Most Dangerous Parks For 2003.

1.4k · August 23, 2004

Some of us - mostly westerners it seems - have spoken about going armed in our daily lives. And yes, even while geocaching. Many of you have not been able to understand us. Perhaps this will help. It pays to be careful, even while caching.

The ten most dangerous.

Perhaps THIS THREAD will give you a better understanding too.

Sorry it isn't all rosey. But would you rather not know? Be careful out there!

38.2k · August 23, 2004

Big Bend National Park - imgine a place on the border where law enforcement is ordered by management to allow illegal aliens into the country, and to avoid the border area entirely if crime is suspected. Such is the story at Big Bend, where the park superintendent has chosen to confront crime by surrendering to it....

But place a geocache there and they'll be all over it like flies on a dead rat.

9.5k · August 23, 2004

Thanks for the two pointers DW! Worthy reads both of them.

9.5k · August 23, 2004

Big Bend National Park - imgine a place on the border where law enforcement is ordered by management to allow illegal aliens into the country, and to avoid the border area entirely if crime is suspected. Such is the story at Big Bend, where the park superintendent has chosen to confront crime by surrendering to it....

But place a geocache there and they'll be all over it like flies on a dead rat.

It's easier to keep the sheep in check than it is to keep the criminal activity in check. It makes their activity logs look good even though they really accomplished nothing.

1.7k · August 23, 2004

Thanks for the heads up. The Deleware Water Gap is in my region.

August 23, 2004

Thanks for the link. I have heard about Organ Pipe's problems and some of the others inundated with aliens. A few were surprises though.

38.2k · August 23, 2004

I have to wonder about this list. I just read this one and I used to live and work very close to it and still live only 15 miles away:

Edison National Historic Site (West Orange, New Jersey): Troubles of the big city, from a soaring murder rate to gang activity, has this small park surrounded, and rangers outmanned and outgunned. Rangers are denied pepper spray, shotguns and rifles, and access to a dispatch, despite being assigned to work without backup in an area of growing urban crime.

Threatened by vandals and burglars, the park is closed to visitors, with Edison's irreplaceable treasures under siege behind a fence. Yet there is no 24-hour law enforcement presence, or even a burglar alarm to protect the historic artifacts, some made by the hands of Thomas Edison himself.

There are some misleading statements here. The fence has been there for many, many years, probably dating back to when the facility was in use. The neighborhood is not a particularly dangerous one. I've spent much time there. Yeah, its a urban neighboorhood of working class families and there may be some car break-ins and stuff like that, but it's no different than the typical middle class neighborhood anywhere.

The facility is closed to visitors while major upgrades are being made to the facility, including sprinkler and alarm systems. Also, the building is on a main street in the center of town, so there is a 24x7 police presence there.

Thanks for the heads up. The Deleware Water Gap is in my region.

The major issues there are car break-ins and illegal ATV use. The "high crime areas" are in the parking lots along route 80 and are patrolled by the NJ State Police. Sure they're understaffed in both places, but this list seems to be trying to make things sound much worse than they are. Understandable, because it's put out by the ranger's union and they have an agenda.

Edited August 23, 2004 by briansnat

1.8k · August 23, 2004

I have family that live in Austin and they visit Big Bend. I have never heard them mention anything about illegal alien problems or even crime related problems. The have always had a great experience at the park.

1.4k · August 23, 2004

I can only speak for my area.... but being a relatively alert person, and also a ham operator, I often listen to the local forces on the scanner.

More than once... TOO OFTEN in fact, I have heard engagements by the border patrol that made my heart pound as if I were back in combat again. Once you hear it, you recognize the stress in a voice. That screaming whisper in a radio when they are calling for back-up RIGHT NOW! Shots have been traded across the border here. It is unknown if the illegals are using vehicles painted as, or if the Mexican Military has been bribed to help out.. but vehicles and people dressed as the Mexican Army have crossed the border and engaged the Border Patroll more than once, trading shots with our forces.

For 4 of my last 5 years in the army, I worked the soouthern borders +/- augmenting our forces. This worked well until a Marine shot a "goat herder" who I believe was a scout for a border incursion. The herder shot first, and twice, before the marine neutralized him. The herder was 14, and the resulting flap has left our borders much less secure.

Leading from the second article, the local sheep would rather have the border unguarded than put military forces there. Again, the sheep-dog's teath that they see scares them more than the wolf hiding in the desert.

This isn't any worse than traveling the woods where the moonshiners or the marijuana growers are. There are dangers everywhere, but only a sheep-dog sees them. My point - just be carefull out there. Caching, hiking, vacationing, and yes even in your daily lives. Especially in your daily lives! <_<

3.9k · August 23, 2004

I can only speak for my area.... but being a relatively alert person, and also a ham operator

Hmmmm... ham. I'm hungry. <_<

Back on topic... Edison National Historic Site: that's not were

This cache is is it?

38.2k · August 23, 2004

I can only speak for my area.... but being a relatively alert person, and also a ham operator

Hmmmm... ham. I'm hungry.

Back on topic... Edison National Historic Site: that's not were

This cache is is it?

Nope. Its in West Orange.

6.4k · August 23, 2004

I can only speak for my area.... but being a relatively alert person, and also a ham operator

Hmmmm... ham. I'm hungry.

Back on topic... Edison National Historic Site: that's not were

This cache is is it?

Nope!

Edison National Historic Site

nearest caches

Edited August 23, 2004 by Mopar

1.8k · August 23, 2004

Back on topic... Edison National Historic Site: that's not were
This cache is is it?

Yeah, I was wondering if this is the place where the Soprano's go to 'off' someone?

August 23, 2004

Big Bend National Park - imgine a place on the border where law enforcement is ordered by management to allow illegal aliens into the country, and to avoid the border area entirely if crime is suspected. Such is the story at Big Bend, where the park superintendent has chosen to confront crime by surrendering to it....

But place a geocache there and they'll be all over it like flies on a dead rat.

We spent 2 weeks in Big Bend two years ago. If I remember correctly it's about a million acres of nothing but beautiful none the less. Nearest town population of 68. The rangers tell you "Don't get hurt in the back country. The nearest hospital is over 2 hours away and they don't have a helo. By the time we find you and get you medical aid it could be at least 6 hours minimum before you get to a hospital" That's always the kind of pep talk I love before heading out into the great wide open <_< . We hiked down along the Rio Grande and I must say it wasn't a Grand River, it was more of a flowing mud puddle (July 2002). We (me, Mrs & daughter) were alone and hadn't seen anybody for hours when I hear a noise. Turned to see a guy in the middle of the river (just knee deep) coming across. Made me very uneasy and wishing I had more than just a buck knife on me. We quickly hurried up the river and I never did see where he went.

1.1k · August 23, 2004

Sorry for this but: You got to love gun advicates they and take one inscident and make it a hyperbalization for the advent of no gun control. For startes THESE ARE ALL NATIONAL PARKS and therefore NO GEOCACHING IS ALLOWED. or am I wrong. Also why put you self in a sutuation where you are in these areas at night even if you are not geocaching. Do you stand on train tracks when you see a train coming thinking it will stop???????? Sorry again but I find this need for justification is lacking. Yes I have guns at home and no I do not feel the need for carrying one geocaching even thought I have run in to rattlesnakes, A stick or rock seems to work well as well as making a little noise. It is not like the snake is out stalking me. But what really scares me is some guy carring a gun that may unintetionally shot me. I don't walk in the wood in deer season.

Okay I know your a resposnible gun owner but I just find using this kind of argument as not very practical.

cheers

2.1k · August 23, 2004

If you don't read the background, then the survey is easily misinterpreted.

The list is compiled from input from park rangers across the country who belong to the Lodge. Parks are ranked according to their dangers to park rangers -- not the visiting public.

Also note that a number of the "dangers" that they quote happen during hours that the public would not be allowed in to use the park (which is why the criminals find it so appealing to use...nobody around).

9.1k · August 23, 2004

For startes THESE ARE ALL NATIONAL PARKS and therefore NO GEOCACHING IS ALLOWED. or am I wrong.

In at least one of the top ten featured dangerous areas, there are physical caches that are placed with permission (Delaware Water Gap NRA). And, I didn't bother to check, but there are likely to be virtual caches in many of the others. Virtual caches are best suited for areas like National Parks where traditional caches are generally not permitted. For example, I've enjoyed finding caches in the Lake Mead NRA... in the *daytime.*

So be careful while you hunt those dangerous virtuals, you hear?

All that being said, I agree with what ju66l3r and briansnat have observed in their posts. Always consider the source!

August 23, 2004

Sadly, people are one of many dangers you have to worry about in the great outdoors nowdays. I can remember when you could leave your campsite to go fishing, peakbagging, or just hiking around without worry, at least about threats from other people. Now you have to worry about your own safety, plus that of your gear.....

All that aside, I think I must be missing something here. How do the national parks and firearms tie in? Even if you have a concealed carry permit, carrying a firearm into a National park isn't an option, it's something that could land you in jail.

August 23, 2004

I'm not a stranger to firearms, I don't think they should be banned, I once, when time permitted, was a hunter, I have coached a DCM marksmanship team, etc., etc., etc. I also don't think that everywhere I go, I have to be armed and dangerous. However, there is a certain paranoia that comes from carrying a weapon. The doom and gloom that pervades the gun advocates sometimes seems to be looking for trouble. I don't mean that in a personal way, but life presents some difficult situations, and what we tend to rely on as solutions can sometimes influence our choices as to how to act. I KNOW MANY, MANY, MANY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS AND USERS. I also know of an equal number of yahoos who should never be in the proximity of guns, let alone automobiles, alcohol or sharp scissors. Guess what? Both groups have taken gun safety training, and some of those have also been in the military.

One of the issues of modern media is the fear it instills. You will never see the 6 o'clock news report as their headline segment thet 287,000,000 (or whatever the current population is) Americans WERE NOT in a life-threatening situation today; however, if one event happens which could frighten the populace into watching more of the show happens, the nightly news milks it for all it can in as lurid and melodramatic detail as it can, teasing the morbid inclinations in all of us. We enter a state of dread. (Don't believe me-- watch and chart one week of your local news. Tally what gets given overwhelming preference.)

Without getting into statistical arguing (I'll just clam up when that happens), I would trust some of the posters here to be extremely responsible gun owners, and others less so. I searched (but became tired of wading through the multiple threads on gun issues within geocaching) to find a post from a cacher who, on a public trail, had a jogger come up behind him; his initial reaction was to reach for his gun, and if he hadn't seen the jogger run by, he felt he would have been within his rights to have fired. This is the attitude that scares me.

I don't walk through my life with every day a possible impending violent catastrophe. I have worked in the inner city of two of the murder capitols of the US, Washington DC and Baltimore, including overnight urban-park camping, have argued with black bears in the Adirondacks, been in close, (but not up-in-my-face close) proximity to grizzly bears in Montana, walked across the Continental Divide in Colorado, and have wandered by myself freely in many North American and European cities, and not always in the "tourist" sections. I've also had to address numerous incidents of violence and potential violence in one of the greatest melting pots of American society, the public high school. I've encountered strange people, even threatening people, but never once have I felt that my having a sidearm would have helped the situation. Maybe some day I'll be a dead sheep in a statistic, maybe I'm just lucky, but until then, I'm not going to walk out of the house looking at every person I don't know as my potential murderer.

I'm not naive either. I hope that, God forbid, I'm ever on a terrorist-hijacked airplane heading towards Washington, that I'll be one of sheep who sacrificed their lives to bring that plane down and save untold lives by my death. Maybe I'll be cowering in my seat, crying my eyes out. But, I refuse to be forced into feeling that I must be second-by-second vigilant and in fear of my life. Nor do I feel that I should feel eternal humbling gratitude to anyone who feels the need to be my protector. My instinct is that I will do what I feel right at the time something happens. A gun will not provide me with a shield of invulnerability.

All in all, I don't want to offend anyone, have my opinion, and really, in all likelihood, will not change my views about gun carrying. Thank you for the good intentions of many of the advocates here, but move on. Your points have been made quite adequately, but bringing up the "vigilance at every moment", "don't go here", "don't risk your life without adequate firepower" only sound like proselytizing to add converts to a belief that was more that adequately addressed in the AAD, Personal Safety/Security and other threads. If anything, bump them up (I know AAD was locked), but let's not just produce fear...for fear's sake.

I've said and done. No more to come.)

38.2k · August 24, 2004

Sadly, people are one of many dangers you have to worry about in the great outdoors nowdays. I can remember when you could leave your campsite to go fishing, peakbagging, or just hiking around without worry, at least about threats from other people. Now you have to worry about your own safety, plus that of your gear.....

That's always been the case. Murderers, robbers, weirdos and other miscreants aren't a new thing. The first murders on the Appalachian Trail occurred over 30 years ago and equipment theft and other crime in our parks has been going on since they opened. You'd have to go back a loooong way to remember times when other humans weren't a threat. But wait, only a few generations ago you had to be worried about getting scalped by an Indian in parts of this country (or if you were an Indian, getting shot by a white man).

Do you really think perverts stalking kids is a new phenomena? It's just that when we were young, they were called dirty old men and if something happened, it would have been hushed up. Now they call them child molesters and arrest them.

Personally, I still go hiking, fishing and peakbagging without worrying about my safety, or that of my gear, at least from other humans. My chances of being a victim in the backcountry are pretty slim. The miscreants generally don't venture very far from the parking lots and built up areas.

As the saying goes, its not that things are getting so much worse, its that the news reporting is getting so much better

Edited August 24, 2004 by briansnat

August 24, 2004

Personally, I still go hiking, fishing and peakbagging without worrying about my safety, or that of my gear, at least from other humans. My chances of being a victim in the backcountry are pretty slim. The miscreants generally don't venture very far from the parking lots and built up areas.

I still head out as much as possible as well, and don't by any means think the problem is new. The history of America is indeed quite interesting, and full of violence on one end of the spectrum, with the majority being basically good honest people. At the same time, in the backcountry, there was a time when you were very unlikely to encounter any other people. Now you encounter hundreds. For the first 20 years I spent backpacking, I never had my camp disturbed, or my vehicle broken into at a trailhead. In the last 10 years, my camp has been burgeled twice, and my vehicle at the trailhead twice again that amount. Being one of those foolish guys who still heads into the wilderness areas on my own for days at a time, my main concerns is that I'll blow a knee on an off trail journey, take a fall, or otherwise incapacitate myself. I'd place severe weather as my second concern, snakes as my third, followed by two legged animals with the 4 legged kind bringing up the rear.

I personally don't carry a gun on my journeys, and don't worry to any great extent about other people when venturing out. At the same time, I don't completely ignore the risk, or downplay the concerns in those who see the risk or danger as more severe. On a more modern front, it would be interesting to see some stats on how risky a car is when compared to riding a horse. I still think the biggest risk is getting to and from the trailhead alive........

4.5k · August 24, 2004

I read the article. I don't really know how dangerous any of these parks are. But the article seems to be a vehicle to complain about the reduction of staff, something any organization hates to see. So the complaints about the increase in crime is to pressure congress to appropriate more funding. More funding means more staff, more promotions, more pay. Less funding means, wel, the opposite.

I wouldn't be surprised if the writer is a union rep.

24.7k · August 24, 2004

If two towns appear to be the same in every respect but one has a larger police force which town do you choose to live in? Simple, the one with the smaller police force. The other town has a need for police and that need stems from things other than people taking quiet moonlit strolls.

A reduction in park staff where there is a need for enforcement is a bad thing. But a recution in staff because the need is no longer there is a good thing. Without better information I can't look at that list and make any judgment at all.

Edited August 24, 2004 by Renegade Knight

1.4k · August 24, 2004

Well, take it for what it is worth. As I said in the beginning, most of the folks in the south-west know what it is. We live here, and see it daily. (If we are looking). The real questions are not being answered. And that is, we know they are not staying here. So where are they going?

Being a volunteer in a state park near the border.... I know what I know. And not being paid, I have no ax to grind. And I an not a member of any rangers union, if such even exists. VOLUNTEER is the operative word here.

I don't mean to redicule anyone here. But if you doubt the reports, I can set you up with an AZ rancher to spend your next vacation with. He will even supply you with the night-vision gear. Can probably set you up with a nights ride with the Border Patrol. Its real. But you-all are welcome to experience it for yourselves.

Again, where are the going? And for what purpose?

I never meant to make it sound like you should stick your head in the sand. Nor did I advocate you are up. The last words of the post were.... Be careful out there! Surely no-one will dis-agree with that????

24.7k · August 24, 2004

Actually I did notice that most of the parks reported were in the Southwest and having heard people tell stories I have no doubts about some of those parks. There is a world of difference between the news you hear in Arizona and the news you hear in Idaho.

1.8k · August 24, 2004

Again, where are the going? And for what purpose?

A lot of them come to Kansas City. They end up taking the jobs that most people in our city consider 'beneath them' or are too lazy to perform. Like home construction, lawn service, auto repair, fast food, grocery stores, etc. It appears these people are more than willing to do the grunt work. Also, they are some of the nicest and peaceful people in our community.

2.7k · August 24, 2004

I also don't think that everywhere I go, I have to be armed and 1. dangerous. However, there is a certain paranoia that comes from carrying a weapon. The doom and gloom that pervades the gun advocates sometimes 2. seems to be looking for trouble. I don't mean that in a personal way, but life presents some difficult situations, and what we tend to rely on as solutions can sometimes influence our choices as to how to act. I KNOW MANY, MANY, MANY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS AND USERS. I also know of an equal number of yahoos who should never be in the proximity of guns, let alone automobiles, alcohol or sharp scissors. Guess what? Both groups have taken gun safety training, and some of those have also been in the military.

One of the issues of modern media is the fear it instills. You will never see the 6 o'clock news report as their headline segment thet 287,000,000 (or whatever the current population is) Americans WERE NOT in a life-threatening situation today; however, if one event happens which could frighten the populace into watching more of the show happens, the nightly news milks it for all it can in as lurid and melodramatic detail as it can, teasing the morbid inclinations in all of us. We enter a state of dread. (Don't believe me-- watch and chart one week of your local news. Tally what gets given overwhelming preference.)

Without getting into statistical arguing (I'll just clam up when that happens), I would trust some of the posters here to be extremely responsible gun owners, and others less so. 3. I searched (but became tired of wading through the multiple threads on gun issues within geocaching) to find a post from a cacher who, on a public trail, had a jogger come up behind him; his initial reaction was to reach for his gun, and if he hadn't seen the jogger run by, he felt he would have been within his rights to have fired. This is the attitude that scares me.

4. I don't walk through my life with every day a possible impending violent catastrophe. I have worked in the inner city of two of the murder capitols of the US, Washington DC and Baltimore, including overnight urban-park camping, have argued with black bears in the Adirondacks, been in close, (but not up-in-my-face close) proximity to grizzly bears in Montana, walked across the Continental Divide in Colorado, and have wandered by myself freely in many North American and European cities, and not always in the "tourist" sections. I've also had to address numerous incidents of violence and potential violence in one of the greatest melting pots of American society, the public high school. I've encountered strange people, even threatening people, but never once have I felt that my having a sidearm would have helped the situation. Maybe some day I'll be a dead sheep in a statistic, maybe I'm just lucky, but until then, I'm not going to walk out of the house looking at every person I don't know as my potential murderer.

I'm not naive either. I hope that, God forbid, I'm ever on a terrorist-hijacked airplane heading towards Washington, that I'll be one of sheep who sacrificed their lives to bring that plane down and save untold lives by my death. Maybe I'll be cowering in my seat, crying my eyes out. But, I refuse to be forced into feeling that I must be second-by-second vigilant and in fear of my life. Nor do I feel that I should feel eternal humbling gratitude to anyone who feels the need to be my protector. My instinct is that I will do what I feel right at the time something happens. A gun will not provide me with a shield of invulnerability.

All in all, I don't want to offend anyone, have my opinion, and really, in all likelihood, will not change my views about gun carrying. Thank you for the good intentions of many of the advocates here, but move on. Your points have been made quite adequately, but bringing up the "vigilance at every moment", "don't go here", "don't risk your life without adequate firepower" only sound like proselytizing to add converts to a belief that was more that adequately addressed in the AAD, Personal Safety/Security and other threads. If anything, bump them up (I know AAD was locked), but let's not just produce fear...for fear's sake.

I've said and done. No more to come.)

1. "Armed" does not necessarily mean "dangerous" that is an unfair stereotype. If this is true we must all fear the police.

2. Only a fool, armed or not, looks for trouble. Personally, I will not go anywhere armed that I would be unwilling to go unarmed. Packing does not insure safety, but being prepared for all possibilityies, if it is not an excessive burden, is reasonable and prudent.

Carrying, where legal, is a personal "choice". But since it is a "conservative" choice, "liberals" who allegedly favour "choice" in OTHER matters generally deny this particular "choice" to "the common people" who no doubt are too stupid to handle anything as "dangerous" as a gun. (THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT- not directed at you personally)

3. Search your buns off, you won't find it. Why do you think people that carry (legally) are that paranoid and stupid? Nothing I have ever read in GC forums would indicate that. As you so clearly stated,

I KNOW MANY, MANY, MANY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS AND USERS.

Do you know even one of THOSE that would do something like that? If you do, how do you call him or her a "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER"?

Irresponsible gun owners could well be listed as an additional hazard of the outdoors. Perhaps a good reason to avoid caching in hunting season. But why lump the irresponsible in with the responsible expecting the "responsible" to do stupid things?

4. Nor do I. And this is probably true of MANY if not MOST who legally carry.

Personally, I would cache or hike or whatever in any of those "dangerous" places WITHOUT a gun, but if it were legal for me to pack there, i would feel a little safer WITH one.

You are correct in your assertion (though you did not directly state it) that the chances for being a victim are low even in a "dangerous" area. It is probably a LOT less risky, even in the statistically worst places, than the DRIVE to the park.

So wear your seatbelt, pack 'em if ya got 'em, and cache on. <_<

2.7k · August 24, 2004

The real questions are not being answered. And that is, we know they are not staying here. So where are they going?

INDIANA!

2.6k · August 24, 2004

3. I searched (but became tired of wading through the multiple threads on gun issues within geocaching) to find a post from a cacher who, on a public trail, had a jogger come up behind him; his initial reaction was to reach for his gun, and if he hadn't seen the jogger run by, he felt he would have been within his rights to have fired. This is the attitude that scares me.

3. Search your buns off, you won't find it.

Well I did, took me less than 5 minutes. Found also an incident where a cacher accidentally set his gun off.

Why do you think people that carry (legally) are that paranoid and stupid? Nothing I have ever read in GC forums would indicate that.

I didn't notice where Metaphor said anybody being stupid. In fact, you are the only one in this thread using that word (before this post), three times. :lol:

Very nice post, Metaphor.

Edit: grammar.

Edited August 24, 2004 by Divine

August 24, 2004

In the UK we carry big fluffy pillows in case we come across anyone who really needs to have an emergency sit down . . . .

. . . . It's a different world isn't it ?? :lol:

2.6k · August 24, 2004

In the UK we carry big fluffy pillows in case we come across anyone who really needs to have an emergency sit down . . . .

. . . . It's a different world isn't it ??

No.

The difference is what you're allowed to do about it. I got a flyer from Croydon Town Council about what to do in the event of a burglary. I wish I'd kept it. One recommendation was to lie quietly in bed and wait for the burglar to go away.

"Hot" home invasion (among other things) is through the roof in the UK.

And why wouldn't it be?

August 24, 2004

I can't resist. Even though I said I would clam up, I just have to say...

1. "Armed" does not necessarily mean "dangerous" that is an unfair stereotype. If this is true we must all fear the police.

It's not a stereotype I created. It was the title of a thread that a gun advocate used in the forums.

2. Only a fool, armed or not, looks for trouble. Personally, I will not go anywhere armed that I would be unwilling to go unarmed. Packing does not insure safety, but being prepared for all possibilityies, if it is not an excessive burden, is reasonable and prudent.

As I said, I know many many, many responsible gun owners. I know an equal number of people who aren't as wise.

Carrying, where legal, is a personal "choice". But since it is a "conservative" choice, "liberals" who allegedly favour "choice" in OTHER matters generally deny this particular "choice" to "the common people" who no doubt are too stupid to handle anything as "dangerous" as a gun. (THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT- not directed at you personally)

I'm a card-carrying liberal Democrat who does not want to take your right to carry a firearm away from you. There are a lot of us. Don't get trapped in unfair stereotypes.

3. Search your buns off, you won't find it. Why do you think people that carry (legally) are that paranoid and stupid? Nothing I have ever read in GC forums would indicate that.

Thanks, Divine, I knew it was out there. I didn't say anything about stupid, but just carrying a weapon (legally) does not automatically bestow wisdom.

I KNOW MANY, MANY, MANY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS AND USERS.
Do you know even one of THOSE that would do something like that? If you do, how do you call him or her a "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER"?

Irresponsible gun owners could well be listed as an additional hazard of the outdoors. Perhaps a good reason to avoid caching in hunting season. But why lump the irresponsible in with the responsible expecting the "responsible" to do stupid things?

Yes. I do know people who are irresponsible (legal) gun owners. And no I didn't say a responsible gun owner would "do something like that." I said irresponsible gun owners would do something like that. I made a clear seperation of the two.

4. Nor do I. And this is probably true of MANY if not MOST who legally carry.
Personally, I would cache or hike or whatever in any of those "dangerous" places WITHOUT a gun, but if it were legal for me to pack there, i would feel a little safer WITH one.

You are correct in your assertion (though you did not directly state it) that the chances for being a victim are low even in a "dangerous" area. It is probably a LOT less risky, even in the statistically worst places, than the DRIVE to the park.

I agree. You probably wouldn't resort to using your gun without thinking first. Doesn't make me feel safer though. I don't know you, and if you happened to come upon me in one of these places, I would most likely look suspicious to you, even though I'm a pretty nice guy.

The whole point of my post was not to advocate taking guns away from legal carriers; it was to express my opinion about gun owners who seem to want to make me feel inadequate, unsafe and in need of someone else's protection because I choose not to carry a firearm wherever I go. I don't on all accounts. If you are carrying a concealed weapon legally, conceal it, don't advertise it. If you feel it makes you safer, fine, but don't expect me to feel safer because you have a gun.

38.2k · August 24, 2004

The last words of the post were.... Be careful out there! Surely no-one will dis-agree with that????

Although some of us questioned the severity of the problelms listed in that article, I don't think anybody is burying their head in the sand and thinking these issues don't exist.

Though I don't worry when hiking, GEOCACHING, or backpacking, I do take precautions. If I meet someone who doesn't pass my smell test, I become more aware of my surroundings and make sure they went the other way before I let my guard down. In one or two instances, when my antenna gave me strong warnings, I've pulled off the trail and conceald myself to see if I was being followed. If I'm backpacking and meet someone who seems overly interested in where I'm going, I name a destination far from my real one. And when I do make camp, it's well out of sight and earshot of the trail and far from the parking area, or a road.

I also make sure I don't leave valuables in my car and often leave it unlocked in the lot when parked overnight, figuring if someone wants to get in and check it out, I'd rather they didn't break my windows.

This being said, of over 25 years and thousands of miles of hiking and backpacking, I could count the times when I met someone who raised my alert level on one hand and I bet I was probably wrong in each case.

Edited August 24, 2004 by briansnat

21.9k · August 24, 2004

Posts to this thread need to remain on-topic to geocaching. BrianSnat's post is an example of an on-topic post because it discusses his personal experiences while hiking.

Posts which generally debate the propriety of gun ownership are off-topic to this forum. There are other forums to discuss those issues. Thanks.

3k · August 24, 2004

I read the article. I don't really know how dangerous any of these parks are. But the article seems to be a vehicle to complain about the reduction of staff, something any organization hates to see. So the complaints about the increase in crime is to pressure congress to appropriate more funding.

Exactly. The article is also more than one year old. Anybody google the author's name looking for updates?

Edit: Randall Kendrick is executive director of the U.S. Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. Aren't most politically-motivated articles exaggerated to the extreme?

Edited August 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot

38.2k · August 24, 2004

Aren't most politically-motivated articles exaggerated to the extreme?

Yeah, the article makes the Edison site in West Orange seem like Fort Apache :lol: .

1.4k · August 24, 2004

The article is also more than one year old. Anybody google the author's name looking for updates?

Hmmm.... way I see it, the articls IS NOT 1 year old. A few months at worst. It is the final info for the year 2003, which ended just 8 months ago +/-. Give them a few months to tally the data and write the report. I would say it is pretty up to date.

Remember, this was only the top ten. There could be other places nearly as bad. This is why I said to be careful out there. How you choose to take that advice (or not at all) is up to you.

Wish they would print the top ten BEST places too. :lol:

2.1k · August 24, 2004

This is why I said to be careful out there. How you choose to take that advice (or not at all) is up to you.
---

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

7. Shenandoah National Park (Virginia): ...the understaffed ranger workforce is coping with a large number of armed poachers and encroaching suburban crime.

I have heeded your call and purchased a number of firearms. The next time one of these suburban crime punks goes to spraypaint my freedoms away in Shenandoah, he's going to have to answer to me!!!

:lol:

Something I tried to convey earlier and I don't want to get lost in this shuffle of "why an armed hiker is a safer hiker because of everything going on in our parks today" arguments is this:

This survey is firstly based on ranger anecdotes and stories. That does not dismiss any truth to the matters, but it certainly allows for reporter bias. This again does not mean that an AZ ranger has hyped his story or experiences, but that much like these forums only the out-spoken get listed.

Secondly, the survey details the dangerous places for rangers (and volunteers) because they have to police all of the laws in their park. Simply because a drug smuggler or illegal alien is a problem, even an armed problem, for a ranger doesn't mean that these same people are taking every hiker they see hostage. In fact, given their options, I'm sure they'd like to avoid contact with campers as well as rangers...which is one of the reasons they choose to operate at night. Even your radio calls are always situations where an armed ranger has run into an armed subject and they opened fire on each other. More important information would be the percentage of the general public who are assaulted, shot at, or murdered in these parks. Since it wasn't more sensational than shark attacks or the Olympics this past summer, I am guessing that the percentage isn't much higher than any other murder rate in any other NP. Unless one of the top ten dangerous NPs was because of raiding parties who ransack whole cities on the border and then return to Mexico by dawn, I don't see where being armed is useful in this context.

5.6k · August 24, 2004

I'm not certain that I feel safer with geocachers carrying weapons into the woods. The range of the bullets are much greater than the shooters visual range. If something happens that requires a shot, and I'm nearby caching, I feel in MORE danger because that bullet is flying by. And if I were armed, wouldn't my response be to pull the weapon and be ready to return fire? (I can just hear the ruckus raised if two cachers ended up in a firefight with each other!) Now, if I hear a gunshot I'll go to cover, not add another gun into the situation (how do you tell a sheep dog from a wolf in the woods?).

In my opinion, this thread seems to be 'selling' fear - along with all the other 'don't open you door, you don't know who's there'/'don't offend other drivers, they might be armed' fear sellers. Yes, it's a dangerous world, but me being armed while caching (or many other times) isn't going to make it safer (no, I'm not against weapon ownership, I have a couple).

The post Divine found (if he hadn't I would have posted it) is what makes me most nervous in the woods.

August 24, 2004

I find it interesting that those of us that would like to be able to LEGALLY carry in National Parks, don't really care if you don't want to. But those that don't want to carry, usually don't want others to as well.

As to Big Bend being dangerous? Only if you think illegal aliens trafficing drugs and humans through the park is dangerous. Please be aware that the management of Big Bend will not do anything about it. I was personally told that the Rio Grande was NOT a national border, but a feature of the landscape by management there.

When I spoke to a BP officer at the check station North of Big Bend, he flatly stated that a lot of folks were going to have to be victims before anything was done about park security. An then, what would probably happen is a restriction of visitation of the park.

Those that don't believe it, aren't looking. I've got pictures of illegals on our side of the river, selling junk. They also had a large pack full of ??? that they moved off with when I got close with my camera. When I reported it to the park, they told me not to worry about it.

Every one should live life the way they feel most comfortable. But don't put down folks who want to take responsibility for their own safety.

3k · August 24, 2004

The article is also more than one year old. Anybody google the author's name looking for updates?

Hmmm.... way I see it, the articls IS NOT 1 year old. A few months at worst. It is the final info for the year 2003, which ended just 8 months ago +/-. Give them a few months to tally the data and write the report. I would say it is pretty up to date.

I wouldn't. When you read the article, you must have missed this header:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -Monday, June 23, 2003"

I agree that it takes time to compile such a report. It wouldn't surprise me if much of the data the author relied on was 2, 3 or more years old.

I looked for specific dates for incidents cited, and didn't find any. I did find this information linked at the bottom of the article interesting; it also provides no dates:

"Background Information: This is the third annual list of the Ten Most Dangerous National Parks. It is compiled by the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. The Lodge is the largest organization of law enforcement rangers in the country, and has been in existence for 16 years.

The list is compiled from input from park rangers across the country who belong to the Lodge. Parks are ranked according to their dangers to park rangers -- not the visiting public. The ranking is not based on criminal data from national parks. NPS studies show that the NPS crime data is unreliable. "

(Note: I added the emphasis in the quoted passage, because it is particularly relevant to this thread.)

Edited August 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot

August 24, 2004

They also had a large pack full of ??? that they moved off with when I got close with my camera

I'm pretty much always packing a camera, and usually a big one with a oversized telephoto lens... :lol: (just funnin' you)

Like Brian said, it's the awareness one brings to caching or hiking or urban traveling that is probably the best deterrent. In all my wandering in the woods, while caching, backpacking solo, leading groups, etc., I've had few scares. What I've relied on is my sense of danger. I've met many really good people by just heeding my gut feelings, and I've avoided others because of the same. His advice is probably the best in this whole thread.

Last summer, when I told my wife I was going backpacking with a couple of guys from New Jersey who I'd never met but through the internet, her face clamped down with that look that I might be heading into something I shouldn't; my gut feeling was that these guys were alright. They were. After all, they were geocachers, right? Maybe some others would never have considered going. I'd hazard to say that I'd probably get along just fine with most of the people I've been disagreeing with here in this thread.

I and (I hope) most people who venture out into areas new to them are cautious about taking risk. But there is a difference between perceived and actual risk. Observe, listen and assess what the risk is, be careful, and know your limitations. Be wary, but don't be afraid. If a cache area looks bad, use your instincts and don't go in there. If someone creeps you out, know how to exit the situation. Use your brain first, other options second. On that note, I'll bet that we are all in agreement.

(and thus concludes my 300th post.)

38.2k · August 24, 2004

Be wary, but don't be afraid.

That says it all!

2.6k · August 24, 2004

I find it interesting that those of us that would like to be able to LEGALLY carry in National Parks, don't really care if you don't want to. But those that don't want to carry, usually don't want others to as well.

It's not always like that. In fact, many posters in this particular thread not carrying themselves while geocaching have pre-eminently said they're not taking guns away from resposible gun owners.Some of them have even said they own guns themselves.

The issue has been (among other things) those who carry legally, but instead of being responsible, they're either drunk, threatening, scared as hell, hypervigilant or all of them and more. Irresponsible. Do I really have to get shot on the trail because they just didn't happen to hear me coming?

I know I'll be searching geocaches one day on the US turf. It's clear that I can't carry a weapon while doing it (not that I'd want to). Still: If a big, ugly foreigner like me approached you (not anyone particular in this thread) in the woods to say hello to a co-cacher and just didn't understand your southern drawl (or whatever accent they didn't teach me in the school - or tv) to back off, would I deserve your bullet in my skin? Just because of a misunderstanding? Just because you were afraid of me?

Be wary of me by all means, but please don't shoot me. I am just there to find some geocaches. :lol:

2.6k · August 24, 2004

would I deserve your bullet in my skin? Just because of a misunderstanding? Just because you were afraid of me?

This would be a more pursuasive bit of theater if I could think of a single case of someone on the trail shooting someone else mistakenly, because they were startled. Or for any other reason. Not one. In fact, have there been any prosecutions at all of wrongful killings by people with concealed carry permits?

Several bad guys have taken to haunting hiking trails shooting people that I recall. Remember the trouble on the Appalachian trail a few years back? Shooting lesbian couples, wasn't he? And there was a bad guy shooting people in a walking park on the West Coast I remember, too. A good number accidents involving people wrongfully shooting others in their homes, mistaking them for burglars. And, of course, many hunting accidents involving firearms.

So, by all means, if you come a-caching, wear blaze orange in season and don't bumble into somebody's home by mistake. But don't worry about permit holders.

38.2k · August 24, 2004

The issue has been (among other things) those who carry legally, but instead of being responsible, they're either drunk, threatening, scared as hell, hypervigilant or all of them and more. Irresponsible. Do I really have to get shot on the trail because they just didn't happen to hear me coming?

Now I'm gonna go and get this thread closed...but here goes. Quite a few US states have passed right to carry laws over the past few years. I don't know the exact number, but I believe it's somewhere around 2/3 of the states. Those against these laws predicted some sort of modern day Dodge City, with drunken shoot outs and nervous Nellies capping unsuspecting citizens. It never materialized.

I'm different from a lot of people here. Even those who come down against carrying, proudly claim that they own 2 or 3 guns and hunt (or used to). I've never owned a gun, probably never will, never hunted and I've fired a (real) gun maybe a half dozen times in my life (some trap shooting and plinking with a .22 as a teenager). But I am a card carrying member of the NRA because I believe so strongly in the entire Bill of Rights.... oh, and I like GEOCACHING (gotta stay on topic).

Edited August 25, 2004 by briansnat

August 24, 2004

But I am a card carrying member of the NRA because I believe so strongly in the entire Bill of Rights.... oh, and I like GEOCACHING (gotta stay on topic).

But when they wrote the Bill of Rights did they ever think of this type of Geocacher?

c.1987_full_metal_malesh.jpg

I was a NRA member, but discontinued my membership when they called me to renew. They played a 2 minute clip of Heston going off on Clinton for pushing new gun control legislation. I thought Heston was spewing total crap. I think he even called Clinton a dirty ape. :lol: To me the legislation made sense; introduce a waiting period for a background check before allowing you to purchase a gun (I'm over simplifying the issue - many other issues came into play, ie. gun shows, etc., but I'm still for it).

Oh yes, I like Geocaching too.

Edited August 25, 2004 by Mxyzptlk

1.8k · August 24, 2004

Now I'm gonna go and get this thread closed...but here goes.

10...9...8...7...6...5...

August 24, 2004

Brian, now you've gone and done it...

It's sad that the US has the image Brian describes. If you listen to one one side, we all must be armed to our teeth to protect ourselves from the omnipresent horde threatening outside our doors, and on the other side, the gun fanatics are taking shots at everything they see as mildly threatening. I generally avoid most of the clamor. I don't worship firearms and I don't hate them. People are basically good, decent and have the same wants and needs the world over. Honestly, if you believed the extremes of both sides of the issue, you'd swear that we were living in downtown Najaf all over the US. The reality is that most of us will go through our entire lives without using or being threatened in a gun event. Most of the US citizenry is of the same mindset.

Divine, I'd welcome a caching visit to the US from you, as would most of the rest of the other cachers on this board, and I think you'd feel safe here, not because of guns or the lack thereof, but because like most of the common and regular people around the world, we're pretty much the same. But you know that already. Give me a call when you're coming my way.

Edited August 25, 2004 by Metaphor

2.7k · August 25, 2004

I didn't notice where Metaphor said anybody being stupid. In fact, you are the only one in this thread using that word (before this post), three times.

Very nice post, Metaphor.

Edit: grammar.

The behaviour described- pulling a gun on a jogger who comes up on the trail behind you for no reason other than he or she startled you is, without a doubt, STUPID

You disagree? ?

If you are carrying a concealed weapon legally, conceal it, don't advertise it. If you feel it makes you safer, fine, but don't expect me to feel safer because you have a gun.

I do. I do. I don't. I do. And I don't and never have. (so there)

Most Dangerous Parks For 2003.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment