http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?proj...ntID=12825

Quote:

Description: The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to update the policies that guide the management of the national park system. The policies are being updated to improve their clarity and to keep pace with changes in laws, regulations, socio-economic factors and technology. The revised policies will also improve understandings among NPS managers, and between NPS managers and the public, regarding how decisions are made in protecting park resources and providing opportunities for public enjoyment of the parks. Please note that all documents are MS Word files, except the last two (the Entire Draft and the Annotated Comparison version), which are listed in .pdf format. You may find the Annotated Comparison especially helpful because it explains many of the edits that have been made from the 2001 edition. When you are ready to submit your comments, click on the COMMENT ON DOCUMENT link at the bottom of the column on the left side of your screen. Your comments will be most helpful if they are specific, rather than general, and should cite applicable sections. These are numbered for your convenience within the draft. Comment Period: 10/19/2005 - 02/18/2006 Document Content:

this is the real kicker!!!

Quote:

7.4.8 Battle Reenactments When performed with the degree of authenticity essential to park interpretive programs, battle reenactments are inherently and unacceptably hazardous to participants and observers. Therefore, battle reenactments that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines, the taking of casualties, hand-to-hand combat, or any other form of simulated warfare are prohibited in all parks.

please help by contacting someone anyone to stop the maddness. :( i guess this would mean no more MTA at jamestown, va no more hastings at the parks, no more any public medieval events.

Yipes! I don't see why they wouldn't allow mock combat to take place in a National Park when they allow logging... :mad: :mad: :mad:

This is flat out messed up right here! People will surrender all thier freedoms under the giuse (sp) of "public safety". You can submit your comments through the link Chuck has up top which i've already done.

This is one of the reasons I'm such a hardass about moderating this forum, the culture behind it, the types of topics we discuss, and the methods in which we discuss them. We *are* fighting an uphill battle here, people. We *are* considered yahoos with an interest in dangerous weapons. The notion of history, education, cultural understanding, and related subjects is *not* the first thing that comes to mind when a person without interest in this subject finds this site. Battle reenactments, collecting war-related historical artifacts, and simply avoiding getting looked at weird when discussing any of this stuff is truly an uphill battle. All this stuff really is related. I'm trying to do my part to mainstreamifytm this stuff, but it's not going to be easy.

:) i knew you guys would understand. most posters here seem to be level headed and not want their history stamped upon

I wonder what approach would be best? I can think of several things that are relevant arguments or questions to ask.

1. Reenactments are a valuable teaching and learning tool that cannot be replaced by other techniques. I'm sorry, but Hollywood can't quite replicate the sound (volume), sense of context, smell, and overall impression of a historic reenactment.

2. Please quantify "unacceptable risk". Do they have data that shows that the incidence and severity of injuries that occur during battle reenactments are greater than incidence and severity rates of other approved activities conducted in publicly controlled areas? Such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, hunting, logging, diving, commercial fishing within the territorial waters of the US (US federally controlled territory), etc. I bet they can't. My guess is that someone was hurt or killed in a reenactment, and the government got sued. This is some government attorney's answer.

3. Demonstrate that well-implemented safety programs cannot mitigate any documented risk.

When you comment on this document, please be clear, level headed, logically sound, and unambiguous in your opposition.

I would suggest writing old fashion snail mail letters as well as E-mails to local and national politicians.

Years ago what impressed was getting a fax or some professionally typed correspondence as that indicated being educated or well organized and was RARE at the time and attracted attention.

Today someone taking the trouble to handwrite a letter is so rare that this will get more attention: So motivated that he/she took the trouble to write on paper. A decent handwriting and a pre- spelled checked letter on good stationary will give a good impression. A letter written with colored crayons: Not a good idea!

I've read that one handwritten letter is seen as representing 500 other unhappy constituents who believe the same thing and are equally upset but didn't bother to write.

Since this is U.S. politics I don't know who you should target your objections to. ( First thing to find out I think. )

It does smell of P.C. " weapons a bad lets ban something " or that these activities are promoting violence mindset.
Would guess that these same decision makers don't like " violent " video games.

How close to a done deal is this new regulation or a trial balloon? Some bureaucrats are paid way too much to waste time thinking this kind of stuff up.

I hate to sound like a "Debbie Downer" (WHA-wha) :( , but there are certain elements in our governing bodies today that are quite interested in separating the US citizen from his rebellious and oft times violent past. This includes suppressing and rewriting history. Events like these drum up interest in subjects of war, insurrection, and rebellions. Especially if it brings to light the Civil War. A concept most feared by members of our ruling caste today. SO it is no surprise that these events are considered unnecessary and dare I say it "dangerous". Lord knows they do not want their citizenry thinking independently about their own individual and collective destinies. That you CAN be disatisfied with the established politic.

Now I'm not saying EVERY one in office falls in lock step with this kind of attitude but it is there and fairly pervasive. It's just not PC to be interested in weapons, war, or military history. You must be a social pariah if you are. We've all gotten the "look" or the dismissive statement when we bring up our passion for swords, armour, and the history surrounding them. Well policy makers have an even more definitive reaction that sources from the river Suspicion. So don't be surprised if these types of policy movements continue to pop up. We must do our best to stop or at best impede. Thanks for posting this. It may seem small to most but it's a billboard of great dimensions to me.

I apologize in advance if I sound like a fanatic. :p

While I certainly don't disagree with you B., I do think that's really overmagnifying the issue.

I work with and for government every day and the issue really isn't one of keeping the american citizen placated by his beany baby and his X-Box. That's giving the powers that be a bit too much credit in terms of intelligence and creativity. This is actually a far simpler issue than that: liability.

Like many other areas of our government the NPS is constantly fighting budget cuts and having to do more with less. It's sad had low of a priority our historic sights are to our elected government. Many, many state parks are in danger of closing for good every year. Couple this with the fact that we live in a society that puts an unprecedented concern on things like vicarious liability and litigation and this move is quite understandable. Reprehensible, but still understandable.

So while this proposed policy change is disturbing to us I don't think we need to look for the booger man in the closet just yet. ;)

The best things to do are start contacting your area legislators about this issue, and as a back-up start looking for other non-government areas to hold events.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll pass the word amongst my reenactment circles.

Could be strategic manoeuvering on the part of the department. "If you won't give us the laws, policies and funds needed to perform our basic mission, you can't play in the parks". Maybe they're twisting the public's arm to get the "head" to take notice. A congressman isn't likely to care if an NPS employee complains about diminished funds, but if that congressman starts getting calls from state legislators and constituents upset that the parks are closed to them, he may decide he needs to find out what's driving NPS policy and start negotiating.

I think that one of the best things we can do is all write letters to whomever is in charge of these things, and submit them all as one package. With 3656 users here at myArmoury, we should be able to get at least 100 (hopefully more) to write letters. They could all be mailed to one person, and then sent as a package to the appropriate address in Washington.

Maybe it is simply that they are afraid that if someone gets injured, the NPS will end up getting sued. I've seen it happen a number of times - rather than risk having to cough up some money, it's easier to just cancel the activity.