The visitor took a hearse home...
The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
21–30 of 67 posts
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#22[flagged]
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are going into an area with bears, you should be prepared for bears. Appropriate behavior isn't conditional on someone dying recently. The risks in an area are widely published and posted by the National Park Service. This is basic safety. It is common to see people in National Parks flagrantly ignore the many warnings. Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
If there is heightened animal activity in an area it helps to know, especially if they are aggressive. We adjust where we go to avoid especially dangerous situations.
Allowing arbitrary NPS employees talk to the public about people that may have died isn't required for any of this. To be honest, I am surprised that this new policy didn't already exist. It is very common practice to manage incident comms this way.
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#24One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also…
This is not a situation where good actors have different ideas on how to best administer the country.
These are criminals. They are committing crimes. You are the victim, not their peer.
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are going into an area with bears, you should be prepared for bears. Appropriate behavior isn't conditional on someone dying recently. The risks in an area are widely published and posted by the National Park Service. This is basic safety. It is common to see people in National Parks flagrantly ignore the many warnings. Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
> Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year. Isn't this exactly why we need to know how many deaths there are -- so we can judge the level of risk we face?
Also: How many people killed by falling coconuts would cause you to cancel a Hawaiian vacation?
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#26Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#27One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also…
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#28One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also…
That said, I though it was generally obvious the actions and policies are intended to do as much damage to US strengths as quickly as possible?
Relationships with our allies and the developing world?
Research/development/science/education?
The US Dollar standard?
US foreign policy/influence?
US military power?
All of it has been (and is still being) systematically disassembled. Who would benefit from all that? Answer: Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India.
Did you notice how much the current president loves dictators (or put more politely "strongmen" leaders") but in particular, the Russian head of state? And at times has fawned all over the head of state of China? He sure does spend a lot of time talking to Putin with next to no other US officials in the room, and any records of the meetings destroyed (illegally, I might add.) I'm not joking when I say it's possible Putin is literally telling Trump how to run the country and he's nodding and saying "wow what a great idea, thank you!"
The republican party is generally awfully cozy with Russian officials because they've apparently decided Russia is the ideal society they want to convert the US into:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/15/republicans-...
They see how powerful Putin is, how powerful the FSB is, how freely Russian society racially discriminates, how powerful the oligarchs and ultrawealthy are, how patriarchal it is, how christian it appears to them - and they love all of it.
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#29> According to The Washington Post, the internal policy states “Interior shall not confirm a death,” and that this policy applies to “all Interior bureaus and offices” plus “all Interior communications involving fatalities, suspected fatalities, serious injuries or emotionally sensitive incidents.” So now I cannot learn about known bear attacks when I plan a backpacking trip?
Re: The National Parks Were Reportedly Told to Stay Silent on Deaths
#30One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also…