you gives you a shove over the edge, good luck in whipping out your concealed handgun in time to change the outcome.)

    Are park visitors victims in very rare cases? Yes. Whether or not that justifies this major change in parks is more a question of philosophy and politics (i.e. interpretation of 2nd amendment rights) than a public safety issue.

    Do the presumed gains for gun supporters outweigh the presumed risks for those who oppose the change? If the new regulations remain in force for an extended period of time, only time will tell.

  • Woman Dies in Fall From Angel's Landing   5 years 28 weeks ago

    I hiked Angel's Landing in Oct 2007. It was easily the most beautiful experience I've ever had in the outdoors. Much of the ascent (and the view from the summit) feels as if you're flying suspended in mid-air over Zion Canyon.

    I'm an experienced hiker, in my mid-thirties, with a reasonable amount of trad rock-climbing experience, and little fear of heights. Even so, I have to admit that the view from quitter's corner (as someone here called it) gave me pause. In my opinion, Angel's Landing deserves to be treated more like a climb- this is a dangerous and hard hike, and deserves respect. If you're thinking of doing AL, here are some pointers:
    - Go early in the day, wear a good pair of hiking boots, and carry at least 1-2 liters of water and a decent amount of food.
    - Read up a little about climbing technique if you can- I found that my climbing experience came in handy, the chains I agree are somewhat of a crutch, and if you position your weight correctly they're often quite unnecessary.
    - Focus on your breathing- most people panic when they're taking short breaths...
    - Give yourself at least a couple of extra hours for the last half-mile. Mistakes happen when you're feeling rushed or tired.
    - Work on the trail in short stretches, and try not to think too much.

    As for myself, once I crossed the first really narrow constriction beyond quitter's corner (about ten or twenty feet into the trail), I stopped crouching, and stood up straight. From there on, the hike was pure exhilaration. I will never forget the light on that day, and the view from the top.