spirit of the discretionary function here to simply decide whether or not to open the wildlife refuge if that's the case then every time we open a national park for visitors everything that happens after that cannot be covered by the discretionary  it seems to me that you're trying to reach too much into a manual that simply says they have to be of a certain size dimension and color isn't your real argument here once they've made the decisions they were negligent in not especially when it relates to matters of safety and public safety and here in this case there were a couple of signs for we have a dispute with the location of the size and the fact that the warnings were on both sides but we also brought up a number of other issues in terms of opportunities to warn that we're not careful what's what's in the ones we make the determination to put up the signs how many signs from the obligated to put up well i don't i don't think that the number of signs is i don't think there's an obligation a sterile as to the number of times i think that it's much more important the location of the science and the issues whether or not there are actual policy considerations or weight against each other to determine those locations and i don't believe there's any evidence in the record there were actually a balancing of countervailing policy considerations that led to the locations o to put them up well i think that they should put them out at the bottom of the trail where it's one way towards the bus and the other way down they didn't put one at the bottom of the trail but they'd be liable in any future cases where somebody w park service regulations and statutes and those are different than the ones who fight here is the national parks are in fact required to balance competing policy consideration  that came in ninety four ninety five ninety six i mean one thing about those national park cases is if there is clear evidence in the record that there is extensive discussion about ok how do we met is this rest you know we want on the one hand we want the public to her feelings for the united states and i'd like to begin with the court's question to mr lopez about the  the refuge manager here kevin ryan ensuring the safety of the public to the fullest degree possible is part of the code of federal regulations section fifty perspective of what's the difference between a national park and a wildlife refuge mr ryan address found in his declaration and wildlife refuge as he puts it wild wild life first that i regard to mountain goats and olympic national park or the national forest in the sawtooth national forest is worried about protecting the wolves that in those cases visitor safety has to come first because the primary mandate of the believe that's correct and that's the case then why did we didn't id or invoke the discretionary function exception to deny coverage in glacier national park sorry that's a case that's on the calendar  what sort of safety measures needed to be taken  fact that each both he and previous refuge managers had looked at where the science should be and it also decided what other measures needed to be taken and because they want to preserve the nature of  stay on the paths and another factor that should be considered by the court is the very nature of these books the pictures clearly demonstrate that these are not stable issue not really the discretionary function the refuge manager for a number of these areas he is not a low level person and this is someone making a pop policy decision after balancing the different needs that he has as the manager of the wildlife re miles an hour when they raised the speed limit forty five miles an hour they did not go through in determining the risk to the public when the truck when the scrap of speed limit had been raised to forty five miles an hour court decided that the decision to do the mourning process was protected by discretion and function exceptions but once the warning process was started it had to be done in a manner to protect the that manager still have the discretion to decide what sort of signs were to be here as mr ryan says in his declaration he was considering maintaining the refugee nature of the s and that he did not want large approved signs that he that he was concerned about how the area would look so even if even if the court considered that having a sign there and a reason why it wasn't with their there also is no response to the idea that the people who greet and take your money you have some kind of warning or simply having a warning