Anyone else see this?

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by gdurkee »

I like to call it Fusion Rap (a fusion of bad wine and no rhyme).

Also, I think rap is supposed to give voice to the inchoate pain from the artist's formative years -- thus the subtle reference (which you may be the only one here old enough to remember) that a photo of Mao swimming the Yangtze MAY HAVE BEEN FAKED! The question haunts me still.

Mere skiing when I am consumed by the rapture of rap? Oh, if you insist... .

g.
User avatar
BSquared
Founding Member
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:31 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: Jericho, VT

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by BSquared »

Image
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by gdurkee »

Answered Prayers: the only thing that would improve the photo would be to be surrounded by tiny Esther Williams'. Who knew Chinese herbal remedies extended to smoking the herb?

g.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by gdurkee »

Allow me to bring us, briefly, back on topic:

PRESS RELEASE:
National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 6, 2009

PARKS ADVOCATES FILE LAWSUIT TO KEEP LOADED, CONCEALED FIREARMS OUT OF NATIONAL PARKS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The nation’s leading voice for America’s national parks, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks an injunction against enforcement of the Bush Administration’s new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks—increasing the risk to visitors, park staff, and wildlife—and to have the new rule declared unlawful. The rule is scheduled to take effect this Friday, January 9.

“In a rush to judgment, as a result of political pressure, the outgoing Administration failed to comply with the law, and did not offer adequate reasons for doing so,” said NPCA President Tom Kiernan.

The Bush Administration last month finalized a National Rifle Association-driven rule change to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states: Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not permit concealed weapons. The former rule, put in place by the Reagan Administration, required that firearms transported through national parks be safely stowed and unloaded.

“Our members, with over 20,000 years accumulated experience managing national parks can see absolutely no good coming from the implementation of this rule. More guns equal more risk,” said Bill Wade, Chair of the Executive Council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. “Apparently, the Bush Administration chose to ignore the outpouring of concern voiced during the public comment period,” added Wade.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of the Interior “adopted the Gun Rule with unwarranted haste, without following procedures required by law and without the consideration of its consequences that they are required to observe under law… The new regulation is an affront to the National Parks’ missions and purposes and a threat to the National Parks’ resources and values, which must be held unlawful and set aside.”

The groups are arguing that the rule is unlawful because the Department of the Interior did not conduct an analysis of the rule’s environmental effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including the effects of the rule on threatened and endangered species. The suit also argues that the Department of the Interior ignored the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Any reasonable person would have to conclude that changing these rules to allow more firearms in the national parks could have an environmental impact on park wildlife and resources,” Kiernan added.

In a letter sent to Interior Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, seven former directors of the National Park Service stated that there is no need to change the regulations. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

The rule also was opposed by the current career leadership of the National Park Service and other park management professionals, including the Association of National Park Rangers and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

The public agrees: of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion on this issue during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the parks.

The National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition of National Park Service Retirees are represented by Hogan & Hartson.
User avatar
SteveB
Founding Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:08 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by SteveB »

I think I'll retain from the expected comparison of Feinstein with the likes of Reid and Chancellor Pelosi (and THEIR influence on national social & political issues these days), and rather address the backcountry firearms issue. I don't carry, either, and I don't begrudge or smack-talk anyone who chooses to... My only concern, irrespective of specifics in the new rule, is city yahoo's and illegal scumbags thinking they now have the right to address their issues with a handgun. Stupid people will now have a feeling that they have a right to do whatever they want, and that it's legal for them to do so. I don't stay in Yosemite Valley or Lodgepole, but my loved ones do.

Solo
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: between the 916 and 661

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by ERIC »

News Release:
Government Documents Show
Bush Administration Ignored Warnings
"Guns In Parks Rule" Violated Law


For Immediate Release:
02-12-2009
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... lease=1108

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792



Washington, DC - The Bush Administration ignored warnings from senior career Interior Department officials that its last-minute rule change allowing the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was being hurried through in violation of Federal law, government documents obtained by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence show.

The rule, which took effect on January 9, 2009, overturned Reagan-era restrictions on the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons in national parks. The documents were released late last week by the government in response to a lawsuit filed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The suit charges the new rule is unlawful because it was issued without any analysis of the rule’s impacts on the environment and park visitors’ safe use of the parks, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal laws.

“These documents show that the Bush Administration ignored the procedural concerns and safety warnings of two federal agencies in pushing for a last-minute rule to allow concealed weapons in national parks. The Bush Administration apparently cared more about pleasing the gun lobby than following the law in making this post-election rule change,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke.

According to the Interior Department documents, the National Park Service’s Chief of its Environmental Quality Division, Jacob Hoogland, warned in an April 3, 2008, e-mail that the rule “required additional NEPA analysis” and that “at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.” Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chief of its Division of Policy and Directives Management, Michael Schwartz, warned in a May 14, 2008, e-mail, “The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.” The documents are available at
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf ... eb2009.pdf.

Then-Interior Department Secretary Dirk Kempthorne responded with a memo on August 22, 2008, stating that the rule is “one of my top priorities,” and the rule was then issued without the environmental analysis required by law.

