Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks. By Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber. Washington Post Staff Writers

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

53 Responses to Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

  1. jdubya says:

    “”Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the department could not comment because of “ongoing litigation.”

    Right. Litigation between Salazar and the NRA? You would think Interior could be a bit more creative than that. Who are they litigating against (or vice versa)? Or nobody. Anybody know?

  2. This isn’t quite an answer, but Salazar said this issue is a big distraction, and I agree.

    It was intended to cause a disruption.

    Folks who support the right to bear arms should, IMO, join the American Hunters and Shooters Association. That way you can protect your rights without buying into a far right, anti-conservation organization.

  3. Virginia says:

    Sorry – but if you can’t visit a national park without taking a concealed weapon with you, you need to stay home!

  4. jdubya says:

    The was a recent shooting in SLC where a kid shot his other friend in the head with an unattended gun and killed her…which has gotten me to thinking.

    I am 53 years old. I have never in my life been in a situation where I needed a gun to get me out of a fix. I have never been in a situation where I needed to either protect myself or my family, or taken down a bad guy threatening others. So say I got a concealed permit when I was 20, I would have 33 years of carrying a gun, having to keep track of it all the time, locking it up at night, etc, so as to make sure that gun could not/would not be used in an accidental setting. That is 12,045 days of keeping track, or 289,080 hours. If I never would have used that gun to protect myself, what are the odds I could have shot myself or a toilet by accident, I could have, by accident, discharged it into the dog, or a kid, or the floor. Or one of my kids could have gotten hold of it and used it on their sister? Or my wife used it against me? I would be a much bigger risk to myself than any hypothetical boogey man could ever be. Like I said, it just got me to thinking….

    • Layton says:

      “The was a recent shooting in SLC where a kid shot his other friend in the head with an unattended gun and killed her…which has gotten me to thinking.”

      Evidently not thinking much!! In case you are REALLY that unfamiliar with guns –“unattended guns” — unless the were purposely set as traps — have never harmed or killed anyone.

      Someone/something has to pull the trigger!!

    • mikarooni says:

      Jdubya, I own lots of firearms; but, you’ve done a good analysis there. Most of the “I need a gun, preferably a machine gun, to protect myself and my home” argument is just childish nonsense, spawned by too much testosterone and too many action fantasy movies with too many lurid special effects.

  5. SaveBears says:

    I have said, even though I could carry legally in the parks, I won’t because I don’t feel the need, but I also understand those who would based on a legal firearm and a legal CCW permit.

    The reason given for blocking is pure bunk and abuse of power by the bench.

    There is no cause or need for an environmental study of this administrative rule change…there is no environmental risk associated with the act of carrying a gun, there are far more things that pose environmental risk than the act of carrying a firearm, even bear spray poses more environment risk than a gun, as do many things like cars, even cooking in the park restaurants that vent into the park air.

    This is a smokescreen based on social issues and not scientific issues, it is a mis-use of the environmental review and study process. There is NO environmental issues with a gun, a gun is an inert object that does nothing to the environment. using the argument of “poaching” is another smokescreen, those who carry legally, posed no more risk of poaching than any other law abiding citizen..I have not seen or been able to find one instance of a legal CCW holder being convicted of poaching in the US and I have done extensive research on the subject…it does not exist as far as I can tell.

    Criminals poach, legal hunters don’t. I would like to see AHSA involve their well versed lawyers to sign on this one, this is plainly an attempt to circumvent constitutional laws and rights..

    Again, I won’t carry in the park, but also can find no legitimate legal basis to stop it.

    • paulWTAMU says:

      The sort of guns you can conceal aren’t the sort of guns I’d use for hunting either. I mean, a 2.4″, 20 oz 9mm is a *great* CCW option, and plenty potent enough for people, but I sure wouldn’t use it to shoot a deer or bear.

      and to people that rag on folks wanting to protect themselves: I’ve been in one situation where I could have *really* used a gun, and didn’t have it. That’s enough to make me pro carry. Glad you haven’t, but it’s the whole “better to have it and not need it” philosophy.

    • mikarooni says:

      You sure sound pretty wound up about it for someone who won’t be carrying and sees no reason to carry.

      You’re right (no pun intended) that there are plenty of things that come with environmental risk, yet are still allowed in the parks. The vast majority of those things were “grandfathered in” and, even in some of those cases, we’re working to correct a few of the most egregious problems. The difference in this case is that guns were not “grandfathered in” as accepted practice. In the case of guns in the parks, we get to think about it and choose whether we want to accept the risk of being dragged down a slippery slope.

      I’m afraid that your immediate reach for the contention that there is “no environmental risk associated with the act of carrying a gun” and “no more risk of poaching” both says something about where you’re coming from and demonstrates the kind of “astoundingly flawed” thinking to which the ruling responded in the first place. Most of our parks serve an important role in wildlife preservation and, on the face of it, poaching is easier and the temptation to poach is greater with a gun than without one. Guns in parks are unnecessary, as you, yourself, have stated, yet their presence unquestionably increases the risk of poaching and other problems, especially in instances, like wolves and bears, where a controversial recovery effort is involved and people do not think rationally.

      You very boldly assert that there is “no cause or need for an environmental study” because you firmly contend that the question is “based on social issues” and therefore a misuse of the process. Who taught you your NEPA? Did you operate on these “beliefs” when you worked for the agency? If so, I can understand how you might have had a hard time and little respect during that experience. If you take the time to study the CFR on NEPA, you will see that “social issues” are one of the thirteen factors that are front and center on what drives “environmental review” and it was folks at your ideological end of the spectrum who made it that way. Save Bears, you don’t do enough homework to have consistent credibility.

      ..and, back to the question of whether we want to accept the risk of being dragged down a slippery slope, this issue certainly does have plenty of potential to be a slippery slope and on many fronts. The classic, textbook, example of a slippery use slope in the parks is, of course, snowmobiles in Yellowstone. When snowmobiles first entered Yellowstone, there were few of them. Because of their small numbers, they came with “no environmental risk” in the eyes of, well, people like you at the time and were allowed in. Today we see the result and it is has far reaching impacts, as you can see, hear, and smell on any winter visit to West Yellowstone. In NEPA terms, what has happened is known as a cumulative compound impact. The trouble with allowing a use in a protected area, whether that use is snowmobiles or guns, is that you birth a constituency and, like all constituencies, it will inevitably become both self-centered and greedy and what was once a privilege will become a right, then a license, then a demand, with all the originally accepted limits forgotten. The risk is that, from CCW, we’ll go to hearing shots in the distance, then to calls for hunting seasons in the parks.

      The more I think about it, I would like to see AHSA direct their well versed lawyers to tell you to shove it.

      • paulWTAMU says:

        And you totally ignore the fact that the same gun you’d carry concealed is a near worthless choice for poaching…way to ignore reality. And you want to argue that CCWs will lead to poaching how? It’s based on a totally different argument–the right to defend myself against people, versus the right to harvest wildlife in a protected area. They’re not the same thing. And you can’t pretend crimes don’t happen in national parks. On any given day during tourist season, Yellowstone’s village–where the hotels and restaurants are–has more people than the county I grew up in. When you have that many people together, some of them are probably going to be criminals.

        • mikarooni says:

          paulWTAMU, you didn’t understand the context of the discussion. Save Bears asserted that the administrative rule change allowing guns in the parks did not require environmental review; therefore, according to Save Bears, the court ruling against the rule change did not have proper grounds. My response to Save Bears countered his argument by showing cause for NEPA review on the grounds of potential cumulative compound impacts resulting from the rule change. You don’t seem to understand enough to understand what you don’t understand, at least as far as this discussion of the requirements for environmental review is concerned.

          By the way, your comment about “Yellowstone’s village–where the hotels and restaurants are” indicates that you also don’t have much knowledge of Yellowstone and thus probably should use a different example when you try to make whatever case you were trying to make. People will judge your overall intelligence on the basis of your limited knowledge of the example you chose and it will just bias them against your case, whatever case that might be.

          I also don’t think there was any purpose served by adding that you grew up in a rural county; that fact only bolsters your credibility among a specialized constituency and doesn’t help your case here. We got the picture without the explanation anyway.

          Finally, I believe Virginia’s comment below seems to counter whatever argument you were trying to make. She’s correct; you may frequent the kinds of places where a concealed gun or any gun might be necessary, which could easily be the case given your rural upbringing; but, those of us who spend a great deal of time in the parks don’t see a need for a gun sufficient to balance the longer term risks of having guns around. Even Save Bears acknowledged that fact. Perhaps you could visit Yellowstone and some of our other national parks someday; I believe you’ll feel as safe there as we do and you’ll also be able to speak with more authority on the crime scene there… at the Yellowstone village.

      • Save bears says:


        The professors at Washington State University taught me, that is where I received my Masters Degree in Biology.

        So now we are going to resort to “Shove it?” Nice, very nice, somebody that is well educated in the environmental process understands the left as well as the right views and the tactics they resort to, to get there personal beliefs across..

        Very Mature… thanks for the conversation.

        • paulWTAMU says:

          I’ve spent a good amount of time in yellowstone, but mostly in the Montana portion of the park, and the portion of the park nearest the Tetons. I don’t get how my comment about the villiage in Yellowstone is ignorant; there are two or three spots in the park with a high portion of the tourist population. One’s near the old hotel (1st one in the park), the other one I’ve spent any time in is near mammoth hot springs. Lots of the rest of the park doesn’t have near the traffice those spots do, at least IME.

  6. Virginia says:

    So, as I understand it if there are a lot of people in hotels and restaurants, I need to be carrying a gun because some of them are probably going to be criminals? Crimes happen everywhere, but I still do not feel the need to carry a concealed weapon when I travel. But, I am just a bleeding heart, socialist liberal (and I don’t pack a concealed weapon when I go to the mountains either.)

    • Save bears says:

      Good reply Virginia,

      As you I don’t feel the need to carry in the parks, but I also understand others who may feel the need to exercise their right to carry..

      At least you didn’t tell anyone to “Shove it” which Miki, so well concealed behind the guise of the American Hunters and Shooters Association.. that I felt should get involved, ever the leader of this blog said he felt if we want to protect our 2nd, we SHOULD join this group?

      Makes ya want to say…”Hmmmmm”

  7. Save bears says:


    What you believe has no bearing on what another believes, I am sure the courts will decide this issue, I just want it to be based on law and not emotion, there is no reason for an environmental review, as their is no environmental impact from someone carrying a legal gun…and I know, you don’t think I know what I am talking about, and I need to learn more, but I will settle for the Masters I have and the science I have learned to guide me, it sounds like you perhaps, just might be a lawyer?

  8. Save bears says:


    Yes, I am willing to accept the risk! Because I know that there is very little risk when you start talking about people legally carrying legal firearms, your being paranoid!

    As far as respect, I am still very respected, by many of my associates, they may not agree with me, but they respect my opinions. I just spent 4 days at a outdoors show teaching and was invited by both Idaho Game and Fish and Washington Game and Fish, and we had a hell of a good time teaching the next generation about wildlife as well as wildlife issues.

    So your personal attacks are funny…

  9. John d. says:

    Some people, lawful hunters or not, will poach if they feel they can get away with it, no matter if the weapon permitted is not used for hunting purposes. It has the capacity to kill, that’s all that matters.

    • Cord says:

      John d.

      “Some people, lawful hunters or not, will poach if they feel they can get away with it, no matter if the weapon permitted is not used for hunting purposes.”

      Here we go again. Where did this pearl of wisdom come from? Is this how you approach life? If you can get away with something, will you go for it? If you answer no, then why is it that a “lawful hunter” will try to get away with poaching? A lawful hunter is a hunter following the law. A poacher is a criminal. From your repeated comments about hunting, I can safely assume you haven’t got a clue. You apparently have a hard-on for hunters and gun owners. If so, good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. Just don’t expect your asinine aspersions to go unchallenged.

      • Ryan says:

        “Some people, lawful hunters or not, will poach if they feel they can get away with it, no matter if the weapon permitted is not used for hunting purposes.”

        John D,
        When they poach, they are poachers.. Not law abiding citizens. I’ve carried in national parks in AK and have never had the urge to shoot any animal, although I have been in some sticky situations where I was glad to have it. Do you honestly belive that every person that hunts is a blood thirsty killer that will kill whenever the opportunity arises, because that’s what you seem to allude to.

        • John d. says:

          Before they poach they are law abiding citizens. Afterward they are not. As for the ‘hunters are evil demons from hell’ that I think you think is my opinion of all hunters, you are mistaken.
          I have a few friends who hunt deer and elk for food, some near others far. Decent folk. A fella from The Netherlands, soldier by occupation, can stalk deer and get close enough to kill it with a knife, built traps to see what he could catch but always let the animal go afterward more or less unharmed. But when I come onto the likes of those that kill because they want their jollies more than the food itself (I find this is apparent in predator hunters) they exhibit behaviours, attitudes and statements that are disturbing, aggressive and quite often vile.

      • kim kaiser says:

        i know a federal judge that is a “hunter” nice guy, but doesnt mind going over a limit, you are only unlawful until you get caught and convicted then you get be be a criminal,

        It may be stupid to say only criminals will do illegal things, but you can apply the same analogy to driving a car and speeding, sometimes for no particular reason, people, probably, usually law abiding people will intentionally break the speeding laws if they can,(like when they think no one is looking) sort of like “lawful hunters” they might if they think no one is looking, its just human nature,, blame Eve or someone for the apple thing, but to ignore that usually good people will not go astray just because they are legally capable of carrying a weapon is just being plain naive.

        • Save bears says:

          Well Kim,

          Based on the information I have gathered, those who are legal to carry a concealed weapon, must be naive, because I can’t find one case in this country that a concealed permit holder has been convicted of poaching..

      • John d. says:


        Comes from an experience concerning a man named Tim Sundles, Ron Gilett happens to be another. Given the right motivation, yes people will take advantages of situations, even more so if they feel they can spin a way to get off the hook. The aforementioned individuals have done this. They too, regardless of how they are presented by media or by others, are permitted to hunt and have been doing so more or less legally, but they poached because they felt they had the right and the ability to get away with it.

        I have it out for hunters and gun owners?
        Not exactly. Some but not all.

        • kim kaiser says:

          Save Bears:

          took about two minutes,,, and not only are they legal to carry a weapon either concealed and in the open they are law enforcment to boot,,


          Just because you have a license or permit, doesnt mean you are immune to break the law violating the permit, it could well be when you read “loss of hunting and priveledges” may well mean in some cases that he was a licensed carrier.

          And if you still think no permit carrier has nt ever commited a gun related crime, then you are simply being naive,, just that simple, just human nature

          another one is currently under investigation in MT,, undercover agent shot a trphy bighorn, Fish and wildlife wont comment on investigation at this time,,

  10. Moose says:

    I don’t feel the need to carry a gun at any time…. we all make those kind of “level of risk” decisions every day in many areas of our lives. I liked the idea of no guns in national parks, but realize that the law had no effect on those individuals who had criminal intentions in the first place (that’s the def. of a criminal). Will it increase opportunities for poaching? No doubt. Will that translate to an actual increase in poaching? I doubt it will be significant.

  11. Virginia says:

    I guess the problem I have with all of the protests about guns is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is referring to a “well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It says nothing about concealed weapons and the interpretation of keeping and bearing arms has been skewed to fit the opinions of the NRA and those who are paranoid about not being able to carry a gun. And, are all of these people who want to carry a concealed weapon part of a “well-regulated militia?” Please.

    • Save bears says:

      What most people don’t realize is, that every able bodied man(and based on rulings in the 50’s, women) between the age of 17 and 45 is still considered a member of the militia, the militia act has never been repealed in the US and is still on the Federal Law books, there have been very few Supreme Count rulings on the 2nd amendment, but each one that has been ruled on has gone in favor of the right to the individual to keep and bear arms..example the overturn of the Washington DC ban.

      The 2nd Amendment does not stipulate the types of arms that the individual must own, but only that he/she has the right to bear arms.

      Based on various rules and laws the ATF and Congress has instituted over the years, certain types of arms, deemed for military or law enforcement use only cannot be owned by the general population.

      As far as the opportunity to poach vs. the act of poaching, I have not found any correlation in real life, as I stated, I have not been able to find one case in any state, in which a CCW holder has been convicted of poaching.. If someone has, please post the information.

      Of course if you want to ensure a CCW does not poach, upgrade the act of poaching to the level of a felony and then the risk would be far to great to a legal gun owner as upon conviction of a felony, you will loose the right to own or posses a firearm…

  12. Ryan says:

    I guess the problem I have with all of the protests about guns is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is referring to a “well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It says nothing about concealed weapons and the interpretation of keeping and bearing arms has been skewed to fit the opinions of the NRA and those who are paranoid about not being able to carry a gun. And, are all of these people who want to carry a concealed weapon part of a “well-regulated militia?” Please.


    If you want to get [worked up about] carrying a weapon, thats fine but its about as irrational as fearing a wolf attack.


  13. Virginia says:

    Ryan – I am not sure to what you are referring; I have never feared a wolf attack, but I have feared for my life while camping in Sunlight Basin with small children while nearby some knotheads who were drunk were shooting their “unconcealed” weapons.

    • Ryan says:

      Why did you fear for your life? Were they displaying dangerous behavior? shooting in your direction? Or do guns just scare you? In the end did anybody get hurt and were your fears justified?
      I don’t fear wolf attacks either, but many have an irrational fear of them.

      BTW sorry about spelling your name wrong earlier, I’m still getting used to my new Laptop.

  14. Linda Hunter says:

    I am against concealed chainsaws in parks. I think that if a tree gets in a person’s way they should have to consider for a while before they cut it down and that it should take them all day of sweating and sawing back and forth with wedges and blisters to kill a tree. If we allow people to take chainsaws in parks who is to say they will used them with common sense and they might senselessly kill trees just to remove the shade on their picnic table.

  15. Virginia says:

    Ryan – you don’t think the combination of drunk people and guns might be hazardous to my health? Yes, guns do scare me – I must admit it. It was pitch black up there and all we could hear was yelling and gun shots. We did not know if they were shooting at us, above us or where they were shooting. It was a great experience. I guess that is normal behavior up in the mountains? Yes, my name is spelled just like the state – Virginia – thanks for the apology – it happens a lot. I agree with Linda – there are places and times for everything and guns, chainsaws, four-wheelers and snow machines do not belong in national parks.

  16. Ryan says:


    There are jerks everywhere, I’m sorry you had a bad expirience with some inconsiderate people shooting guns at night. I personally would have just addressed the situation calmly and head on which usually results in a peaceful resolution of the issue. I think its hard to describe normal behavior in the woods as I think we have all seen some pretty strange behaviors if you spend anytime in the back country.

    • Linda Hunter says:

      Ryan did you hear about the elk hunter in southwest Washington who got mad at a bear grass picker and shot him in broad daylight in a meadow for working in the area he was trying to hunt? I don’t think it was widely published as it is probably still in the court system and I only heard the rumors so I can’t substantiate it, but the night before several friends who hunt were actually hazed out of the same area by some guys shooting automatic rifles randomly. I know you live in the general area so I wondered if you heard any of this and if so what version.

      • Ryan says:

        Never heard anything about it, I’ll ask some of my hunting buddies from washington if they heard anything and post if I do. I’m pretty sure if it was true there would have been alot of press about it. The only hunting incident I heard about in Wa in the last few years was a hiker mistakenly shot by a young bear hunter. It was a tragic accident that was all over the news.

    • jburnham says:

      That would be an interesting thread…’Strange behaviors you’ve seen in the backcountry’
      I’m laughing already!

  17. Save bears says:

    In the Back Country??? Heck I have seen plenty of strange behavior in the front country, especially Yellowstone, I still can’t figure out why adults let their kids stick their hands in hot steaming water!??? Or jump out of their cars and run headlong into a Bison or Elk!

    • Ryan says:

      LOL, I have seen some things that would make one realize that evolution in the human race is lacking. My personal favorite front country event was watching a tourist up on the kenai run from a brown bear with 6 salmon on a stringer over his back.

  18. Barb says:

    Virginia, I agree — I’ve always wondered why national parks allow those loud snowmobiles that scare the sh-t out of wild animals. Those who support it act as if it’s an “inalienable right” to snowmobile in Yellowstone (or wherever).

  19. Barb says:

    Ryan, I admit too that guns scare me. Guns are intended for one thing — to kill (or to defend oneself against getting killed).

  20. Save bears says:


    Thanks for the link, as I said, I have not found a case of a CCW holder being convicted of poaching. I was not aware of the officers that you posted a link to, but in reality, I have known a few cops over the years both in and out of the military(When I served) that thought they were above the law, apparently they cops thought the same way..note, they used a hunting rifle to commit their crime, not a open or concealed carry weapon.

    Now, we are not talking about police committing crimes, which unfortunately does happen all to often, but I would say, how many cops legally carry in the parks while on vacation? how many have committed crimes in the parks while on vacation?

    Now, the Federal rules, have always allowed cops to carry in the parks, what we are talking about is the normal Joe with a permit to carry, I would say, this is a different issue.

  21. Save bears says:


    One other thing I will add, I have never at any time stated a permit holder is immune to committing a crime…

  22. Virginia says:

    Ryan – my husband and a couple of the other fathers on our camping trip drove up to the Forest Service station in Sunlight to report what was happening and they were told by the FS that there was nothing they could do about it. So, instead of escalating a situation that could have turned ugly, they came back to camp and eventually the shooters must have passed out about 2:00 a.m. and the shooting stopped. I always wondered what good could have come of a few fathers confronting drunk men with guns in the wilderness in the middle of the night? You really think addressing the situation “calmly and head on” would have been a good idea? Ya think?

    • Ryan says:

      Yes I do, but I don’t consider myself a victim. I’ve found that most situations can be resolved in that manner. Its all about approach.

  23. Virginia says:

    Believe me, my husband does not consider himself a victim. He was pretty concerned about the safety of his two young children in this situation. I find it interesting that you are able to handle any situation that comes along no matter the circumstances. I guess we should have had you there to approach the drunken shooters and resolve the situation.

    • Save bears says:


      Just a question? Do you know they were drunk for a fact, or is this supposition on your part because they were shooting after dark.

      Also were you in an official campground on USFS areas, if you were in an actual campground, then the personal that told you they could do nothing were wrong, because it is a federal offense to discharge firearms in or in close proximity to state and federal campgrounds.

      Now if just one forest service or state lands, unless it is posted no shooting, then they were within the law by discharging their firearms…

      I have run into the same situation during hunting seasons, when I am staying in campgrounds as well as staying outside recognized campgrounds…the act of discharging the firearm being a crime is based on the locations you choose to camp at..

  24. Virginia says:

    We knew for a fact they were drunk – we saw them earlier. We were on forest service land, but not in a designated campground. Are you sure it is legal to discharge firearms at night? – I am not convinced of that. I am beginning to feel as though we were in the wrong according to some of the above comments. I think this is my last comment on this subject as I have said enough

    • Save bears says:

      Virginia, I am not saying you were wrong at all, I was just gathering some more information that is all..

      Yes, I am 100% positive that it is legal to discharge a firearm after dark, there is no limitation on when a firearm can be discharged, only where it can be discharged.

      Why is it, when questions are asked about situations that have occurred so we can have a better understanding, people sulk off in the corner? I don’t understand that..I am not trying to start anything, blame anyone, or anything else, I am not disagreeing or agreeing, I am simply trying to gather more information that is all…

      I am also concerned that someone can “see” someone then conclude they were “Drunk” that seems to be some type of profiling, but that is just my opinion and it is not an attack on anyone..

      Again, just asking questions to understand better what your situation was..sorry if I offended you..

  25. Save bears says:

    And of course, we again have got off subject, this thread is about the banning or allowing of guns in a National Park, there are pretty much no rules for un developed NFS properties, unless posted to the fact there are developed campgrounds or inhabited areas around.

    Again, I was not saying anyone was wrong or right, I was just asking questions so I could make an informed conclusion about what was being said..

  26. Virginia says:

    I guess you just had to be there. I am not offended, it is just that you draw conclusions and again, I think I have said enough about it. I am still rejoicing about the block to allowing guns in a national park.

  27. Save bears says:


    I didn’t draw ANY conclusions, that is why I was asking questions! lord, trying to have a conversation around here sometimes is worse than going to a dentist for a root canal!

  28. Virginia says:

    Save bears – it’s okay, just let it go. I like you – okay?


March 2009


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey