NATIONAL PARKS AS SAFE, IF NOT SAFER
National Park Gun Law Still a Yawner
Now that the national park gun law is in effect, I predict, once more, that park visitors won't really notice the difference, but the onus is now on gun owners to make sure I'm correct.
By Bill Schneider, 2-25-10
As widely reported, an epic political victory for the gun lobby hit the ground on Monday, February 22. The National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must now, in accordance with applicable state laws, allow visitors to carry guns into most national parks and wildlife refuges, including loaded firearms and concealed weapons with a proper permit.
For the first time in decades, anybody who can legally carry a firearm in a state can also carry it into national parks and wildlife refuges in that state, but not into most “federal facilities” such as visitor centers and administrative buildings, and federal law still prohibits the use of firearms in most national parks.
I’ve written about this issue several times, and every time I do, I’m reminded of a fantastic, nine-day backpacking trip in the mid-1990s to Alaska’s Gates of the Arctic National Park. While planning the trip, I called NPS offices in Alaska to ask a few questions, and to my surprise, the NPS recommended our group bring a gun. They even gave us detailed advice, preferring a short-barreled 12 gauge pump loaded with a rifled slug for the first shot followed by double-ought buckshot in the rest of the magazine. The NPS even told us how to carry it--with the safety off, but no shell in the chamber, so we could quickly pump the first shell in for a fast shot, if a bear suddenly charged.
We took bear pepper spray instead and had a safe trip, but that conversation stuck with me because, clearly, bringing guns into national parks (at least in Alaska) was--and is--a culturally acceptable no-big-deal. It can be in the Lower 48, too.
A Battle Worth Fighting
In an earlier commentary, I said the national park gun rule/law was a waste of time and conservation groups and park retiree and ranger nonprofits had bigger fish to fry. My reasoning was--and is--that people have been taking guns into national parks for decades and will continue to do so whether or not it’s legal. Nobody really disputes this fact, but the point is, through those decades, there has been minuscule, if any, gun-related incidents in national parks.
Yes, I realize I’m not in Alaska any more, and western national parks are a lot different than small, historical national parks back East. Keep in mind, though, that state firearms laws continue to regulate firearms in national parks where they exist. Guns laws in urban America are likely to be more restrictive than in southern and western states, and those laws will apply to national parks in highly populated states.
I had to retract my waste-of-time commentary when it became clear that the Battle of the National Parks was worth fighting. It turned into a political war that told us who was Boss. The clear winner was the gun lobby and the millions of gun owners it represents. It was sort of a no contest, actually.
But my opinion about the real, on-the-ground, non-political significance of the new law governing firearms in national parks hasn’t changed. To me, it’s still a yawner. People will continue to go to national parks doing the same things they always have, and the fact that a few more people might be packing will have little impact on anything.
Interestingly, I received several press releases from groups opposed to the national park gun law with the same tired predictions of impending disaster, but nothing from groups favoring the new law. The firearms lobby could’ve been out in force flaunting and flag-waving on February 22, but instead, pro-gun groups appropriately chose to let it quietly happen.
Now, the onus is on gun owners to make sure the new law does indeed turn out to a yawner--and keep me from having to eat my words. Be discreet and respectful with open carries and honor the “Firearms Prohibited” signs going up on visitor centers, park offices and other federal facilities in national parks and refuges.
Also, know the applicable state laws, keeping in mind that thirty national parks, such as Yellowstone, are located in more than one state. Gun owners must be aware of the laws of the state they’re in because those are the same laws of the park or refuge they’re in. In Yellowstone, for example, the laws at the north entrance station in Gardiner are different than the laws of Mammoth, five miles up the road.
Grizzlies and Guns
Fortunately, we still have grizzly bears, but unfortunately, it’s the reason many people take firearms into western national parks. Gun owners must resist trigger itch when seeing a bear. A few untimely and unnecessary dead bears from quick triggers could make the new law a lot more controversial than gun owners want it to be.
We don’t need any more documentation that bear pepper spray works better than firearms during encounters with bears. Yes, all bears are dangerous wild animals, but the threat of injury is minute at best.
Even though black bears pose as much--if not more--of a threat, grizzlies grab the most attention. Montana’s Glacier National Park, for example, has one of the highest densities of grizzly bears ever recorded. Over the past five years (2005-2009), almost ten million people visited Glacier, but only three were injured by grizzly bears, perhaps because none of the three used bear spray.
FWS statistics tell the same story. Since 1992, 50 percent of people involved in grizzly encounters and defending themselves with firearms suffered injury. Those defending themselves with bear pepper spray escaped injury most of the time and those who were injured experienced shorter attacks and less severe injuries. Pepper spray is a lot easier on the bear, too.
We don’t want even one trigger-happy tourist blasting away at a bear walking by a campground in Yellowstone or feeding on Glacier lily corns up on Going-to-the-Sun Highway and posing no threat to park visitors. The media would go nuclear on any such incident, which would not only result in a dead bear and a highly publicized citation, but also validate claims currently being made by anti-gun groups. Any inappropriate or dangerous firearms use in national parks could be a game changer and a big shift in the currently high level of political momentum the gun lobby enjoys.
So, gun owners, come through for me and millions of gun owners like me who want this new law to turn out to be a big yawner.
Footnote: Here, courtesy of the NPS, are some key links to answer your questions about the new gun law and the use of bear pepper spray.
Firearms in National Parks Fact Sheet
Firearms in National Parks Frequently Asked Questions
US Fish & Wildlife Service, Tips for Living and Recreating in Grizzly Bear Country
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Encountering a Bear
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Bear Pepper Spray
Lots of "ifs" and "maybe's" there. It was much easier just to not have guns in the park. People are way too infatuated with them. They really aren't a hobby or all that interesting.
Comment By Tom Klumker, 2-25-10Mike,
No wonder our country is in the shape it is in with people's attitudes like yours.
With the crazies in the world and the druggies out there protecting their gardens and etc. you probably need personal firearms for protection from them as much as you do the bears.
Good commentary. You should expand on your claim that black bears pose as much a threat as grizzlies.
Comment By bikeboy, 2-25-10I'm probably rationalizing, but I've always assumed that, at least in the western US, carrying a gun in a national park was "a culturally acceptable no-big-deal."
For you see, I've done it for quite some time, when traveling solo by motorcycle. Here's some more rationalizing:
- I'm a (generally) law-abiding citizen, one of the "good guys."
- It stayed discreetly in my tank bag, not causing anybody any harm. (Cartridges in the magazine, but none in the chamber.)
- In 30+ years of carrying, I've never needed it even once. But "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." (And if I felt compelled to use it, the fact that it's illegal would be a minor concern, compared to the crisis at hand.)
I have a concealed-carry permit for my state. Of course, its validity varies from state to state, unfortunately. (I hope someday for reciprocity in all 50 great states, to alleviate the confusion. And as a further nod to common sense.)
Well, we can just kiss good bye to pictographs, saguaros and any number of critters who should be unmolested in our precious parks. It's a sad day for all.
Comment By Mike, 2-25-10Tom -
Odds of dying by firearm assault = 1 in 320
Odds of dying by accidental firearm discharge = 1 in 5,000
Odds of being attacked byan animal not your pet = 1 in 4 million
Again, the problem isn't guns, it's stupid people. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to own them. That would mean no gun ownership for Sarah Palin voters. The world would be a better place.
While I have a permit to carry a handgun, I do so only when I see the upmost need for personal security. Too many carry for that reason, but then their ego too. That said I do support or 2nd amendment, but the problems have been noted by others here.
As for bears... I thought for years a person should carry weapon in bear county, until I watched a promo video by the guy [who was malled by a bear with a gun in hand} who has developed the very powerful bear spray, and shows you how more effective it is for the average {un-trained, under-trained, in-correctly trained person carring any gun for bear protection} I now carry the heavy duty Bear spray in bear country, and feel much more confident in protecting myself from a bear with it than the gun. Google bear spray and do your reasearch. The spray is available at most of the large sports retailers, and many sports and flyshops throughout the west. If you choose a gun, you better get trained, and practice, or you'll get yourself in big trouble fast with a bear thats on you in seconds.
As an independant female traveler, photographing the west (and Africa)on my own, withOUT guides, I can't understand the NEED for a firearm in a national park where it is a safe haven. Our world has become more and more volatile where alot of anger management is needed. The Yellowstone and Teton law enforcing park rangers face harassment by tourists on a daily basis, and they, themselves, go beyond the needed authority of "supervising" wrong doing tourists! They are both, frequently, in each other's faces and a good deal of this is because of the lack of obeying rules, having any respect for authority, and a "me" attitude is the only one involved when it comes to importance. there is NO need to have a firearm in a national park which is, in most cases, safer than most neighborhoods we live in!
Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-25-10I agree with Bill, the issue was way overblown. The interesting aspect of this seems to be the utter contempt the ranger cadre has for the ability of the public to act responsibly. I wonder if that's a function of the actual behavior of NPS visitors, trickling up, which has certain implications; or if its a top-down, bureaucratic-mindset sort of deal, which in turn implies something else altogether.
Hey Tom...the responses to your observation prove your point.
And Mike, if guns are so uninteresting, then why would you care if I'm armed or not? Can't have it both ways.
Mr. Schneider makes a great point about Glacier Park. Gun have not been needed. So give me a good reason why we have to have them in National Parks.
My belief is that it some sort of paranoia that I do not understand.
I am paranoid in national forests after hearing gun shots (and seeing shot up trees) in mid summer while hiking but have never had that fear in National Parks - until now.
That was an excellent post and laid out your arguments responsibly and in a non-confrontational manner. I applaud your efforts. You summed up some of my feelings as well. I'm ambivalent. I can see the legal argument for it, but I think the gun lobby had a solution that sought a problem for a political end. I hope your prediction proves correct.
Comment By jay, 2-25-10"Good commentary. You should expand on your claim that black bears pose as much a threat as grizzlies."
Whatever. The all need shooting.
Actually, black bears injury more people than grizzly bears do, but part of the reason is that there are more black bears in more places. Also, in some cases, black bear attacks can to be more predatory and encounters can result in more serious injuries or fatalities. But the chance of being injured or killed is still very minute. The point is, people should treat all bears, not just grizzlies, as dangerous wild animals.....Bill
Comment By the real mike, 2-25-10It's way too early to draw any conclusions on what is going to happen. The law has just been implemented and most of the parks are still frozen. Wait until a summer or two has passed, then start in with the "gun law still a yawner" schtick. I don't know a single backcountry road anywhere in the West where the highway signs aren't all shot up and there are a lot more law enforcement in a lot of those places than current budgets support in many of the parks. Let's wait on the glowing spin for a year or two; let people have had a chance to see bullet holes in park signs ...maybe a hole or two in an historic park structure or two, maybe Old Faithful Inn, and then review the situation. And don't think the comment from "jay" is just an anomaly. Do you really agree with him that bears "all need shooting"?
Comment By jay, 2-25-10All those animals and all those guns. Who's going to waste time shooting trees or signs?
Comment By Mike, 2-26-10The big worry here is animals. That's what this NP gun issue comes down to.
People who carry guns are by default people who are substantially more frightneted compared to the rest of society. Their idea of "that bear got too close" is going to be far different than that of a calm, rational hiker or park visitor who understands bear country rules and behavior.