The documents also show that the rule was strongly opposed by the National Park Service, whose Bush-appointed Director, Mary Bomar, wrote in a July 31, 2007, letter, “We believe that the [previous] regulations [restricting guns in parks] provide necessary and consistent enforcement parameters throughout the National Park System.” The new rule allows guns in rural and urban national park areas around the country, from Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park and California’s Yosemite National Park to Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park, home of the Liberty Bell. The suit was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign and its members, including a school teacher in New York who said she was canceling school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty now that guns are allowed in these national park areas.

The suit charges that the Bush Administration violated several federal laws in its rush to implement the new rule before President Bush left office, including failing to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the new rule will cause, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The lawsuit also points out that the new rule was adopted in violation of the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which created the parks and wildlife refuges as protected lands for safe enjoyment of all visitors.

Rules in place since the Reagan Administration have allowed visitors to transport guns in national parks and wildlife refuges if they are unloaded and stored or dismantled. These restrictions have helped make these areas some of the safest places to visit in the country. At the behest of the gun lobby, however, the Interior Department announced last year that it planned to allow concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The last-minute Bush rule allows the carrying of concealed weapons even in states that specifically ban the practice in state parks.

The Brady Campaign filed its lawsuit challenging the rule on December 30, 2008. The National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition of National Park Service Retirees filed a similar suit on January 6, 2009.

# # #


As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

For continuing insight and comment on the gun issue, read Paul Helmke's blog at http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/. Visit the Brady Campaign website at http://www.bradycampaign.org.
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Eklutna, Ak.

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by AldeFarte »

Eric, I can't help thinking you are trying to stir the pot with the above post. Anything with the word brady in the byline is so obviously left wing partisan and un-American in content that it only bears reading by me ,because you posted it! This organism is so anti-Constitutional in it's fiber that only the ignorant and the true believers don't get it. The last paragraph is a real laugher. They have zero credibility among any ,but the ignorant. To say they have an agenda doesn't even deserve a snicker.I am sure many here remember when brady was shot.It was a horrible day in America. His wench has been turning a buck off that since day one. Reagan felt a tremendous sense of guilt over a man taking a bullet meant for him. Hence he signed legislation he knew was unconstitutional. Two wrongs do not make a right. More guns will not make more gun violence.The opposite is true. John Lott has proven that empirically with research and FACTS. Whew! Gotta go outside and cool off. jls
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: between the 916 and 661

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by ERIC »

AldeFarte wrote:Eric, I can't help thinking you are trying to stir the pot with the above post. Anything with the word brady in the byline is so obviously left wing partisan and un-American in content that it only bears reading by me ,because you posted it! This organism is so anti-Constitutional in it's fiber that only the ignorant and the true believers don't get it. The last paragraph is a real laugher. They have zero credibility among any ,but the ignorant. To say they have an agenda doesn't even deserve a snicker.I am sure many here remember when brady was shot.It was a horrible day in America. His wench has been turning a buck off that since day one. Reagan felt a tremendous sense of guilt over a man taking a bullet meant for him. Hence he signed legislation he knew was unconstitutional. Two wrongs do not make a right. More guns will not make more gun violence.The opposite is true. John Lott has proven that empirically with research and FACTS. Whew! Gotta go outside and cool off. jls
Ha! :p
I just knew this was coming. I subscribe to various news feeds related to the Sierra, and when something has a content match to the keyword content of the forums (i.e. keywords: "Sierra Nevada", "Yosemite", John Muir Trail", etc), I post it. Most times, as it was in this case, I don't thoroughly consider the source. Usually count on members like you to do that for me, which you have. :) There was, and is no agenda on my part. Probably wouldn't have even posted this one had discussion on the topic not already been underway.

So shoot me. :snipe:
Pun intended.
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Eklutna, Ak.

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by AldeFarte »

Happy to note that it is not an agenda on your part. :) jls
User avatar
Hetchy
Topix Regular
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:51 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains Ben Lomond

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by Hetchy »

How Ironic this thread is for me.
I own rifles and I am thankful for our second amendment right to bear arms. But I also realize I only ever shoot at paper targets. I don't hunt large animals so I took the ole' Ruger mini-30 down to the gunshop and sold her off. (still got a couple .22's)

I took the money and bought a bunch of new backpacking gear... to go into the national parks with.
HA! Sorry. A bit off-thread but kinda funny.

Seriously:
I can understand why a person might want to pack a rifle to hunt with. But what purpose does a concelealed pistol serve? By the time you produce it the imaginary boogie man might have already got you. And if you do produce it you are likely to escalate the situation or Mr boogie might take it away and use it on you.
I think the need to carry a firearm for protection from animals makes sense in such places where animals actually harm humans..like say.. Alaska. In that case, by all accounts, a flat shooting & hard hitting rifle is by far superior to any pistol, though not very concealable.
I think it is funny that some people would consider carrying a concealed pistol in Yosemite, or Kings Canyon.. Have you seen the bears there? They look like sick dogs, not very threatening.
If the argument is to protect you from other people. Well.. If it comes to shooting someone in the backcountry, and that someone is the only other witness, you might have some difficulty explaining that.
Personally I say:
Save some packweight, skip the gun, dump the unreasonable mental baggage, and trust in yourself to handle the self-defence senario, if ever it comes. Besides, bullets are made from lead.. what thru hiker would carry LEAD after forsaking every ounce possible including toilet paper.(oops.. too much information.. sorry!) Hetchy
You can make more money, but you can't make more time.
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests