National Park Info

I will be visiting Yellowstone, Teton, and Glacier next year. In addition to online and other research that I'm doing I would appreciate some tips from any frequent visitors. We will not be camping or taking any long hikes, but still want to see as much wildlife as possible and have some experiences that first-timers might miss. We'll fly into SLC and rent a car. Would also like suggestions on dining, (Jackson, etc), and a good spotting scope. Thanks.

Comments

  • FourtotheflushFourtotheflush Posts: 2,555
    docedwards:
    I will be visiting Yellowstone, Teton, and Glacier next year. In addition to online and other research that I'm doing I would appreciate some tips from any frequent visitors. We will not be camping or taking any long hikes, but still want to see as much wildlife as possible and have some experiences that first-timers might miss. We'll fly into SLC and rent a car. Would also like suggestions on dining, (Jackson, etc), and a good spotting scope. Thanks.


    yellowstone was once a super volcano. the whole park is actually the crater of an exploded volcano.


  • docedwardsdocedwards Posts: 319
    I posted this during the night. Just wanted to push it back to the top.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Out in the wilderness . . . better bring your gun
  • Jetmech_63Jetmech_63 Posts: 3,454 ✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    Out in the wilderness . . . better bring your gun

    Beat me to it...
    +1, go armed. I've encountered bears in the upper portion of yosemite and have seen maountain lions about 400 yds away. They may pay you no mind, but tis' always better to have an option.
  • GoldyGoldy Posts: 1,638 ✭✭
    Fourtotheflush:
    docedwards:
    I will be visiting Yellowstone, Teton, and Glacier next year. In addition to online and other research that I'm doing I would appreciate some tips from any frequent visitors. We will not be camping or taking any long hikes, but still want to see as much wildlife as possible and have some experiences that first-timers might miss. We'll fly into SLC and rent a car. Would also like suggestions on dining, (Jackson, etc), and a good spotting scope. Thanks.


    yellowstone was once a super volcano. the whole park is actually the crater of an exploded volcano.



    Yellowstone is actually still a supervolcano. The magma chamber under yellowstone is shifting which may indicate that its close to going off again (close as in the next 10,000 years).
  • gripnripgripnrip Posts: 485 ✭✭✭
    Just returned yesterday from a weekend in Jackson, driving through Yellowstone to get there. I live in Montana, so have been to "the Park" many times. There are so many things to see and do there if you have never been. If you want to see wildlife, IMO, spend that time in the "northern half of the Park", meaning, West Yellowstone to Old Faithful, over to Yellowstone Lake, Canyon, and up to Mammoth. We entered the Park at Gardner (North entrance) and about 10 miles in we saw a sow grizzly with a cub! Had never seen a grizzley before. We also saw many buffalo, no elk, tho (think the wolves ate 'em all-lol!). Yellowstone and the Tetons were spectacular! The weather was perfect-it's very cool in Yellowstone, tho-and we have had a ton of rain in this part of the world this year and everything is green and beautiful. In Jackson we stayed a very nice B&B (Grand Victorian Lodge) that was within walking distance of the town square. We ate at the Cadillac Grill next to the Cowbay Bar (gotta see the saddle bar stools in there!) and the Gunbarrel Steak and Game House. Both were ok...nothing to rave about, but we just wanted some casual dining. Had some micro brews at the Snake River Brewhouse-fun place and the food looked good, but we had already eaten. Lot's of shopping, a cheesy gunfight in the town square (kids love it), and THE TETONS, that's about it. They do have golf, tram rides, mountain biking, etc. Have a great time-we did!
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    You guy's are allowed to carry guns into National Parks? WTF. Must be hard on the wildlife that is supposed to be the protected ones inside the parks.

    "Well I'm sorry officer, he looked like he was charging us"...

    I will have to look thru some old pictures to see if I can find the one of the Grizzlies that were eating right off the side of the road in Jasper National Park when I used to live in Alberta. In this one picture the male looks up and has a piece of grass sticking out between his teeth. Looks awesome.

    Can't imagine a bunch of armed campers "protecting" themselves from "wild animals" when they are camping in "the bush", which is what we refer to wilderness as here.
  • Jetmech_63Jetmech_63 Posts: 3,454 ✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    You guy's are allowed to carry guns into National Parks? WTF. Must be hard on the wildlife that is supposed to be the protected ones inside the parks.

    "Well I'm sorry officer, he looked like he was charging us"...

    I will have to look thru some old pictures to see if I can find the one of the Grizzlies that were eating right off the side of the road in Jasper National Park when I used to live in Alberta. In this one picture the male looks up and has a piece of grass sticking out between his teeth. Looks awesome.

    Can't imagine a bunch of armed campers "protecting" themselves from "wild animals" when they are camping in "the bush", which is what we refer to wilderness as here.

    They actually outlawed it here for a little bit but it's legal again. It's written wierd. It's legal to carry but not discharge. So self defense purposes only. "Bush", "Wild Animals"...come on Dougie :). I carry a gun anytime i go into a National Park, State Park, BLM or most any other forest. The idea is not to put yourself in a situation where you would need to use it...the common sense and wilderness smarts that most people lack...can not be made up for with a gun. Most of the time the wife and I are off by ourselves in the proverbial middle of nowhere. Again, not putting ourselves in the situation where we would need one. Bears, mountain lions(though those can be aggressive if hungry), most snakes are not aggressive by nature and "most" people mistake an animals curiosity as a threat. Just recently a hiker had to kill a bear in Denali NP when it charged his wife. First charge from a grizzly is usually a bluff and i dont know if his own lack of judgement put himself in that position, but if it wasnt a bluff whats the cost of being wrong. Or even defending yourself from other hikers, you never know whos out there. Basically it's an option that when depsite your best efforts, you find yourself in the situation that you need to use that option...you have it. Just my 2 cents.
  • mrpillowmrpillow Posts: 464
    Fish and game laws in America are taken VERY seriously, and if you are caught in violation of them you bet your ass the game warden will throw you into jail without a moments notice. Just because we're allowed to tote guns doesn't mean were careless poachers. Please do not lump us in as such.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    mrpillow:
    Fish and game laws in America are taken VERY seriously, and if you are caught in violation of them you bet your ass the game warden will throw you into jail without a moments notice. Just because we're allowed to tote guns doesn't mean were careless poachers. Please do not lump us in as such.
    Ummm, did I say that? Poacher? When? As for your lumping you in with them, obviously if I never said it, I was not lumping you in with anyone. Chill out. If you want to answer my question or comment on something I said, go ahead. But do keep your comment to things I actually said or think. It makes the conversation easier to follow. At least for me.
  • mrpillowmrpillow Posts: 464
    laker1963:
    You guy's are allowed to carry guns into National Parks? WTF. Must be hard on the wildlife that is supposed to be the protected ones inside the parks.

    "Well I'm sorry officer, he looked like he was charging us"...

    You said you guys, referring to Americans. You implied that we Americans use the guns we carry into national parks to kill protected wildlife. Illegally taking any game, nongame, or protected species as defined by state and federal laws in that area is defined, last time I checked, as poaching. Poaching, as a crime and a practice, is heavily enforced by the law and heavily frowned upon by the public. It is NOT taken lightly and WILL land you in jail, especially on federal land.

    Encountering an animal that could logically be labeled a threat worthy of elimination (bears, etc) in a national park is most likely going to happen in an area already heavy with human traffic, and in such an instance it would be rather difficult to get away with shooting one for no reason and getting away with it via some excuse. In the actual wilderness, most animals are going to be far more afraid of you than you are of them, and getting a chance to easily shoot one, lawfully or otherwise, would be a rare occurence.

    Hunting is a heavily regulated world here, especially on federally alloted land. It isn't a free-for-all run 'n gun for whatever might be lurking in the woods.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    mrpillow:
    laker1963:
    You guy's are allowed to carry guns into National Parks? WTF. Must be hard on the wildlife that is supposed to be the protected ones inside the parks.

    "Well I'm sorry officer, he looked like he was charging us"...

    You said you guys, referring to Americans. You implied that we Americans use the guns we carry into national parks to kill protected wildlife. Illegally taking any game, nongame, or protected species as defined by state and federal laws in that area is defined, last time I checked, as poaching. Poaching, as a crime and a practice, is heavily enforced by the law and heavily frowned upon by the public. It is NOT taken lightly and WILL land you in jail, especially on federal land.

    Encountering an animal that could logically be labeled a threat worthy of elimination (bears, etc) in a national park is most likely going to happen in an area already heavy with human traffic, and in such an instance it would be rather difficult to get away with shooting one for no reason and getting away with it via some excuse. In the actual wilderness, most animals are going to be far more afraid of you than you are of them, and getting a chance to easily shoot one, lawfully or otherwise, would be a rare occurence.

    Hunting is a heavily regulated world here, especially on federally alloted land. It isn't a free-for-all run 'n gun for whatever might be lurking in the woods.
    NO, that is the assumption YOU made.
    You got the "you guy's" as referring to Americans as right, after that? ALL WRONG.

    The point I was making was what Jetmech got out of it. I never even thought of it from a poaching point of view. I was looking at it from the view of someone who has lived in or very near wilderness most of my life, who sees that a lot of Americans have guns. That means given the population of any given country, that there are a LOT of tools running around with those guns. It is a question of percentages... you can't all be upstanding knowledgeable gun owners.

    When someone like that meets a wild animal, particularly a predatory animal, things like size, distance, and even intent can get all confused. This is usually a VERY bad situation... for the wild animal.

    Plenty of people are attacked or have an encounter with animals in National Park's, because they don't understand animals and things like safety zone allowances.

    My comments were directed to these kinds of people, NOT poachers. Poachers are pieces of sh it that will kill an animal for whatever twisted reason outside of the rules and regulations of the State or Province. I guess maybe poaching in the Parks is a problem in the US? It happens here (more way in the back country, miles from where people ever go) but with plenty of wilderness it isn't such a problem.

    You assumed I was saying something different. Your assumptions were wrong. You seemed to take it personal, and that is the only reason I took the time to try to explain my position. I did NOT say anything offensive. You assumed I did, and then GOT offended, it seemed. Hope that clears that up lol.
  • mrpillowmrpillow Posts: 464
    The vast majority of tools that run around with guns are nowhere near the national parks, or not carrying the sort of firearms that would be applicable in the situations we are talking about. I understand your concern on that part, but I do not see is as very relevant here. Most of the firearms taken into wilderness situations are either typical hunting rifles, or sidearms carried strictly for protection. Yes, we cannot all be knowledgeable gun owners, but I'd like to believe that the fair percentage of those going camping or hiking in national parks and are carrying weapons are either knowledgeable firearm owners, or are at least by accompanied by someone who is, to the extent that the discharge of a firearm would be relatively just. I'm sure there are numerous occurences otherwise where someone makes a mistake and an animal is either injured or killed as a result of a lapse in judgement, but speaking as percentage, I'm sure it is extremely low when compared to the number of times a firearm is carried and either used only when needed, or not used at all.

    I misunderstood your initial point yes, but I still believe my point stands. The number of times firearms are used (or not used) properly in national parks, vastly outweighs the few occurences where one is used improperly or in the wrong hands.

  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    mrpillow:
    The vast majority of tools that run around with guns are nowhere near the national parks, or not carrying the sort of firearms that would be applicable in the situations we are talking about. I understand your concern on that part, but I do not see is as very relevant here. Most of the firearms taken into wilderness situations are either typical hunting rifles, or sidearms carried strictly for protection. Yes, we cannot all be knowledgeable gun owners, but I'd like to believe that the fair percentage of those going camping or hiking in national parks and are carrying weapons are either knowledgeable firearm owners, or are at least by accompanied by someone who is, to the extent that the discharge of a firearm would be relatively just. I'm sure there are numerous occurences otherwise where someone makes a mistake and an animal is either injured or killed as a result of a lapse in judgement, but speaking as percentage, I'm sure it is extremely low when compared to the number of times a firearm is carried and either used only when needed, or not used at all.

    I misunderstood your initial point yes, but I still believe my point stands. The number of times firearms are used (or not used) properly in national parks, vastly outweighs the few occurences where one is used improperly or in the wrong hands.

    Yeah, my original comments were meant to be sarcastic, satirical, humorous, even, but not serious. Guess I won't try that stunt again. LMAO
  • mrpillowmrpillow Posts: 464
    Well of course, it is the internet. The place where it's easiest to interpret literary intent. XP
  • docedwardsdocedwards Posts: 319
    When I asked for helpful info I apparently made a mistake and should have also specifically asked that it not be a second ammedment rights thread. For those who responded with helpful info, much thanks. To those wishing to have a second ammendment debate would you kindly take it elsewhere. Thanks.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    docedwards:
    When I asked for helpful info I apparently made a mistake and should have also specifically asked that it not be a second ammedment rights thread. For those who responded with helpful info, much thanks. To those wishing to have a second ammendment debate would you kindly take it elsewhere. Thanks.
    Sorry DEWD. Your thread got hi-jacked. That happens once in a while here LMAO. I felt I needed to clarify what I was saying as it had been taken in the wrong context altogether. Wasn't looking for a debate from my original post.
Sign In or Register to comment.