NPS says new gun law won't take effect until Feb. 2010

imported post

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12433813

WASHINGTON — Not so fast, gun owners. A new law allowing loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges will not take effect until next year, the Obama administration said.
President Barack Obama signed the gun law without comment Friday as part of a measure creating new rules for the credit-card industry.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said that because the credit-card law won't take effect for nine months, the gun measure also would be delayed.
Spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Interior will follow Congress' directive and put the firearms law into effect in late February 2010.
Until then, rules adopted under the Reagan administration will remain in place. The rules severely restrict guns in national parks, generally requiring that they be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.
"As Interior prepares to implement the new law, the department will work to understand and interpret its implications for our national parks and wildlife refuges, with public safety and the safety of our employees as our foremost consideration," Barkoff said.
The Interior Department's decision drew immediate criticism from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the chief sponsor of the gun measure. Spokesman John Hart said Coburn will offer the gun amendment to other bills in order to implement the decision as quickly as possible.
Hart said Coburn was confident the amendment would be approved again, noting that the measure received support from 27 Democrats in the Senate, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The measure, adopted by wide margins in the House and Senate, allows licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are permitted to by state law.
Hart said Congress clearly intended for the law to take effect soon.
Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauded the Interior Department's decision.
"We are pleased because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons," Faehner said. He called national parks among the safest places in the country.



:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:

imported post

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauded the Interior Department's decision.
"We are pleased because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons," Faehner said. He called national parks among the safest places in the country.

Click to expand...

They sure are, for criminals!

imported post

Huck wrote:

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauded the Interior Department's decision.
"We are pleased because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons," Faehner said. He called national parks among the safest places in the country.

Click to expand...

They sure are, for criminals!

Click to expand...

Everyone knows Bryan meant the parks are safe for man eating bears to consume American families alive, and safe for mountain lions to pick off children at the back of the line.

Mr. Faehner is full of public relations B.S. I might actually visit a state park, now that I don't have to worry about being dragged off and eaten alive.

imported post

I had a graduate class on national parks where the professor suggested that animal attacks were our fault for encroaching on their territory and that it was wrong to hunt down a particular mountain lion in CA after it killed a woman while jogging. That's the elites for you!

imported post

Swampbeast wrote:

I had a graduate class on national parks where the professor suggested that animal attacks were our fault for encroaching on their territory and that it was wrong to hunt down a particular mountain lion in CA after it killed a woman while jogging.  That's the elites for you!

Click to expand...

Not for not...but I agree completely with your professor. It is unfair for urban sprawl and suburbia to intrude upon the natural habitats of other animals and thus mitigate them to smaller and smaller territory. We only take their land because its beautiful and serene and when we do we want to stamp out everything that opposes us. Funny how quickly we condemn anti gun californians for moving to Colorado and then complaining about the gun laws and OCers and yet we as a society do the same thing. Its not the cougars fault if he tears someones head off because it hardly has anywhere to hunt.

I dont think that cougar in particular should have been hunted. Maybe if the woman was armed and shot it then i would agree to self defense but why slaughter an animal who didn't do anything wrong. And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Swampbeast wrote:

I had a graduate class on national parks where the professor suggested that animal attacks were our fault for encroaching on their territory and that it was wrong to hunt down a particular mountain lion in CA after it killed a woman while jogging. That's the elites for you!

Click to expand...

Not for not...but I agree completely with your professor. It is unfair for urban sprawl and suburbia to intrude upon the natural habitats of other animals and thus mitigate them to smaller and smaller territory. We only take their land because its beautiful and serene and when we do we want to stamp out everything that opposes us. Funny how quickly we condemn anti gun californians for moving to Colorado and then complaining about the gun laws and OCers and yet we as a society do the same thing. Its not the cougars fault if he tears someones head off because it hardly has anywhere to hunt.

I dont think that cougar in particular should have been hunted. Maybe if the woman was armed and shot it then i would agree to self defense but why slaughter an animal who didn't do anything wrong. And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

The particular Mountain Lion that killed the woman jogger as well as the man on the bike in the same day most certainly should have been hunted and killed. It had become accostomed to humans and had lost its fear of attacking them. Most Mountain Lions will avoid humans at all cost and you'll never know that one is even near you. This one unfortunately was a danger to everyone.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Swampbeast wrote:

I had a graduate class on national parks where the professor suggested that animal attacks were our fault for encroaching on their territory and that it was wrong to hunt down a particular mountain lion in CA after it killed a woman while jogging. That's the elites for you!

Click to expand...

Not for not...but I agree completely with your professor. It is unfair for urban sprawl and suburbia to intrude upon the natural habitats of other animals and thus mitigate them to smaller and smaller territory. We only take their land because its beautiful and serene and when we do we want to stamp out everything that opposes us. Funny how quickly we condemn anti gun californians for moving to Colorado and then complaining about the gun laws and OCers and yet we as a society do the same thing. Its not the cougars fault if he tears someones head off because it hardly has anywhere to hunt.

I dont think that cougar in particular should have been hunted. Maybe if the woman was armed and shot it then i would agree to self defense but why slaughter an animal who didn't do anything wrong. And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true PETA urbanite. You know nothing of the habits of the predators or why they will attack humans. Once they do it... it will continue until they are killed. Humans are worth more than the critters... sorry but WE are the dominant critter on this planet and not just another morsel in somethin's food chain. We are the stewards... and the final arbiter of what lives and what dies for cause.

imported post

Sonora Rebel

Spoken like a true PETA urbanite.  You know nothing of the habits of the predators or why they will attack humans.  Once they do it... it will continue until they are killed.  Humans are worth more than the critters... sorry but WE are the dominant critter on this planet and not just another morsel in somethin's food chain.  We are the stewards... and the final arbiter of what lives and what dies for cause.

Click to expand...

Well, as I polish my leather shoes and eat a delicious cheeseburger allow me to reject the PETA moniker you are trying to label me with. I speak from a viewpoint more akin to Teddy Roosevelt than some vegan hipster. I'll forgive your weak rhetorical argument that tries to clump me in with the PETA folks in order to invalidate my statement, much like I ignore the gun grabbers when they try to clump me in with some fringe radical group simply because I OC. Funny how many people do that when they don't agree with you. But I digress. Simply put, I place more value on the lives of innocent animals then I do on the cancer that spreads across this planet with nary a worry about anything save for feeding its on insatiable appetite for resources and land.

That cancer is of course mankind. It's not the Cougar's fault or the bear's or the wolf's or the lynx's fault that it does what is in its nature but yet mankind will and has wiped them out in such numbers that it is staggering that they even have the grounds on which to make any comeback at all. It's the arrogance of man that has flooded this world with pollution, deforestation and the like (which in turn increases the numbers of diseases that are spread thus mankind shooting itself in the foot) that has pushed so many animals to the brink and beyond.

I forgive you your hypocrisy because of your arrogance Sonora, but it is hypocrisy that you are also guilty of. Would you not defend your home against an attacker, wouldn't you kill if necessary? Of course you would, that's why you carry in the first place. Would you fight against a land developer trying to push you out of your property? I think that you would. If we follow your logic then the lawman (some argue the steward of our society) should come and LOCK YOU UP if you were to use your weapon because really, the crack head was just going about his day trying to get some crack by robbing your house, no need to kill him. Guess you need to be locked up and then euthanized.

Stewards of the world? HA. If thats true we have done a piss poor job and as a whole we need to be fired.

I hope your home and land gets taken by the government in imminent domain for a better use and then maybe you'll understand how it feels. I mean, i'm pretty sure that Obama thinks government is the steward of the masses and i'm sure he'll know how to use your land better than you.


*edited to include quotation box

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Swampbeast wrote:

I had a graduate class on national parks where the professor suggested that animal attacks were our fault for encroaching on their territory and that it was wrong to hunt down a particular mountain lion in CA after it killed a woman while jogging. That's the elites for you!

Click to expand...

Not for not...but I agree completely with your professor. It is unfair for urban sprawl and suburbia to intrude upon the natural habitats of other animals and thus mitigate them to smaller and smaller territory. We only take their land because its beautiful and serene and when we do we want to stamp out everything that opposes us. Funny how quickly we condemn anti gun californians for moving to Colorado and then complaining about the gun laws and OCers and yet we as a society do the same thing. Its not the cougars fault if he tears someones head off because it hardly has anywhere to hunt.

I dont think that cougar in particular should have been hunted. Maybe if the woman was armed and shot it then i would agree to self defense but why slaughter an animal who didn't do anything wrong. And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true PETA urbanite. You know nothing of the habits of the predators or why they will attack humans. Once they do it... it will continue until they are killed. Humans are worth more than the critters... sorry but WE are the dominant critter on this planet and not just another morsel in somethin's food chain. We are the stewards... and the final arbiter of what lives and what dies for cause.

Click to expand...

I can't really disagree with the bolded part of that statement however as others point out that once it loses its fear of humans then it becomes a real danger and there is not much other choice. Going into the backwoods where Cougars and Grizzlies are unarmed is stupid and wrong. You are an invader into their territory and they have a right to defend it even if you aren't antagonizing them.

Would the "Native Americans" have been justified in attacking Columbus and his invading party? You see what happened when they tried to be friendly. When Columbus arrived in America the men got to hunt and fish all day while the women did all the work. The white man thought he could improve on that.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

Here, let me fix that for you:

"And yes, hunting down and killing an animal to protect human life, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong."

imported post

rpyne wrote:

Prophet wrote:

And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

Here, let me fix that for you:

"And yes, hunting down and killing an animal to protect human life, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong."

Click to expand...

No...it was fine the way I had it. Thanks anyways though.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Well, as I polish my leather shoes and eat a delicious cheeseburger allow me to reject the PETA moniker you are trying to label me with. I speak from a viewpoint more akin to Teddy Roosevelt than some vegan hipster. I'll forgive your weak rhetorical argument that tries to clump me in with the PETA folks in order to invalidate my statement, much like I ignore the gun grabbers when they try to clump me in with some fringe radical group simply because I OC. Funny how many people do that when they don't agree with you. But I digress. Simply put, I place more value on the lives of innocent animals then I do on the cancer that spreads across this planet with nary a worry about anything save for feeding its on insatiable appetite for resources and land.

That cancer is of course mankind. It's not the Cougar's fault or the bear's or the wolf's or the lynx's fault that it does what is in its nature but yet mankind will and has wiped them out in such numbers that it is staggering that they even have the grounds on which to make any comeback at all. It's the arrogance of man that has flooded this world with pollution, deforestation and the like (which in turn increases the numbers of diseases that are spread thus mankind shooting itself in the foot) that has pushed so many animals to the brink and beyond.

I forgive you your hypocrisy because of your arrogance Sonora, but it is hypocrisy that you are also guilty of. Would you not defend your home against an attacker, wouldn't you kill if necessary? Of course you would, that's why you carry in the first place. Would you fight against a land developer trying to push you out of your property? I think that you would. If we follow your logic then the lawman (some argue the steward of our society) should come and LOCK YOU UP if you were to use your weapon because really, the crack head was just going about his day trying to get some crack by robbing your house, no need to kill him. Guess you need to be locked up and then euthanized.

Stewards of the world? HA. If thats true we have done a piss poor job and as a whole we need to be fired.

I hope your home and land gets taken by the government in imminent domain for a better use and then maybe you'll understand how it feels. I mean, i'm pretty sure that Obama thinks government is the steward of the masses and i'm sure he'll know how to use your land better than you.


*edited to include quotation box

Click to expand...

So you're 'Greenie'? Lemme tall ya 'Green'... you couldn't... and wouldn't live where I do. This photo is located about 2 miles east of me. I live in an unincorporated Open Range area and have more wildlife on my propertydaily than you've seen in the wild in your entire life. 'See that mountain... That's a smidgin of the west slope of the Tucson's. (One of the 50 mountain ranges in AZ) Mountain Lions live there. They have a range of about 80 miles radius. The reasons they will attack humans is for food... 'cause they're unable to hunt and take down 'normal' prey for some reason. (Old, sick, immature... or rabid) Here... the prey is rodents, deer, javelina. They compete with coyotes and a few grey wolves. They don't defend territory as some bears will. They are usually solitary... and elusive. A year or so ago... during a drought.... 'had one wander into this area. The AWP canal is within 1/8th mile. The horses were goin' nuts... they don't scream like that over anything else. 'Found the tracks in front of my gate two days in a row. My neighbor came face to face with it in her back yard near her barn. The cat was desperate. That cat whokilled the woman in CA was desperate. She might have been on her period 'n the cat smelled blood. That means 'wounded' to an animal. Shebecame an easydinner. had not the cat been killed, that event would have been repeated. Now obviously you think animals are worth more than people... that people are the 'cancer'... and most likely you've fallen for the Chicken Little hysteria of 'Global Warming'.Typical of city people... you have all the answers with no clue to the questions. Nothing dies of old age in the desert... not in the wild.

'Go up in the Poconos much? Bears live there.I'm sure they'll share your sympathies. Maybe they'll even share you.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Sonora Rebel

Spoken like a true PETA urbanite. You know nothing of the habits of the predators or why they will attack humans. Once they do it... it will continue until they are killed. Humans are worth more than the critters... sorry but WE are the dominant critter on this planet and not just another morsel in somethin's food chain. We are the stewards... and the final arbiter of what lives and what dies for cause.

Click to expand...

Well, as I polish my leather shoes and eat a delicious cheeseburger allow me to reject the PETA moniker you are trying to label me with. I speak from a viewpoint more akin to Teddy Roosevelt than some vegan hipster. I'll forgive your weak rhetorical argument that tries to clump me in with the PETA folks in order to invalidate my statement, much like I ignore the gun grabbers when they try to clump me in with some fringe radical group simply because I OC. Funny how many people do that when they don't agree with you. But I digress. Simply put, I place more value on the lives of innocent animals then I do on the cancer that spreads across this planet with nary a worry about anything save for feeding its on insatiable appetite for resources and land.

That cancer is of course mankind. It's not the Cougar's fault or the bear's or the wolf's or the lynx's fault that it does what is in its nature but yet mankind will and has wiped them out in such numbers that it is staggering that they even have the grounds on which to make any comeback at all. It's the arrogance of man that has flooded this world with pollution, deforestation and the like (which in turn increases the numbers of diseases that are spread thus mankind shooting itself in the foot) that has pushed so many animals to the brink and beyond.

I forgive you your hypocrisy because of your arrogance Sonora, but it is hypocrisy that you are also guilty of. Would you not defend your home against an attacker, wouldn't you kill if necessary? Of course you would, that's why you carry in the first place. Would you fight against a land developer trying to push you out of your property? I think that you would. If we follow your logic then the lawman (some argue the steward of our society) should come and LOCK YOU UP if you were to use your weapon because really, the crack head was just going about his day trying to get some crack by robbing your house, no need to kill him. Guess you need to be locked up and then euthanized.

Stewards of the world? HA. If thats true we have done a piss poor job and as a whole we need to be fired.

I hope your home and land gets taken by the government in imminent domain for a better use and then maybe you'll understand how it feels. I mean, i'm pretty sure that Obama thinks government is the steward of the masses and i'm sure he'll know how to use your land better than you.


*edited to include quotation box

Click to expand...

Can't we all just get along and eat the mountain lion together?:lol:

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Spoken like a true PETA urbanite.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Cowboy Poet/ITG.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

rpyne wrote:

Prophet wrote:

And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

Here, let me fix that for you:

"And yes, hunting down and killing an animal to protect human life, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong."

Click to expand...

No...it was fine the way I had it. Thanks anyways though.

Click to expand...

No, the corrected one is right. Man is as much a part of nature as are the other wild animals. Every species has a right to do whatever it deems necessary for its own preservation. Tell me, why do you want to open carry? Is it just so you can have a cool looking ornament on your belt or is it to preserve your life? If you claim it is to protect your life and then also tell others it is wrong to protect their lives, you, sir, are as big a hypocrite as there is.

imported post

Exactly where did I say that I wouldn't shoot an animal that is attacking me? Pretty sure I didn't. In fact I am sure I even said that the woman should have been armed and shot the cougar in self defense.

Sonora, as you continue to act like a gun grabbing anti by lobbing catch phrases and buzzwords at me without having the slightest idea about who I am or what i can or cannot do, save for the state that I live in, you just go to show that you are no better than they are. They'll call us trouble makers or attention seekers because we OC, gun whackos and out of touch, hill billy's and rednecks. You've condemned yourself to be just like them so go ahead and call me whatever you like, Marshaul pegged you right on and everyone else can see that he's right.

And if a cougar or bear jumped at me to eat me, I would put em down...but i wouldnt blame the animal, I would blame ignorant campers who feed em, endless urban sprawl that forces them closer to human contact, and the jackasses who think that we are the only things that matter on this planet. I blame them, not the animals.

And caring about animals isn't something that should be mocked, but i guess up there in your ivory tower of human stewardness thats common place. I guess the 15th century mindset of the white man's burden to bring civilization to every wild thing in the world is still alive and strong in good ole Arizona. Feel free to pass out the blankets...can never have enough typhoid.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Not for not...but I agree completely with your professor. It is unfair for urban sprawl and suburbia to intrude upon the natural habitats of other animals and thus mitigate them to smaller and smaller territory. We only take their land because its beautiful and serene and when we do we want to stamp out everything that opposes us. Funny how quickly we condemn anti gun californians for moving to Colorado and then complaining about the gun laws and OCers and yet we as a society do the same thing. Its not the cougars fault if he tears someones head off because it hardly has anywhere to hunt.

I dont think that cougar in particular should have been hunted. Maybe if the woman was armed and shot it then i would agree to self defense but why slaughter an animal who didn't do anything wrong. And yes, mauling a person to protect ones own habitat, in the grand scheme of things, is not wrong.

Click to expand...

My question is why do you not have the same passion for the human race as any other animal species? Why are cougars, wolves, and bears so special as to mean more to you than humans? Or is that not the case??

What is your solution? Be like the Chinese and start limiting our reproduction by government intervention and just erraticate people to keep more space for various animal species?

While it is not wrong for the animals to hunt in urban areas due to some of the reasons you stated, to not eliminate the creatures that have lost their fear of humans is exceptionally dangerous and absurd. It truly shows a lack of understanding of animal behaviors, particularly predator behaviors.

Where I live, Moose and Bears are prevalent in town and I encounter them routinely. Encroachment on their habitathas been slow since I was a kid, but yes, it has ocurred to some level, I will agree. But when a problem animal is identified, it is dealt with most promtly and swiftly. They have literally taken a safe haven into the town knowing there is abundant food, less snow and harsh weather, and have completely lost their respect and fear of us.

I was charged by a Moose and alsobluff charged numerous times in my own residential neighborhood. I didn't have to go out looking for them, they appear to come looking for us. When a predator such as a cougar begins to prey on humans, it really doesn't matter at that point what the reason is or whether is was justified. It cannot be tolerated and must be fixed immediately.

Humans come first.

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

My question is why do you not have the same passion for the human race as any other animal species? Why are cougars, wolves, and bears so special as to mean more to you than humans? Or is that not the case??

What is your solution? Be like the Chinese and start limiting our reproduction by government intervention and just erraticate people to keep more space for various animal species?

Humans come first.

Click to expand...

You bring up some interesting points flintlock. I will try to clarify my views as best I can.

My passion for animals? Let me ask you a question, how many evil animals do you know? Barring the 2 lions from The Ghost and the Darkness i don't know of any and even thats a stretch. Evil is a human invention, i guess it comes from the ability to reason and rationalize. If you do that enough, evil is just a point of view. There are no evil animals. Killer Pit bulls, rampaging circus elephants etc. they are not evil, they have been either mistreated, abused or trained wrong and thus they are merely a reflection of the humans who raised them. Animals live by a natural law that humans have long ago, out of hubris and greed, cast aside. Barring locusts, animals will eat only what they need, occupy territory only so large as they need, utilize nearly everything that they kill and make war only for the defense of the aforementioned acts.

Humans on the other hand, will slash and burn entire forests in order to build homes far larger than they would possibly need. Toss plastics and polymers into the ocean so an island of debris, nearly 10% the size of the pacific ocean, that will never dissolve. Humans are a wasteful, arrogant, polluting cancer on the earth. And all that could be forgiven if only we didn't know any better. I can forgive ignorance, what I will not forgive is the apathy and what that apathy will do to the planet. I'm not talking about global warming, i don't believe that humans effect the global temp, what i mean is that animals will continue to dissappear so that one day, when its just us, the goats and the cows, our decendents will wonder what a world full of diversity really was like.

In summation, my passion comes down to the fact that animals don't make other animals go extinct. That "honor" is reserved for the creature called man.

As for your other suggestions, I don't think limiting the amount of children a person has is that bad of an idea. Though I think that it should be a personal decision not to overpopulate the planet with more offspring than you can care for. If the only way you can pay for your 8 kids is to have a reality tv show then you should be ashamed of yourself, your children should be taken from you and you should be sterilized. The same goes for crack whores and welfare moms who pop out more kids just to get a bigger gubment check. So, you're idea of limiting the amount of kids people should have holds merit...its just a matter of deciding implementation.

Eradicating people? What do you think disease is? It is the earths way to control population. The more of the environment we destroy the more virulent the diseases become. It's how the world keeps things in checks and balances. Unfortunately, instead of accepting this humans continue to try and live longer, developing drugs that only suppress disease instead of wiping it out and eventually the bacteria or viruses will become so strong a worldwide epidemic will probably be a second black death.

Bad for humans, good for the earth. Like getting a haircut when you left it unwashed too long and it starts to dred lock.

As for more spaces for animals, i would limit where people can move and start communities. The idea that we need so much space is ridiculous. Eventually, if everyone has space then there will be no more space for anything but picket fences, mowed lawns and 2 car garages.

I guess in the end, the thing that really moves me when it comes to animals over people is that you never hear of an animal saying: Animals First. Humans will crush, under heel all that stands in their way, while animals will look to live in symbiosis with their environment.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

while animals will look to live in symbiosis with their environment.

Click to expand...

This is utter and total bovine excrement. Animals act completely and totally for the survival and expansion of their species.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

Prophet wrote:

while animals will look to live in symbiosis with their environment.

Click to expand...

This is utter and total bovine excrement. Animals act completely and totally for the survival and expansion of their species.

Click to expand...

precisely, but since the evolutionary playing field is (relatively) even the end result is a symbiosis, but said symbiosis is accidental.