Also, there are going to be a few who know they can get away with shooting a grizzly, bear or wolf simply because proving that the animal didn't attack/approach them would be very hard to do. There are a lot of very sick and twisted people out there.
People who carry guns are by definition more scared?!!
I carried a gun on my hip every day for a long summer. Getting a concealed carry license for the number of states I was travelling through was impractical, so I just open carried - except for the day I rode through a national park. Fear may have been the reason others wanted this young woman travelling alone to carry a gun, but it's not why I carried. It is irresponsible to travel in the backcountry with horses and mules without a quick and painless way to put one down.
I'm happy that I won't have to be "breaking the law" next time I take my stock into a National Park backcountry, but it doesn't change my behavior much. I expect it doesn't change anyone else's behavior either. This law was just the gun lobby flexing its muscles and will have little impact on the ground.
I agree that the law is a yawner.
At least there is one less minor pain in the rear for me when during hunting season I am expected to disassemble my rifle for the 18-mile trek through the northwest corner of 191. Every year I pass by some nice looking trophy bull elk in the pre-dusk hours, and just as if they were on someone's land or in the wrong district, I manage to avoid going nuts and poaching them. Whether or not my gun is disassembled seems to have no actual bearing on whether or not I am a lousy poacher.
Thank God for the NRA in this so called ho hum event. Actually it is very big event, in that it protects and enforces our rights to our 2nd Amendment.
To all the gun haters above, "Get a Life"! Go to England, Australia, Canada or where you might be better suited to that lifestyle.
This is still the good ole US of A and will remain so as long as we keep our guns and defeat the anti gunners at every opportunity.
++People who carry guns are by definition more scared?!!
++
Absolutely. You wouldn't be carrying a lethal weapon if you weren't afraid of something that pushed you to do that.
Mike obviously hasn't been mugged by reality yet.
Comment By milburnschmidt, 2-26-10Some people dont use seatbelts. Some people dont carry health or Life insurance. Some take drugs that could end their life,Some Bungee jump ar skydive. Some like myself when traveling around this United States carry a weapon in their vehicle for protection and have never needed it and no one knew they did. Its nice to know now that if I have a accident or heart attack and someone finds a firearm in my vehicle that I wont be federally proscecuted. Carrying a firearm is not for everyone and doesnt have to be. But if you break down in a isolated area or stay in the wrong motel it might be a good idea/ Many live in a world where they dont need a weapon many change their mind after they do. Its not a safe country anymore. Guns have always been carried in parks by a few and no one ever knew it.If you are traveling cross country and decide to visit a Natl park its nice not to have to worry about violating a park rule.
Comment By Biff, 2-27-10A yawner yes, but I still find the whole new law annoying for three reasons:
1. It changed a perfectly adequate and rational regulation on guns in the parks to create a situation requiring more work by law enforcement.
2. The national forests have always seemed slightly more dangerous than the parks due to the lurking and increased likelihood that some users will have guns (for target practice, hunting, noisemaking or personal protection). Doesn't everyone become more reluctant to go into the national forests during hunting season, for example? Now, we need to have increased vigilance in the national parks that some Average Joe nearby may have a gun.
3. Guns seem to beget more guns in our society these days and I just do not see an end to the proliferation trend. Will the next step be that guns can be brought into federal facilities?
Biff, I think you're right. I've collected a small set of small ranch properties over the years, mostly to hold and protect for conservation purposes; but, I ranch a few cattle on some of them. I grew up in a "gun-nut" family, shot early and often through my childhood, still own a lot of guns, and still shoot on occasion; but, I don't go around "packing" a weapon.
With regard to your fist point, I go into Yellowstone and other parks a lot; I go into backcountry, into bear areas, a lot. Yes, I take spray; but, under the previous rules, I've never seen either the need to show that I can shoot someone or something if they don't act right toward me or the need to secretly feel "empowered" by what I'm carrying concealed. I've used bear spray a few times; but, over dozens of trips over the course of decades, I've never experienced, seen, or heard of any occasion in the parks where a gun was either needed or would have been the best choice under the circumstances. As you pointed out, the old rules worked just fine and the new rules will inherently create more risk for law enforcement.
With regard to your second point, guns in the national forests do make those areas less welcoming to many of the American taxpayers who own them, especially during hunting season. It has always been discriminatory to the majority of American taxpayers, who are not shooters, that the current rules allow a guntoting minority to intimidate them from a worry free enjoyment of their own property.
With regard to your third point, guns do unnecessarily beget more guns. People who need to "pack" all the time truly do have psychological factors that drive them to this mental state. They need the feeling of power and strength that comes with carrying a gun on the boardwalk overlooking the geysers. Don't kid yourself; this feeling of power boosts their egos and frees them to take a subtly more intimidating personal stance with the people around them. This stance is perceived by others, a general feeling of discomfort spreads as a result; and, ultimately, this discomfort encourages others to want to "pack" as well.
I think it is illustrative that Tom Klumker has been the most extreme poster on this topic. Those who have never been down to Catron County and experienced the type of society that results from the wholesale implementation of NRA-style thinking need to do so. It sure isn't pretty and is even less so if you happen to be a person of color or from anything other than a WASP background. I don't believe we need to encourage that sort of thing in our parks.
I am rather amazed to see such a reasonable posting at this particular juncture.
Well stated Mike.
Fantastic post by The Real Mike. Pretty much nailed the reality of it.
Comment By Tom Klumker, 2-27-10Real Mike, evidently you haven't been to Catron County as our 3600 +- residents are regular folks and we just happen to be singled out as extremist because we like our way of life here and don't care to see it ruined by the extreme radical greens, and their move to change how and who controls the West. You seem to apply that we are all a bunch of low life, racist, gun packing idiots. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Come down and meet some of our regular folks.
