In the introduction, the author states that "the most effective range for this book is approximately a 150-mile radius of Pikes Peak." and adds "As you move to the four corners of the state and to the western slope, the book becomes less effective." I wish I had known this before I purchased the book, because it lacks the information I needed to help identify plants on the western slope of Colorado. However, if you live in the defined area, I'm sure you will find it useful. The drawings are beautifully done, the descriptions are adequate, and the appendices are well-done.

Howard E. Greager is a rather awkward writer (This book is self-published). He has brought together from diverse sources various accounts of the ending of the free life of the Ute tribes. Newspaper reports, historical writings and personal anecdotes are used which together build a image of a stubborn folk who clung desperately to a dying way of life. It is not a pretty picture and certainly not for those who would romanticize Native Americans. There is credible material here not generally seen in other published accounts of the Utes. Lots of photographs including a few seldom seen.

These are more of Mr. Datz's stamp trade stories, without the practical stamp-collecting info that some of his other books have. This collection does not work as well as some of his others such as Top Dollar Paid or On The Road. He strays a little too far from the stamp focus sometimes, and reaches a little too hard for a "wild" or shady angle that really isn't there. Still, he's a great raconteur, and I always enjoy his yarns.

Clear and attractive book, but scary, because some of the advice is not suitable for inexperienced or beginner snwshoers. Skiers can consider tackling 10 to 20 mile trails in winter and at high altitudes, but that's too much for anyone new to winter in the high country--especially misleading because the author rates some of these as novice to intermediate.

Don't read this looking for slip ups or unconscious revelations about the role of the Ramseys in the death of their daughter. This is a closely edited, legally observed, and unabashedly self-serving book. (I'd love to see what was edited out.) Yet, between the lines we can catch a glimpse or two about who the Ramseys really are and what they are about and what they believe.

This is a well written and very well edited exercise featuring a centerfold of family portraits, including several modest shots of JonBenét. The Ramseys give a close rendering of the events of Christmas day, 1996, and the next morning. The story of Patsy's successful fight against cancer is told in some detail, and the beauty pageant issue is addressed. The book ends with John Ramsey's profile of the murderer and a chapter of advice on how to protect your children. There is no index.

Throughout, the Ramseys tell their story in the first person in alternating sections. First John speaks and then Patsy, and then John again, and so on. What they are intent on demonstrating is their innocence. They try to accomplish this by convincing the reader of their abiding love for JonBenét and for God, and their adherence to the Christian faith. Both seem to have a special relationship with God that allows them to hear his voice. John writes "there's a point where...you know and understand the truth of what God has done through human history and you grasp his plan for the future through his son, Jesus Christ" (p. 72).

Patsy in particular has felt the "divine intervention" in her life on many occasions, particularly in her successful battle against cancer (p. 77), but also when her cable TV line was accidentally cut, thereby preventing her from hearing the lies about her on television (p. 230). She has received messages from God (e.g., on pages 82 & 243). In fact in several spots Patsy seems to liken her experience to that of Jesus. As she was watching the "Geraldo Rivera Show" on October 22, 1997, for example, she heard voices calling for the crucifixion of herself and her husband (p. 229). And as Christmas, 1997 approached, her faith, like that of Jesus, was sorely tested, and she found herself "mad at God" and screamed, "I hate Christmas!" But there came a "stillness at the center of" her "being" and she "received a message from God" telling her that she more than anyone needed Christmas, and her faith was restored.

Even in day to day activities, Patsy found herself calling on God to guide her and he did. For example, before picking up the phone to insinuate herself into the Princess Di media discussion she was watching on Larry King Live, Patsy told her mother, "I'm praying that God will give me the right words." After being on hold for a while, "suddenly" she was "talking on live television, launching...into an attack on Larry King..." (p. 210). She relates on the next page that she was so successful that Larry King called to thank her and to ask her to appear on his show.

Almost as annoying as this "holier than thou" posturing was the Ramsey's unrelenting attack on the media and the Boulder police as the cause of all their troubles. I thought it was significant that they blamed the police leadership more than they blamed the officers who had so compromised the crime scene (p. 178). I also thought it telling that John Ramsey in particular tried to tie the crime to "how transient" their "University Hill neighborhood really was," and to people who "pushed New Age experiences" (p. 204). In Lawrence Schiller's book, he is quoted as saying that Bill McReynolds ("Santa Claus") should be a suspect partly because "he doesn't have two nickels to rub together." This high-handed and snide tone, I believe is as much responsible for the public's suspicion of the Ramseys as anything else.

Nonetheless, after reading three books on the subject, I am forced to say that I don't think there's enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are responsible for their daughter's death. I think the Boulder District Attorney's office and the Grand Jury are to be commended for not charging the Ramseys with a crime they could not prove. Whether this book will help their public image is another matter.

Someone saw me reading this book and couldn't believe that I had actually paid money for it. When I explained that it told another side to the story, that person rolled his eyes and said, "So now you think they're innocent?" How sad that the media has convicted these people without the benefit of a trial. Even the grand jury refused to bring them to trial citing 'lack of evidence.' Our guarantee of being innocent until proven guilty is quickly going by the wayside. More than anything, I was appalled at the conduct of the Boulder Police Dept. Our television stations come from Denver and I recall very clearly the "leaks" and the BPD's battles with the D.A.'s office as well as the information released that would later be proven inaccurate. What if this had been a top-notch murder investigation instead of the fiasco that it became? I salute the family and friends who stood by the Ramsey's and did not sell their souls to the tabloids. The book explained a great deal although some questions still remain. The ransom note is really a weird piece to this puzzle. Without that, I doubt the parents would ever have been accused. I'm not satisfied with any explanations of the note. Also, I was hoping that the information that Burke's voice was actually heard in the background on the 911 call that Patsy initially made (after it had been sent off to some labratory)would be addressed in the book, but it was not. The Ramsey's did a good job of explaining some of their actions that seemed inappropriate at the time. I wonder how many of us could have endured what they had to endure for as long as they did. If your mind is made up, you probably won't enjoy this book at all. But if you read it with an open mind, you might be able to say, "What if they've been innocent all along?"

The Ramsey's book is well-written and informative. One spurious accusation after another is addressed in a factual and convincing way. Yet, in my opinion that is not where the power of the book lies. It lies in the Ramsey's willingness to share their feelings and their experience in a way that rings true to the heart of every parent who has lost a child, and I am such a parent. Not all of us who have lost young ones, however, have had them murdered while we lay sleeping in the same house. Though we've not experienced anything like John's torment over the fact that he had been unable to protect his precious JonBenet, we can empathize deeply. As Patsy shares her fear ... her terror ... her panic, a feeling of intense compassion arises in the reader, and we cannot help but say, "There but by the grace of God go I." Any of us could lose our children to the murderer who still walks our streets; any of us could be the victims of an inept police force that failed to recognize its need for help and used "leaks" to malign our character. How many of us, however, could endure what the Ramsey's have endured over the past decade - Beth's death, Patsy's cancer, JonBenet's murder, loss of reputation, loss of financial security - and still struggle to come out on the other side? How many of us would have the heart to write a book in which we bare our pain, defend ourselves from the injustices that have been perpetrated against us, and call others to be accountable for their incompetence and cruelty ... without a trace of bitterness? There is disillusionment, yes; profound grief, yes; fear, yes. There is a clear attempt to hold all of us accountable for whatever part we have played in this drama, whether it be armchair observer or police chief, but there is not bitterness. Through the pages of their book, the Ramsey's have shown themselves to be worthy role models, the hope of our society.

It was more like "comfort food" reading. Predictable but hey.
Definitely not up to what I normally expect from her. Don't give up, try another of her books.

I was given this book several years ago and just read it recently.Yes, it is predictable and far from great literature; yet I found it to be fun. I think "movie of the week" is a perfect description. Sometimes you just need a simple, predictable story to escape with. I found this book to be the perfect boring, rainy day companion. A nice break to my usual reads. To me, I found it to be a way to pass the time similar to the Harlequin Romances I read as a pre-teen. A good book to read when the environment is hectic and full of frequent interruptions i.e. while travelling, at the beach, on the bus, in a house full of very young children. I would read more books by Carol Higgins Clark.

I think these people have written very nasty reviews. Carol is not her mother. She doesn't write the same kind of books as her mother.

She has her own style & her book are all good.

Carol I think you are a good author.

I have everyone of her books & have injoyed all of them.

There are some books which glorify everything a Native American ever said or did, and blame all history's woes on evil white men. Those are usually called "politically correct," because they basically tell palatable lies to people who, for political reasons, prefer them to the truth.

There are also some books which vehemently deny that a white American could ever have committed an atrocity. These are equally politically correct; their palatable lies just service a different audience.

This book falls into the latter category. Sorry, but Scott plainly ignores a vast body of evidence against Chivington. Were all the thousands of people who reported seeing children's body parts displayed as trophies in on the great conspiracy? How about the dozens of oral histories provided to the descendants of soldiers, which mesh reasonably well with those of the Cheyennes?

There are plenty of historical acts of aggression, against Native Americans or anyone else, which could be reasonably argued to have been at some level justifiable. Scott chooses not to take any of them on. By refusing to accept that ANYTHING a white guy did could possibly be evil--even killing pregnant women and keeping the fetuses as souvenirs--Scott effectively puts himself in the same boat, if the opposite end, as the misty new-age folks who refuse to believe Native Americans knew what evil was before the Europeans got here.

In 1864, when the Sand Creek massacre happened, most of the plain indian nations, including the Cheyenne nation, had already been the victims of enumerous massacres, broken treaties, invasion of remote and ancient tribal hunting grounds, mass deportation, restrictions to hunting and trapping, inhumane treatment and inhuman conditions on reservations. Mr. Scott starts his book with the massacre of a corporal, a driver and seven weakened soldiers sick with scurvy. This massacre became known as the Cottonwood Massacre. He then suggests that the nine men were massacred by Cheyenne Dog Soldiers. It is known now, that most propably southern Lakota (Oglala or Brule) were involved in this raid. These warriors had propably relatives that had also been brutally slaughtered by General Harney's troops in 1855, when he ordered his soldiers to surround and attack a peacefull mixed Oglala and Brule Lakota village by the Blue Water area in Nebraska. When this massacre was over, about one hundred women and children had been killed. This was just one of the unspeakable and enumerous massacres committed for 372 years before Sand Creek by europeans and caucasian americans against native americans, since Colmubus landed in October 21,1492. It is true that the Cheyenne, the Comanche, the Kiowa and many other plain indian nations sometimes killed, scalped and mutilated white people, raped white women, and ocasionally also killed white children, as Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, Russian and later American soldiers indiscriminately and repeatedely massacred, murdered, dismenbered, scalped,raped, deported, robbed and kidnaped more than two hundred million men, women and children native americans between October 1492 and December 1890. In 1864, the Cheyenne nations ancestral hunting grounds were being invaded. The Cheyenne were a nomadic,spiritual and warlike society, clashing with a sedentary agrarian caucasian society wich showed no respect for the natural enviroment around them, for the values and spirituality of the resident indian nations, while most of the time treating native americans as wild beasts. Mr. Scott reveals himself as a able researcher when it comes to present a report of the unfortunated settlers, trappers and soldiers killed by Cheyenne warriors in eastern Colorado, western Kansas and Southern Nebraska, but he did not care to present a list of the thousands of men, women and children Navajo, Apache , Blackfeet, Comanche, Kiowa, Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, Arapaho and Cheyenne killed approximately between 1780 and 1890. Mr. Scott, in this book, did not show to have any knowledge about the indian nation he is talking about. He wrote that chief Bull Bear, one of the four council chiefs of the Dog Soldier cheyenne died in Sand Creek, when any respected american historian such as George Bird Grinnel, Alvin M. Josephy Jr.,John Moore, William Chalfant and others, all know and have written that Chief Bull Bear was still leading Cheyenne Dog Soldier war parties in the early 1870s. He also refers that Roman Nose was a Chief and a Dog Soldier Cheyenne. In fact Roman Nose was a Northern Cheyenne, of the Omeheshes Cheyenne tribe and was only a proeminent warrior. He also suggets twice through obscure reports from soldiers present at the Sand Creek massacre, that probably 450 Cheyenne warriors were killed in Sand Creek. In 1864, the whole population of the Cheyenne nation was about 3600 people, including no more than 1000 able warriors, of wich probably half were in the north with the Omeheshes Cheyenne and the northern Sutaeo Cheyenne. So, it means, that according to Mr. Scott, the whole Southern Cheyenne male population was killed in Sand Creek. How come Mr. Scott at the end of the book refers that seven hundred southern Cheyenne Dog Soldier warriors participated in the battle of Beecher Island? Maybe someday we will have Mr. Scott writing a book entitled "Sand Creek 1864, the great Cheyenne Baby Boom". Then, Mr. Scott will eventually announce that for almost two hundred years the American Government had been hiding from the American Public that the Cheyenne population in 1864 was probably about fifty thousand people, including ten thousand warriors. Afterwards, he will most probably suggest that Genereal Lee was considering giving half of his weaponry to the Cheyenne nation, so they could invade Saint louis, Chigago and Tacoma Washington, because he keeps refering that the Confederates were turning the Cheyenne and other plain indian tribes against the Union in 1864. The whole book reveals that Mr. Scott did not care about doing any serious research about the Cheyenne nation or the Sand Creek massacre. He even suggests that almost no women or children had been killed in Sand Creek, when recognized and respected caucasian american historians like Dee Brown, Alvin Josephy, George Bird Grinnel and others have always given us the straight picture about the horrors that were commited against the Cheyenne Heviksnipahis and the Cheyenne Hisiometaneo at Sand Creek. Is Mr. Scott trying to call us all stupid? Everything in this book has something evil about it, as the massacre itself. Even the photo of chief Black Kettle was deformed to make him look like a demon, when compared with the original photo, that shows us the face of a kind and handsome man. It is a dangerous book for the people that never had the chance to do any research about native americans. Mr. Scott has the ability to start slowly portraying the Cheyenne people as a bunch of bloodthirsty savages, but maybe that is as far as he can get about native americans. This book is a shame, it is an indecent and racist attempt to cover one of the most horrendous act of war commited by the american army against native americans. Mr Scott uses obscure reports from soldiers present at Sand Creek, to finnaly have the demerit of suggesting that almost no Cheyenne children or women were assassinated in Sand Creek. You might expect me to teel you not to read this book, but on the contrary I will advise you to buy it and read it, to offer it to your family and friends and ask them to read it, because we all have in our hearts that angel that alaways let us know what is a lie and what is true, what is wrong and what is right. After all the suffering they endured, the Cheyenne American did not deserve to have to be the witnesses of such an aberrant book.

Blood at Sand Creek by Bob Scott tells the story of the Sand Creek Massacre (and the events leading up to and following it)through a non-politically correct viewpoint. The author doesn't try to portray the Plains Indians (Cheyennes in particular)as savages or "noble red men." He also doesn't absolve whites of guilt in the Indian Wars. In fact, neither side comes off very positively. Instead, Mr.Scott gives a balanced view through both Indian and white accounts, which are frequently quite different. His goal is to perhaps clear John Chivington of some of the enormous blame that has been laid on his shoulders. Scott acknowledges that the Cheyennes, Arapahos, Kiowas, and other Plains Indians were indeed hostile and committed numerous and terrible acts of torture, murder, rape, and theft and the fact that the U.S. Army could be quite brutal when dealing with the Indians. He supports his view that Black Kettle and his Cheyenne were indeed at least somewhat hostile and that Chivington was not the psychotic murderer that he is believed to be The author uses considerable evidence, with numerous accounts from both sides. Much of the incriminating evidence against Chivington is indeed questionable. (i.e. Jim Beckwourth was actually a murderer, horse thief, and prolific liar-not the hero he is made out to be.)It is true that there are numerous accounts of babies being butchered, genitalia taken as souviners, etc. However, none of these are documented in a manner that is historically acceptable. Unfortunately for revisionist "historians", as appealing as these stories may seem, historical sources need to be documented in a detailed manner. Oral history may sound good and can certainly be accurate, but it must be used carefully. Mr. Scott realizes that these accounts can be misleading or false. All in all, Scott's thesis is convincing and tears away the politically-correct nonsense about helpless women and children being slaughtered at Sand Creek. However, it will never be a popular idea. The history found in modern textbooks is very politically correct. The winners don't always write the history. The idea of Indians as killers and rapists is distasteful to modern readers and historians. The Indians Wars were a very complex series of cultural conflicts-the primitive nomads vs. the modern might of the whites. There were no bad guys or good guys, just two very different cultures colliding in violent wars where there could only be one winner. Mr. Scott is able to present a balanced account with no bad guys-there will always be plenty of misdeeds and glory for both sides.

This book does a great public disservice. The information in the book has not been updated in years and is terribly outdated. Quite a bit of the information is absolutely wrong. Send the publisher a message - don't buy the book until they update it. Save your money, there are much better, current books out there such as "Hot Springs and Hot Pools of the Southwest" & Northwest - which are updated ever two years

The only useful thing about this writer's books on hot springs are the USGS maps and the latitude/longitudes. I bought a book of his nearly 20 years ago and was thoroughly dissatisfied, & was incensed when it seemed to me he was more interested in providing info for the land yacht crowd. I wonder if his book alleging that the lunar landings were hoaxes is any better. I doubt it. He probably denies the Holocaust took place, too. If you want a book on hot springs, check out Jayson Loam's books. They are much better. If you want info on faked lunar landings, get the movie "Capricorn One."

We have tried one hot spring listing and enjoyed our hot soak, found one shut down, one remodeling and one a bit too pricey for us. Would like to see some reference to actual costs rather than than reasonable or free or deluxe. One place inacessible without 4 wheel drive but we will keep trying, the maps are good.

I got about sixty pages into this book before giving up-- something I almost never do. A couple of reasons I disliked it so much: the author, to denote the idiocy of (almost all) his characters, has them say "th'" instead of "the." This gets very old very quickly. Chapter Two consists of four of these morons in a car pool, and one of them retells th' entire plot of "Dr. Strangelove"-- not making any point that I could determine, but just retelling th' plot for 20-odd pages while nobody listens. Th' whole plot. Every beat. Maybe th' point is that th' next chapter is a foursome of top Soviet officials (th' book is set in th' early-mid 60's) in their carpool, and one of them is retelling "Dr. Strangelove"-- again, th' whole story-- except from a Soviet perspective. If this sounds amusing, I'm not telling it in a way that does it justice. Anyway, I suspect that this book is self-published, having been sitting in a drawer for a few decades. If anybody read to th' end of this and has a compelling reason for me to pick it up again and finish it, I'd love to hear from them.

Route Ninety-Three is loaded with lots of literary reference, so its definitely of that genre. In addition it seems to be of the non-realistic genre as well. It reminds me of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. God help us if the workers at Rocky Flats are as stupid as they seem in this book. And no wonder that Russia came apart at the seems if their leaders are as stupid as they appear. But overall, Route Ninety-Three is a wonderful, humerous read.

Please if you care anything about the death of this little girl do not believe anything jameson245 will ever say. This book doesn't tell the whole story of the way the death of this little girl was covered up.

This book is more about the press and the police than it is about JonBenet Ramsey

I thought that Death of a Little Princess was a little tricky, but in a way it was also a good book to read. A couple chapters in the book were about the investigators talking. It was tricky to understand what they were talking about at times. Sometimes the investigators just rambled on about things that got confusing at times. In a way the book was good. The author, Carlton Smith, talked a little about the lives of JonBenet, John, and Patsy. In the book it talked about the many suspects they have. I thought that the author should've said more about her life. He should've told about her life instead of only talking about the murder that was commited.