LET'S FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT REALLY MATTER
Don’t Waste Energy on Rule Allowing Concealed Guns in National Parks
Election-year politics is maddening, but let the gun lobby have "this important step in the right direction," becuase it really doesn't matter. What matters is the long-term health of our national parks.By Bill Schneider, 9-04-08
 |
|
 | |
|
A lot of people are hot and bothered about the Bush administration’s proposed rule to allow concealed weapons in national parks, but practically, is this really worth our time and effort?
Yes, it’s maddening to tolerate such low-end, election-year politics spurred by the National Rifle Association (NRA), but I say give the gun lobby this hollow victory, so we can spend our time and energy on issues that could really help our national parks instead of worrying about something that’s already happening and hasn’t caused any problems.
Last year, after efforts to attach the loosening of the 25-year-old regulation that restricts but does not ban taking firearms into national parks as a rider on a must-pass bill failed, the new strategy became the administrative rule-making process, which is currently underway. The comment period ended August 8, and the Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, received more than 100,000 comments. Obviously, these comments, even if 99 percent opposed to the new rule, won’t matter, which is the case with most “public involvement” exercises. The Bush administration is obligated to do make “this important step in the right direction” for the NRA. Even with widespread opposition, you can bet your last bullet that our lame duck will approve the rule before he leaves office with his tail between its legs.
As I’ve said in a past column on the subject, people who believe so strongly that they always need a gun to protect themselves from bears and perverts are unlikely to leave it home when they go to a national park. Instead, they illegally take concealed weapons into national parks. Rangers know this happens, but do nothing to stop it. What could they do? Search every car? Have rangers ever searched a car for firearms at any national park entrance station? For many years, this has gone on, and has it been a problem? No. The national parks have traditionally had very low crime rates, and that’s unlikely to change when the new rule goes into effect.
Will backpackers start taking big handguns and stub-nosed shotguns with them? Not likely. Backpackers are the type of people who count out their vitamin pills and drill holes in toothbrushes to save weight. You think they’ll throw a three-pound revolver in the pack when they know the chances of needing it are as close to zero as you can get.
(Interestingly, ten years ago, I went on a nine-day backpacking adventure in Gates of the Arctic National Park in Alaska, and the NPS actually recommended we take a shotgun with us, which we declined to do, primarily because nobody wanted to carry it. And alas, we returned safely.)
The proposed rule has been totted as “lifting the handgun ban” in national parks, but this exaggerates what the rule does. Park visitors can already take handguns and all other legal firearms into national parks, but they must be dissembled, unloaded and inaccessible (such as cased in the truck of the car). This regulation was put in place in 1983 by none other than a NRA darling, Republican Ronald Reagan, and under the reign of terror of Secretary of the Interior James Watt.
As currently proposed, the rule would be extremely confusing, so let’s fix that problem before it becomes NPS policy. Right now, it only applies to national parks in states that allow concealed guns in state parks. Among western states, that includes Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, not California, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas or Utah. (But you gotta think laws in those states will be changing fast after this new rule hits the books.) Gun-toting tourists will have to be on their toes as they travel from park to park--or, get this, parts of parks! National parks like Yellowstone and Death Valley cross state lines. In Yellowstone, for example, you could only carry your gun in the Montana and Wyoming parts, not the Idaho part. Ditto for Death Valley, which crosses the California/Nevada border.
So, let’s forget the state park requirement, and just let people have their guns in all national parks. In the meantime, the greens can concentrate on more important issues like getting adequate funding for national parks, making parks more affordable and accessible, trail and road maintenance, and improved interpretation. These and other issues related to the long-term health of our national parks need all our time, money and energy.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I agree. It's absurd that time and effort be wasted in bringing law federal law into compliance with the federal constitution. Do it already. To me it makes little sense to criminalize possession of arms. It's the USE of such arms that must be (and are) criminalized.
I backpack, too ... and I have a shortened toothbrush that I carry (ounces DO matter). It's legal for me to carry a toothbrush ... but illegal for me to stab my fellow backpacker in the neck.
Thanks for your column. Again, I agree.
I'm opposed to guns (shotguns, rifles, pistols) in the National Parks because the people who carry them scare me more than the wildlife. And that goes double for the yahoos I've come across in Glacier NP who were openly carrying holstered pistols in defiance of existing regulations.
However, you're wrong that backpackers don't carry guns--even large revolvers--and not just in their packs. For example, consider this discussion of pistols on a web site devoted to lightweight backpacking:
http://www.backpacking.net/forums/
It's about halfway down the page in the "light gear" talk section.
Nice attack on President Bush and his cohorts in that Godless gun lobby.
I cling to my bible and guns because I have a constutional right to do so. GOD bless President Bush for giving us back just a little bit of our American freedom.
This will be a moot issue after the November elections. A bigger Democratic majority in Congress will certainly revisit many Bushco actions and reverse them, regardless of who is in the White House. Obama would simply speed up those reversals, while McBush can only exercise his veto stamp -- hardly a sign of "change."
The idea of a prohibition on guns, which will only be complied with by the lawful, not the "poachers" and the admittedly-few criminals, is no more valid in Glacier than it is in, you betcha, Washington, D of C.
And I got a huge laugh out of your Gates of the Arctic trip. My old housemate from Colorado went on a climbing trip, supposedly to Anaktuvuk Pass, that was a complete weather and logistics disaster, topped off when a bear raided camp, was shotgunned, and wounded. And there weren't any more shells. And the plane with the supplies hadn't made the second trip with the climbing gear and never did, etc etc.
Ever asked a national park ranger what the best way to manage guns in national parks has been? Remember they are primary law enforcement in National Parks (unlike forests, state parks, BLM lands, etc)
You must have missed the part about hunting being legal in Grand Teton NATIONAL PARK, and it's cousin to the north John D. Rockefeller memorial parkway (National Park), and others across the country.
Guns only kill wildlife if you choose to pull the trigger. I will be over in the John D. in a couple weeks Ruffed grouse hunting. However, the hunting of or killing of wildlife is not the issue here at all, it's just fodder for more liberal subterfuge. We are talking about the American RIGHT to be armed. It is not a privilege, it is a right. Check the Constitution sometime.
These folks need challenged. It's a stew that needs stirred so the scum doesn't rise to the top like it appears to be doing in this publication. Unfortunately this IS the coming culture of the west, and those of us who have grown up here and lived it and breathed it and cherished it and worked at low wage jobs just to live here (I was a Wilderness Ranger for several years) need not to faint away from imported liberal gunsels.
gunsel - Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :
129 Moby Thesaurus words for "gunsel":
Cain, Mafioso, Young Turk, apache, assassin, assassinator, auntie,
beast, beldam, berserk, berserker, bi-guy, bisexual, bloodletter,
bloodshedder, bomber, bravo, bruiser, brute, bull dyke, burker,
butch, butcher, button man, cannibal, catamite, chicken, cutthroat,
demon, desperado, devil, dragon, dyke, eradicator, executioner,
exterminator, fag, faggot, fairy, femme, fiend, fire-eater,
firebrand, flit, fricatrice, fruit, fury, garroter, goon, gorilla,
gun, gunman, gunslinger, hardnose, hatchet man, head-hunter,
hell-raiser, hellcat, hellhound, hellion, hit man, holy terror,
homicidal maniac, homicide, homo, homophile, homosexual,
homosexualist, hood, hoodlum, hooligan, hothead, hotspur,
incendiary, invert, killer, lesbian, mad dog, madcap, man-eater,
man-killer, manslayer, massacrer, matador, monster, mug, mugger,
murderer, muscle man, nance, pansy, pathic, pesticide, plug-ugly,
poison, poisoner, punk, queen, queer, rapist, revolutionary,
rodman, roughneck, sapphist, savage, she-wolf, slaughterer, slayer,
spitfire, strangler, strong-arm man, termagant, terror, terrorist,
thug, tiger, tigress, torpedo, tough, tough guy, tribade,
trigger man, ugly customer, violent, virago, vixen, wild beast,
witch, wolf
Uh oh...
I think the personal attacks are unfair. He writes a good column and does seem to stir up a lot of controversy on both sides.
So that's two liberal whacko articles in a row.
Gotta think this over.
Bill, I take exception to this "rule" of yours, and also the tone in which it's communicated. I believe strongly in my right and obligation to defense. Yet I do NOT carry concealed in national parks, because it is currently illegal. It's wrong for it to be illegal, and the law must be changed. But while it remains illegal, I comply. Exception one. Exception two is the tone of your article ... such as "hollow victory"... and your use of the word "perverts." The right to defense is no hollow victory, and I am not worried about "perverts" ... I am only wary, and understand that I share this world with a few very bad people, who respect no one, and who commit criminal violence without remorse. It is simply my responsibility, my moral duty and societal obligation, to in no uncertain terms prevent these people from doing harm to innocents, whether they be my self, my wife, my daughters, or those around me.
He still writes a good column and I'll continue to read it.
FIREARMS, BEARS, AND BEAR SPRAY
By Tom S. Smith, PhD, Bear Research Biologist, Plant and Wildlife
Sciences Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
I've been studying bear-human conflict for the past 17 years,
and have heard all sides of the 'firearms versus bear spray' debate
among big game hunters. The issue is: If you're hunting and you
encounter an aggressive bear-is it better to shoot it, or use bear
spray to repel it?
Many die-hard hunters say they would never rely on bear spray to do
the job of a gun. Others counter that a gun can possibly maim a bear,
causing it to ferociously settle the score.
What position do bear biologists take in this debate? I can't speak
for others, but after studying more than 600 Alaska bear attacks, I've
learned:
· In 72 incidents of people using bear spray to defend
themselves against aggressive bears in Alaska, 98% were uninjured, and
those that were suffered only minor injuries.
· In 300 incidents where people carried and used firearms for
protection against aggressive bears in Alaska, 40% were injured or
killed, including 23 fatalities and 16 severely injured persons.
Another 48 people suffered lesser injuries.
I frequently hear hunters say: "I'm unwilling to let a bear within the
range necessary for bear spray to be used." Unfortunately, a hunter
generally doesn't get that choice.
In my research, hunters were generally unable to fire a shot before
the bear slammed into them. Some hunters couldn't get the safety off,
others short-stroked the bolt and jammed the cartridge, yet others,
out of habit, tried to 'scope' the bear, losing critical seconds while
failing to zero in.
With a can of bear spray on one's hip or pack strap, it is simply a
matter of pointing and shooting. In areas of poor visibility I always
have a can of spray in my hand. It is easily carried over a finger
and isn't as clumsy as a firearm is in the field-ready position. All
that is required is pointing the nozzle in the general direction and
pushing a button. Accuracy is not nearly as critical as it is with a
firearm. You can't 'wound' a bear with bear spray. It also
eliminates problems with sticking bolt actions, jamming shells, and
hard-to-find safety mechanisms.
One thing bear spray and a rifle have in common is that success does
depend on practice and learning how to use bear spray for its optimal
effects, including being able to adjust for weather and wind
direction.
Why not carry a can of bear spray on your hip or pack strap? Unless
you are bear hunting, why take on the complications and possible legal
ramifications of killing a bear out of season or without a license,
especially a grizzly, if it can be convinced to go somewhere else in a
non-lethal manner?
My suggestion to my fellow hunters is to pack bear spray and keep it
ready for those times when you simply can't bring a gun into service:
while hiking, while butchering the meat, while packing it out; times
when a gun simply isn't convenient to have in one's hands. Your
family will thank you!
-fwp-
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Dr. Thomas Smith studied bear-human conflicts in Alaska for the past
17 years. He carries bear spray during hunts but has never had to
shoot a bear. What is his secret? He makes noise in brushy, dense
areas of cover where visibility is poor. He said that bears need
additional cues to pick up on human presence in these types of
environments and that precaution alone avoids many potential
encounters. He sheepishly admits he'd rather not harvest a bear. "It
isn't and ethical issue with me," he said. "It is a case of honestly
being too lazy. Once you pull the trigger the work begins."
I don't mind trying bear spray first if I encounter a bear but I'd prefer to have a 44 mag on my hip as backup.
However, the unconstitutional infringement of fundamental rights, on federal land especially, is the issue here.
As I'm sure you're aware, the National Parks and the National Forests have very different backgrounds and therefore very different restrictions. The National Parks have always had a "thou shalt not touch nature" mentality, and the Forest Reserve System, now the National Forests, were established to be used. Grand Teton National Park is the only National Park in the lower 48 that Congress has allowed hunting in because of elk overpopulation issues. Now I'm of the opinion that the National Park experiment of unmanaged ungulate populations near developed tourist or agricultural centers has failed and hunting should be allowed in National Parks, but that's a whole other can of worms.
As someone who has good reason to carry a firearm through National Parks, I support the results of this new rule. I won't have to obtain special permission to carry my .357 when I go packing in Glacier with my mules. Glacier, at least, understands the realities of backcountry travel with stock and allows packers to carry firearms.
Unfortunately, the rationale behind this new rule change is ludicrous. You'd have to be crazy or a damn good shot to shoot at a grizzly with anything other than a high powered rifle. With mountain lions, either they kill you too rapidly for you to do anything about it, or you struggle until they decide it's not worth it (remember the old couple who beat one off with a cane?). Wolves have as of yet not been a danger to humans in the lower 48. Black bears are the only potentially dangerous wild predator that a hand gun might have an impact on, but bear spray's lighter anyways and as Matt pointed out, generally more effective.
Erin
I am pleased to see such interest in this proposed rule change, that would bring National Park and National Wildlife Refuge rules in line with state law. Generally, what this means is that state carry laws would apply to these federal lands.
But Erin's argument above centers on a false rationale, one that centers on defense against dangerous wildlife. But the real rationale is to empower state carry law on federal land. State carry laws are not predicated primarily on defense against wildlife, but defense against criminal attack by other humans. As such, this rule change is not one that would empower people to shoot wildlife in defense as much as it would empower people to defend themselves against other people.
See this rule change:
http://www.ossa.org/Archives/DOIFirearmsProposedRule-1.pdf
I'd also like to point out that the types of guns carried persuent to state carry laws are typically handguns, and those typically in the calibers .380, .38 Special, 9mm, .40 S&W;, and .45acp. To a lesser extent, I suppose, are carried handguns in the calibers .357 mag and .44 special. However, none of these calibers is suitable for defense against the deadliest wildlife, such as grizzly and polar bear, or moose. This new rule in no way authorizes the wanton shooting of wildlife, nor does it, I suppose, expressly encourage the defense against very dangerous wildlife using common carry calibers. That puts us into the realm of education, and back into Erin's point. In other words, a person would be a fool to attempt stopping a griz attack with a 9mm Glock or some such handgun.
I support carry for defense - wherever - including national parks, schools, churches, and the like. But with that right to bear arms for lawful purposes comes responsibility, and it would be roundly irresponsible for someone to pop away at a griz or a moose with the commonly-carried ordinance.
The two times I have had a grizzly in extremely close proximity, both a scary situation for me, I drew the bear spray. Amazing to me that I pulled the spray first. I was carrying a hot loaded 45 Colt with hard cast bullets that literally could have shot through the bear at close range, if I was skilled enough under stress to make the shot. The spray worked, once. The other time the bear decided I was very ugly and left me standing there feeling like Gumby. I commonly carry a 45/70 with open sights during hunting season and bear spray. I live in and work in grizzly bear country. The great bears are amazing wonderful creatures.
Anyway, this discourse is not about firearms for bear protection, people protection or any other item one can list, it's about the right of all Americans who are legally allowed to carry firearms, to do so. Especially on Federal lands, National Parks included.
Erin, hope our wilderness trails cross sometime. I'll be riding a mule. Move up to a .41 mag. when the opportunity arises.
Every firearm I took away from a poacher represented a lot more than that piece of steel. I felt for them as a fellow human being and I felt for the animal they poached. Most poachers cried on handing it over and they cried even more when I asked for the extra ammo for that gun. That gun represented all of what they thought of life.
The backpackers who were afraid of their surroundings without the false sense of hope their now confiscated firearm had given them gave me reason to explain what spirital advantages indigenous peoples must have enjoyed with at most a spear for "protection" ...when they were a part of nature instead of dominating it as those with guns feel today with a gun in their hands.
As the years passed I realized the guns in my hands meant little to the greater humility of life.
Most people who tout their right to bear arms I think of as Banty roosters. Read into as you like.
For too many folks guns became an addiction. We had a ranger who would count and organize his dresser full of ammo every night. Others hoarded case after case of ammo. A wood box full was better than the same amount in a cardboard box. Every night was gun cleaning night, whether they were carried that day or not, for too many of them.
In the outfitter camps outside the Park it was all talk of guns. It is a sickness, I tell you, when a "hunter" thinks more of how his magnum round explodes than what it means to take the life of an elk. It can not even be excused as "childish".
We had a ranger that shot an road injured bison 12 times with a M14. In the end it "got" away to the woods and he was too scared to go in after it. A bigger caliber gun was available but this guy wanted to see what a military gun would do.
The road patrol rangers in the Park are given no instruction on where to shoot an animal and with what. After many rounds with a 357 MAGNUM ...wow such a powerful word for such a small round...and several 12 gauge slugs in the frontal skull ... a bull bison had to be "finished off" by a maintanance man with the bucket edge of a front end loader. All this was right behind the Lake hotel during summer time high visitor use. Another ranger shot an elk calf next to the Mammoth Motor Inn... then went up and kicked it to see if it was dead. Fortunately he got turned in by horrified diners looking out the windows.
On the late Montana elk hunt in the Gallatin I have watched a group of 20 or so "hunters" lob all their rifles rounds ....and all their reloaded rounds into a group of 7 bulls on a ridge almost a mile away. Finally a bull was wounded and they all ran away.
It goes on and on. No, I do not believe the reverance of our national parks needs to be sullied by those who do not understand what it means to have guns. This includes horse users who feel they have to carry one for the horse who breaks its leg. I shot a pack horse once who fell off a cliff while I was tracking a poacher. He did a 100 foot free fall and broke his back. I'd had him for 10 years in the most remote location of all... a place where I had to depend on the horses I used. It was wrong for me to end his life so violently when nature and life ...and death...were in such harmony. I knew afterwords I should have held him, talked with him, put my knife in his neck artery and talked some more.
By having guns in our National Parks backcountry the citizens of our country edge a bit further from our roots....And the worst thing is those for and against don't even understand WHY.