As far as packing a gun I don't either and I don't believe in concealed carry in that it registers you with the gov. and that is not good in my opinion. But I don't want someone to tell me that I can't carry one when it is my constitutional right to do so.
I think restoring any of our freedoms and rights is a good thing and this move to restore fully one of our basic freedoms is a positive thing to keep our constitution alive and well, in this day and age of assault on it by the progressive movement.
Geeze, and you "progressives" call gun owners paranoid? Eek, there's HUNTERS in the woods during HUNTING SEASON. Eeek! Eeew.
Ever heard of an orange safety vest? You can even get them for your precious canine companion (which is running about unleashed so watch out for traps) -- vests weigh next to nothing, fagawsakes.
Speaking of paranoid, there's a local Greenie hereabouts, pretty much an EFer, much unloved, who wears a fanny pack and avoids eye contact -- to public meetings. He's the least discreet "carrier" I've ever seen.
And your psychological projection, fake Mike, is equally asinine. I would bet you couldn't identify with any consistency any of those "intimidators" on your hypothetical boardwalk.
And let me also point out that its always "progressives" complaining about stereotyping our "diversity" and here's your classic case of broadbrushing.
Whatever. The simple fact is, the good guys stuck a blow for freedom in this matter and I'm cool with that....and even cooler knowing there's more to come.
Dave makes a good point about hunting season. Unless you're up there sneaking around with camo on during general season. {hunter orange required} you're likely safer than non-hunting seasons in the Natl Forests. Few who may cause problems will do so with hunters in the area, as they no there likely fate.
Case in point. My wife and I took a summer Sunday drive into the eastern Cascades {WA} 40 miles from home for a quiet afternoon on a little used creek and FS road for some flyfishing and relaxation. Not thinking about it before, and with no one else around, here comes an old rig, pulls up 100 ft down road and 4 scary looking individuals with no apparent agenda but to be off the highway got out. {most of us know who to be leary of, along with your gut feel} I had nothing but a flyrod for defense. I was never so nervous in my life in my NF, and I've spent my 58 years hunting, fishing and backpacking. They could have done anything they wan't and no one was around to witness or help us. Fortunately they left. {Several similar incidents a year do turn bad in the Forest Service areas} Call me paranoid, but I bought a hand gun and got a permit the next week. I will never go into my Forests again, and be intimidated, or stop going and enjoying myself because of others who seem to have little reason to be there. May sound radical, but there is just way too many incidents, at least in WA, that it was time. {On the other hand, I would likely not carry in a Natl Park unless I was going to be in a remote area}
Some great points being made here. Unfortunately the gun issue isn't all about safety and protection, but rather mostly intimidation, posturing, a sense of power and general insecurity on the part of the carrier.
It's really sad. I think it's largely due to a lack of self development or reading books of various kinds. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone. There are always exceptions and those exceptions get their good names draged down by the legions of buffoons.
There's more to life than guns and god. Much more.
Catron County has now replaced Mayberry as America's home?
Comment By Horst, 2-27-10Now any scary looking guys in the area will have good reason to fear Gary and his wife.
Comment By Mehmnet, 2-27-10What is in these parks that people need guns? Some hunter last year tried to fend off a bear with a gun - he still got mauled!
Incredible - you gunheads are so afraid of a "list" being kept that will fall into the wrong hands should a foreign power take over our government.
Really?
You honestly think a despotic foreign power will call you up or show up at your door and say "hand over your guns"?
I got news for you: they will simply bomb you and wipe you out without ever giving you a chance to defend yourself. Or they may simply cut off all ammunition supplies. Or simply starve you out.
They are many ways to kill you without to taking your guns away.
gun owners do seem to be much more paranoid, and after reading some of these posts I tend to believe these gun slingers are arming themselves more in the fear of other gun slingers than they are for protection from the bear. It has been proven bear spray is more efficient. Someone mentioned "gun haters", and it struck me as funny. As you like to say, guys don't kill people, people kill people. Anyway, where do you get the idea we could "hate" an object? What we hate are the untrained, careless idiots who are packing these deadly weapons. Most are scared enough all ready they will be blasting the leaves off the trees when a bird takes flight. My concern lies with the rangers. Too many angry nutcases running loose now, with or without guns. They shouldn't have to deal with this among all else they do. For those who want their "rights that the constitution allows". I think those who composed the constituion are rolling in their graves if they can see what a fiasco their words have turned into.
Comment By Tom Klumker, 2-28-10Mike, you sound a whole lot like Obama, degrading the people who "still cling to their guns and their religion". Typical progressive BS.
Pro gun persons have always been accused of having a short appendage as being the reason for them having guns. Maybe you could have a study done on this.
I firmly believe that when or if push comes to shove, taking away our guns will cause a true revolution. Any of our high profile leadership still fear guns and being shot, and even though with modern weaponry Mehmnet, world leaders fear guns and want them taken away. Look at what the UN is striving to do. A free citizenry is dependent on our 2nd Amendment Rights, and our founders recognized this. Dave those founders are only rolling over in their graves because people like you will let the power grabbers take away our guns.
Klumker, you're right that I haven't been down to your rustic paradise in a while; but, my memories of it are still fairly vivid. As for you, you need to come out of denial about the kind of society you folks (including your old ally Skinner) really want and are so desperately and relentlessly trying to foist on the rest of us.
As far as "what the UN is striving to do," the UN is still a hot button for you folks isn't it? I remember when you were burning UN flags on the courthouse steps. No, that wasn't in the 1950s when Joe McCarthy was doing his thing; it was in the 1990s when we were trying to negotiate arms control agreements.
I remember the county ordinance that required every adult male in Catron to carry a gun in case the UN or even just the local forest service law enforcement personnel tried to invade. That's taking the NRA-style thinking a bit far in my opinion and, no, it wasn't just street talk. That ordinance was the subject of lengthy and serious discussion by your illustrious County Commissioners, Curly, Larry, and Moe. Was that ordinance in play in the 1890s? No, it was in the 1990s along with the talk of the black helicopters and the cattle mutilations.
Then, I remember the ordinance to require every "environmental activist" to register with the County Sheriff upon entering the county; evidence of being an "environmental activist" didn't need to be to strong for this one to take effect. I remember the corollary; you were forbidden to speak publicly about the condition of any public lands grazing allotment in Catron County until you had been through a mandatory three-day "education" arranged through the County Government. That was also in the 1990s and not exactly ancient history; but, you don't tell people about that do you, Tom?
As far as people who "still cling to their guns and their religion" go, my favorite story is when some conservationist friends of mine went down to Reserve to meet with some USFS personnel and, upon leaving the building, were greeted by the usual guntoting, intimidating, Catron County mob. As they pushed their way through, one old woman ran up and, holding her hands in prayer, told them that God gave the earth to mankind to use up and ruin. When the earth was used up and in ruin, that was, according to the logic of your society down there in Catron, going to be the signal for the return of Christ. She told my friends that, by trying to conserve and protect the earth, they were standing in the way of the return of Christ and thus doing Satan's work. Again, this didn't happen in the seventh century; this wasn't Cotton Mather presiding over a witchcraft trial; this was in Reserve, in your shining beacon of what you want America to be, in the 1990s.
Finally, I recall the proposal to surrender all the public lands surrounding Catron County, federal and state lands straddling Arizona and New Mexico and including the Indian Reservations and unincorporated hispanic settlements that have been there for centuries, to be rolled into an "autonomous celtic racial/cultural homeland." This wasn't a proposal floated by some rebel leader in ancient times. No. this idea was championed by the duly appointed and taxpayer paid County Attorney for Catron County in the 1990s. Seizing public lands to create an "autonomous celtic racial/cultural homeland" is an interesting way to embody all that we should cherish about America in my book, Tom; yet, you were there for it all. Apparently, Skinner was there too, in a sense, writing for the Paragon Foundation, which was right, no pun intended, in the thick of it.
I could go on about Allan Savory and the white-controlled government of Rhodesia and how he jumped ship and left to reinvent himself when he saw the writing on the wall about the end of apartheid-style colonial thievery in Africa; but, the point is that you have no credibility, on any topic, Tom. You were there and won't ever be able to live that down. Be gone!
"Real" Mike,
To be honest, I've never heard of any "celtic" homeland. Not my cup of tea, and during the time I was writing for Paragon, nobody ever mentioned such a thing to me, nor did I ever write about it. So don't be associating me with fundamentalist, quasi-racist claptrap unless you can put my name to it.
And speaking of names...again, until you stand on your own hind legs, your willingness to pimp associational falsehoods from behind your Internet veil is unethical and cowardly. Which I guess is par for your course. Have a nice day.
real Mike, I think you've got it backwards. It is you and your ilk who are "foisting" your utopianist wishful thinking on the good people here.
It sounds like from your babble on Catron County, that perhaps you had a little too much weed or maybe even LSD, or at the very least some Koolaid, whilst down here.
We may be outnumbered by the progressive thinker want to be's, but at least we are real people and proud of our custom, culture, heritage and way of life. I've never witnessed a gun toting crowd here, so that even reinforces my firm belief you must have been on something during your time here, or perhaps you left with your tail between your legs because your ideology was and is flawed, and you knew you were fighting an uphill battle. As Dave said you hide behind your "internet veil" and sling mud.
We like our "rustic paradise" down here, thank you.
Under the "right to carry" in National Parks, every park is subject to all the firearms laws of the state (or states) where the park is located.
Park visitors must know and obey state laws, including knowing which state laws apply in parks (such as Yellowstone) that cross state boundaries.
The new law affects firearams possession, not use. Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.
It will remain unlawful to carry in certain locations, under a separate law that prohibits possession of any firearm in a "federal facility".
You both know the truth. There's an extensive record on all of it. I have you cold and you both still deny it. That's not exactly how I picture good American values. As for whether you were involved, I'll be searching through the records to see if I can post pictures. In the meantime, you both ought to slither back under your rocks; the sun is shining and you'll overheat.
Comment By Mike, 2-28-10++We may be outnumbered by the progressive thinker want to be's, but at least we are real people and proud of our custom, culture, heritage and way of life.++
This is the very thing that makes your county sick. Let it go, let it go so you can evolve into modern human beings.
Real people who are proud of customs, culture, heritage and way of life with no apology that those customs included slavery, Jim Crow, the Klan, the American NAZIs, Dixicrats, Joe McCarthy, John Birchers, Posses, GoldWater, Reagan, Bushes, Border Watchmen, The Freemen, and so on.
Comment By Tom Klumker, 3-01-10It is sure heartening to know that you are modern human beings. Just what exactly is your definition of a "modern human being"? As I have said before, no wonder the country is in the shape it is in, but I guess that is the price we all pay for you so called modern human beings, being so righteous and anybody who is even moderately conservative is a moron. After all there is something called the middle of the road, but in your collective minds, it is your way or the highway. So be it. We will meet you head on.
Horst, you are way out on the limb. Or maybe you fell off a limb on your family tree. You forgot part of the heritage, and that would be some of us who have native American blood in us. Those of who settled the west are always being accused of being nothing but crooks, thugs and scum and now you have expanded it in to slavers, Nazi's, Klu Kluxers and ad nauseam! Get real Horst.
Just a bunch of whining Johnny come lately's.
The new law only allows possession of loaded firearms (if its legal under state law) in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. It does not allow their use.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-01-10Again, "real" Mike, and other "Mike" and Wessel....
I guess you troll from under your rock because you have plenty of your own tracks to illustrate your wayward, misguided path. At least Tom and I, even Matthew, Jake, we know where we've been and where we want to go.
Get out in the sun, you're starting to mildew. That is, if you have the spine.
Wow, for a yawner this discussion sure got nasty quick.
I had some folks be very kind to me in Catron County when I was stuck there with a lame horse. I even remember quaking in my boots when I had to cross through land who's ownership I didn't know to get around a cattle guard. Right as I was closing the gate on my way out, someone pulled over, and I figured I was going to get an earful or worse for tresspassing. Instead he told me that the water tank in that pasture was dry, but I was welcome to stop at his place if my mules needed water. That said, I am white. But perhaps it's be better to keep this discussion about gun rights than whether or not Catron County is the root of all evil.
Real Mike, since you're quoting Obama, you might want to think about the context the "cling to their guns and their relgion" quote was made. Obama was discussing how that's a natural way for people to react when they feel their livelihoods and culture are threatened. Call them all the derogatory names you want, but it won't make them go away. The more marginalized people feel, the more they strike out against others. Disenfranchisement or the perception of it is the best way to turn people into an angry mob, and isolating an angry mob sure doesn't calm them down any.
I have no ax to grind on this particular issue but it seems to me we can all agree that you wouldn't regulate the freedom of speach in a national park would you? You wouldn't regulate the average Americans freedom of religion in a national park would you? I hope that our right to peacefully assymble will be protected. I know there are some out there who might like these regulated but I think for the most part we can agree these are good things for the American populist? And I think we all like the idea of the constitution even if we don't agree with all of it we need to hold it up, otherwise those freedoms we take for granted, why not regulate them? I know this sounds a little out there but an attack on one constitutional right to me is an attack on the whole constitution. America is a great place because we get to speak our minds but the reason we can is because that document is absolute, and I know there are some of you out there who bring up abolition, and look at what happened when they tried to take that right away! We can't let our prefrences get in the way of our rights that our country stands for. Just my feelings.
Comment By Chas Clifton, 3-01-10No massacres in Washington, DC-area national parks and monuments, <a >reports one blogger</a>.
Comment By Chas Clifton, 3-01-10This comment system will not take hyperlinked text? So here is the link that I meant to embed:
<http://natureblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/high-country-news-misrepresents.html>
No, "average guy," we "wouldn't regulate the freedom of speach in a national park" despite the fact that, back in the 1990s, your friends down in Catron County tried to establish ordinances "to require every 'environmental activist' to register... upon entering the county" and to forbid them to "speak publicly about the condition of any public lands grazing allotment in Catron County until..." they "had been through a mandatory three-day 'education' arranged through the County Government..." That didn't sound too constitutional; yet, you're still sticking up for that line of thinking. Forgive me; but, your constitutional principles seem stronger when they fit what you want.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-02-10Um, but what about that long-standing cross/war memorial in the Mojave that has ACLU's knickers in a knot? In a national monument now, and then there's the Indian religious stuff about Devils Tower and Rainbow Arch, I guess.
Again, "real," we're waiting.
I don't recall anything like that ever happening "real m" but if there was that discussion it was probably fueled by the MonkeyWrenchers" of the EarthFirst Movement or Earth Liberation Front, both well know terrorist groups, who spiked trees here endangering our local work force or whom sabotaged many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment by putting sugar and sand in the fuel tanks, taking out big stretches of fencing, shooting holes and disabling livestock watering systems, burning down cow camps, shooting cattle, and on and on.
The US is having that discussion today as to whether we should "Merandize" and allow constitutional rights to terrorists, the only difference being that they are foreigners and the above groups are just cowards and so called citizens. I do believe in the 1st Amendment and free speech, but these radical groups terrorist tactics were common place during that time period and I don't think qualify as free speech.
I guess the citizens here are supposed to lay down and take it and our County Commissioner's weren't elected to protect the citizens here. Get "real" Mike. Oh and by the way the Freemen were a group in Montana not New Mexico.
You say Either and I say eIther, tom.
There isn't a nickel's worth of difference in Freemen, sagebrush rebels, border watchmen, or Tim McVeigh. All are spoiled, elitist, constitutionalist, terrorists--patriopaths..
Jay,
There is a huge difference between sagebrush rebels and border watchmen, compared to the Tim McVeigh's and monkeywrenchers and the Elf,s. I guess your definition of Terrorism is much different, and anyone who speaks out against oppression or patriotism and for the Constitution, are bad.
Radical Eco-ists will stop at nothing to vilify their opponents evidently.
Tom,
Maybe it's time for you to check out Alinsky's "rules for radicals" book. A classic, for the Left, that is. But a lot of it applies. I was at this human rights thing in Colorado Springs one year, there because I intensely dislike Aryans. Celinda Lake was there, and I swear she was channeling Saul. The idea was not to win the debate, but stick emotionalistic mud on your enemy by any means possible. The merits don't matter, the facts don't matter...slamming your rivals with negative vibes matters most...and works best.
I had never heard of Saul Alinsky before Mr. Obama was elected.
I suppose some radio shock jock must have mentioned him; because rightwingers have certainly been slinging his name aroun recently.
It cracks me up the way real mike thinks that every conservative on this board lives in Catron County. Seriously? I have never even heard of the place. Get a grip, get an argument. Let go of the bitterness.
Back to the subject at hand. If I choose to carry a gun, or talk in a national park I'm glad that it's no one else's business but mine. I'm not really afraid of the native wildlife when I am in the back woods. Most critters run, except moose and grizzlies, and grizzlies you can take care of more easily w/ bear spray. It's the non-native critters that would just as soon slit your throat as look at you that would cause me to "pack."
People feel the need to carry a handgun--open or concealed--whenever they venture out into public are, indeed, afraid--no matter their rationalizations.
Comment By Justin Boggs, 3-04-10Not that I would doubt someone of your obviously superior self righteous judgementalism skills, but preparation for a contingency does not equal fear. For the record, I do not at the moment even own a handgun. Recreational shooting is an expense I choose not to indulge in, and I don't feel I need one for safety at this time. However, if I were a single woman hiking in the back country I wouldn't leave w/out a weapon and good training on how to use it. Crime in the back country is a real problem, and you don't get to call 911.
Comment By horst, 3-04-10Since the election of Obama, crime has bourgeoned everywhere; it is good for conservative women to be very afraid now that there are nubians out on wilderness trails...
Comment By Justin Boggs, 3-04-10Nevermind. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with stereotyping idiots.
Comment By masswasting, 3-04-10Justin-I've spent a lot of years in the backcountry and most of the crime I've been around has involved poaching or theft--of more than one firearm, too. Met plenty of weirdos-the creepiest ones made a big deal about having weapons. Even having a pistol handy with stock is situational and just not always appropriate. Most crime occurs at trailheads, anyway.
Comment By dave, 3-04-10getting to be a pretty crazy world when the gun nuts have to arm themselves against the gun nuts. Pity the poor innocents who are caught in the crossfire.
Comment By the real mike, 3-04-10Yes, "masswasting" has hit it again!
From one of my earlier postings: People who need to "pack" all the time truly do have psychological factors that drive them to this mental state. They need the feeling of power and strength that comes with carrying a gun on the boardwalk overlooking the geysers. Don't kid yourself; this feeling of power boosts their egos and frees them to take a subtly more intimidating personal stance with the people around them.
...and from the most recent "masswasting" posting: Met plenty of weirdos... the creepiest ones made a big deal about having weapons.
Yes, the perception that these people are weird and creepy is a reflection of the behavioral and attitudinal aberrations that result from the feeling of power that being armed gives the more "twisted" (for lack of a better term) of the NRA types. This feeling of power is what boosts their egos and frees them to take a subtly more intimidating personal stance with the people around them and that unnaturally swaggering and intimidating personal stance is what "masswasting" perceives as creepiness. I sense it too and perceive it as weird creepiness just like "masswasting" does.
Frankly, I don't want to be around weird creepiness when I visit my national parks.
I know a lot of people who "pack." There is no way you would pick them out unless you were well acquainted with them to begin with. You would be surprised the amount of times you are around someone who has a gun on them and you don't even know it. The ignorance in this argument has two sides....
Comment By horst, 3-05-10The capability of killing at will is strangely comforting to men with short equipment.
Comment By Justin Boggs, 3-05-10Thank-you horst for so wonderfully illustrating my last sentence. You are truly and inspiration to ignorant people everywhere.
Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 3-05-10If you are going into the backcountry with stock, carrying a means of putting them down is always appropriate. It's every stock owner's worse fear, but if a horse breaks a leg, you have to be able to put them out their misery. A pistol is by far the simplest and quickest way. I pray I never have to use mine.
Comment By average guy, 3-05-10there's just no talking to people these days. you guys have fun arguing in circles and mudslinging.
Comment By Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 3-07-10In Iran we have a saying that goes back to the golden days of Cyrus, when the Achaemenids captured the highlands from the Elamites.
"Knowing is half the battle... The other half involves guns."
A permit is required to carry a concealed handgun in the backcountry in Montana when hiking; thus, with the new National Parks gun law, a permit to carry a concealed handgun is not required when hiking in Glacier National Park. See the Exceptions in Montana's state law:
45-8-317. Exceptions. (1) Section 45-8-316 does not apply to:
(i) a person who is outside the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining, or railroad camp or who is lawfully engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, backpacking, farming, ranching, or other outdoor activity in which weapons are often carried for recreation or protection
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-317.htm
Sorry, that should have read in my post's first sentence:
A permit is NOT required to carry a concealed handgun in the backcountry in Montana when hiking; thus, with the new National Parks gun law, a permit to carry a concealed handgun is not required when hiking in Glacier National Park.
The real Mike, before launching into the usual 'anyone who doesn't think or act like me is a weird psycho' stuff, said this:
"the old rules worked just fine."
He's right you know. The old rules worked just fine. Those would be the old rules we just went back to where, prior to the restrictions brought in by Reagan, you could legally carry a firearm for self defense in the parks.
So was blood running down the trails during all those decades where we could legally carry firearms? No. Park staff being murdered everywhere? No. Indeed, apparently the old rules worked just fine, didn't endanger park staff - and it is equally certain that with our return to the old rules, they will continue to work just fine.
I am constantly bemused that those who hate the idea of law abiding citizens going armed always have to descend to childish name calling and narrow minded, beyond amateurish, psychological evaluations that they make through the lens of their bigotry and prejudice. I've always been curious about that. Then it occurred to me is the reason is quite simple - they have nothing else to base their arguments on.
We see this every time a "shall issue" concealed carry law is passed in this country, when the "assault" weapon ban disappeared, etc. Blood will run in the streets, anarchy is coming, yadda yadda yadda. And yet, once all these law abiding people who The Real Mike and his fellow travellers describe as fearful, psychologically damaged, egotistical, etc are allowed to carry firearms, what happens? Absolutely none of what Mike and his friends are having hysterics about comes to pass. Their predictions and fears prove groundless.
So... who's the paranoid ones again?
That being said, there is also the small matter that we do have a Bill of Rights in this country, one of those rights being the Second Amendment - that would be the one which is the only one containing the words "shall not be infringed". What is so hard about the word those words to understand for those who believe constitutional rights end at a park boundary?
Yes, I understand the sight of a firearm, or the thought some people might have concealed firearms, causes some people to drop their guts. Tough luck. I don't like the way people like Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, etc use their right to freedom of speech - but I'm sure as hell not going to demand limitations on freedom of speech because I don't like how they express themselves.
That's the Excact same point I made, not as well articulated but the same exact argument. Now this time hopefully we can discuss it and real mike won't change the subject.
Comment By masswasting, 3-16-10They are law abiding people until, well, they break the law--then they have a gun to do it with. People who need to carry a gun with them--concealed or not--all of the time, everywhere are dangerous. Period.
Comment By horst, 3-16-10All generalities including this one are mistaken.
Comment By average guy, 3-17-10By that logic, since some people get into car accidents, we should outlaw all cars. Without cars there wouldn't be car accidents.
Comment By horst, 3-17-10Whose logic was that A. G.?
Comment By average guy, 3-21-10That's the logic in masswastings argument. If some people do dumb things then let's spoil it for the rest of the class. If you get one rotten egg in the case you don't throw out the rest, you deal with the bad egg. I realize that may not be the best metaphor but I hope my point is clear. 90 percent of Americans do the right thing and obey the law, let's not spoil things because there's a few obscure individuals out there.
Comment By Ed, 4-20-10You know it's always interesting how the predictions of widespread gunbattles, drunken target practice, dead bystanders, poached animals and such never materialize. Makes me wonder if all the anti's get up everyday and rush for the papers hoping to find news like this then frown into their cereal trough breakfast that it didn't happen...again.
Personally, I get up everyday and notice that you can almost always find someone who has been saved by the responsible use of a citizen-carried firearm, be it at a school, home, workplace, shopping or just traveling around on your business. Wonder if the anti crowd read these stories and quickly say a prayer that the good people, the potential victims, were not injured?
Why have guns in a park? Why not? Might as well ask why have a Bible, Koran,prayer rug or a newspaper? All of these items are among those which are not only legal but also enjoy various added protections under our Constitution. You remember the Constitution, that somewhat inconvenient document that established this country? I know it gets in the way of what YOU think would be better but until you put through a new amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment you will just have to shut up and exercise your choice to stay away if you are so afraid and disgusted at the thought that some of us remember our rights and choose to exercise them.
Only paranoiacs need to carry a gun.
Comment By Ed, 4-20-10Well said, Rick.....
"I am constantly bemused that those who hate the idea of law abiding citizens going armed always have to descend to childish name calling and narrow minded, beyond amateurish, psychological evaluations that they make through the lens of their bigotry and prejudice. I've always been curious about that. Then it occurred to me is the reason is quite simple - they have nothing else to base their arguments on."
Well, the new rules went into effect and the falling of the sky predicted by Chicken Little liberals did not occur, of course. My guess is that most of the folks concerned about guns in national parks have never held a firearm, have spent very little time in the parks, and never more than a couple hundred feet from a parking lot. They think of the parks as Federal Disney Land and the animals as part of the "cast." Those of us who spend much time in the backcountry of the Western parks, where calling 911 isn't an option (if it were even a good option where it's possible, but that's another topic), have already been discretely carrying firearms all along with our first aid kits and other self-reliance gear, without any issues and not expecting any change with the new rules.
If any of the firearm-ignorant crowd are interested in why the new rules make sense, I've spent part of this deer season hunting public lands near the border of one of the California parks, as I often have in the past. Again, most urban liberals probably have no idea, but the borders of Federal Disney Land aren't fenced and gated past the entrance station parking lot. The boundaries are lines on a map which slice through deep forest and remote desert, often adjacent to other public lands with other uses, marked by simple boundary markers where crossed by the numerous wilderness trails which ramble back and forth across the boundary, cut across corners of the parks, etc. I hunt along some of these trails. In past years, when I got to the property marker at the park boundary, I was legally (and ridiculously) obligated to stop, unload my magazines, take the firearms apart, and lock them up. Then a few minutes later, upon exiting the park boundary, I had to stop, unlock, reassemble, and reload my firearms before continuing to hunt. Not going through all of this senseless routine risked being caught by a park ranger and arrested. This year I was very reasonably allowed to cross the park boundaries without having to take any action other than noting that I would be within the park boundaries (but miles away from your parked Subaru, gift shop, snack stand, and the usual park attractions that don't require more than a 100-yard walk to see) for a while and therefore would have to make do with simply observing any game I came across before exiting again. No big deal. I can now also openly take a firearm with me on my trips into the parks' backcountry--not for defense from scary animals, but in case I happen upon some of the criminal element who've taken up residence in remote areas of our parks to farm marijuana and operate meth labs. I guess I could give up my public lands to that element and stay home baking cookies like some of you, but I choose not to.
On a windy day bear spray is useless. And the wind blows a lot in the mountains. Carrying bear spray and wearing little bells help greenies feel good. When tracking do you know how to tell the difference between Black Bear Scat and Grizzly Scat? Black Bear Scat contains seeds and berrys, Grizzly scat contains little bells and smells peppery!!!
Carry the biggest handgun caliber you can handle. Practice with it at 25 yards. A shotgun with slugs in your vehicle too.
Moving targets even better. Wear it in a "Chesty Puller" holster on you chest or your side. Keep alert and have fun viewing natures
beauty.