Defensive Carry banner

Parks officials urge lawmakers: Keep gun ban

4K views 47 replies 36 participants last post by  kentuckycarry 
#1 ·
Tulsa World: Parks officials urge lawmakers: Keep gun ban

By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
2/7/2008

WASHINGTON -- Park rangers warned that a move to drop a ban on carrying loaded guns into national parks -- backed by Oklahoma's two U.S. senators -- could degrade experiences for visitors, pose a safety risk and hurt efforts to crack down on illegal activity such as poaching.

Although almost half of the U.S. Senate supports doing away with the current policy, critics are zeroing in on an expected amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits huntSEE ing," stated a letter urging senators to vote against the Coburn amendment.

"The requirement that guns in parks are unloaded and put away is a reasonable and limited restriction to facilitate legitimate purposes -- the protection of precious park resources and safety of visitors."

Dated Feb. 1, the letter was sent by the Association of Na tional Park Rangers of Golden, Colo.; the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees of Tucson, Ariz.; and U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police of Twain Harte, Calif.

In a separate statement,
the park rangers' association also pointed out that guns are banned from other government sites, including the Senate offices.

Coburn declined to comment.

He and fellow Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe joined 45 other senators, including eight Democrats, in signing a Dec. 14 letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to have the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service drop their current policies.

"We appeal to you on this matter in the interest of Sec ond Amendment rights and consistency in firearms policy across federal public land management agencies," their letter stated.

"These regulations infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, who wish to transport and carry firearms on or across these lands."

They also pointed out the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have different policies on transporting firearms across the federal lands they regulate.

"These inconsistencies in firearms regulations for public lands are confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary," they wrote.

Kempthorne, a former U.S. senator and governor from Idaho, has not responded.

"We are reviewing the letter," said Chris Paolino, an agency spokesman.

Paolino believes the National Park Service's policy, which allows guns in parks as long as they are not readily accessible and not ready to be fired, dates back to the Reagan administration.

Policies at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management do vary, he said.

While not mentioning Coburn's amendment specifically, a second letter signed by The Wilderness Society, Campaign for America's Wilderness, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and U.S. Public Interest Research Group also urged senators to oppose any amendment that would weaken the legislation on public lands.
 
#2 ·
All of that rationalization simply places the highest value on the animals and visitors' gleeful experience ... at the expense of legitimate self-defense. IMO, that's not an exchange they can make. People found to be hunting animals can be prosecuted severely. But when folks have no viable means to protect themselves against felonious attack, people found to be hunting other two-legged innocents have no reason to stop their crimes. Same as anywhere else, the criminals are already ignoring the ban and upstanding people are simply disarmed.
 
#3 ·
Hard to put my thoughts much better than ccw9mm already has.

Assessment of ''risk'' is as ever far from logical, or even sensible .. all part of the anti mind set. :frown:
 
#5 ·
My views on self defense are about as permissive as can be, except for National Parks.

Carry if you wish, but I am one of those who really does have a problem with carrying in a place where the natural instinct is to go into 'hunt mode'.

I am not against hunting - in lawful areas, the sport has its rightful place in the giant scheme of things.

I hope no one takes my view as a personal attack, that is not what I am trying to convey. In fact, I would gladly walk with anyone on this board in an urban setting, even into a shopping mall.

But there is just something about guns and the great-out-doors that tends to give me pause. It just seems too likely that someone will use a weapon on a buck/bear/bison because 'it was getting too close to the kids'.

If I were to support the CCW in the parks it would be with the understanding that the punishment for use of a weapon in the National Parks ought to be as severe as what would happen if the same person brandished a weapon on a crowded school grounds.
 
#16 ·
My views on self defense are about as permissive as can be, except for National Parks.

Carry if you wish, but I am one of those who really does have a problem with carrying in a place where the natural instinct is to go into 'hunt mode'.

I am not against hunting - in lawful areas, the sport has its rightful place in the giant scheme of things.
I dont take offense to your opinion but i just dont get it. Just cuz there are "animals" in parks, doesnt mean someone will go into "hunt mode"

I completely disagree with your post. I absolutely love hunting and i have never thought about shooting an animal just cuz i was carrying a gun. the right to self defense and the threat of being assaulted does not stop at the borders of a National Park.

In Texas, there are more deer readily available outside of National Parks than there are inside and if CCW/CHL holders havnt started poaching around town then they arent about to inside national parks.

Given the tendancy of CCW/CHL holders to be about 5 times less likely to commit a crime vs non CCW/CHL holders, i would say that the threat to our precious wildlife is more likely to come from non-CCW/CHL holders.

I know your a site supporter, and i respect you for that, but i hope you dont take offense to me wondering if youve been living in California too long :)

If an animal presents a legitimate threat to a human life and every possible alternative is exhausted, then shoot the damned thing! I guarantee you I would shoot a bear if I saw no other way to get my kids safely away from it. I don't care how endangered it is. I would make every possible effort to avoid this, but sometimes there's no way out.

I say let's drop the stupid and unnecessary gun restriction, but let them put the strictest animal-endangerment laws they want into action. That should work out just fine.

Springer, the problem is that there are actually people who would say you were at the wrong place at the wrong time and would prefer that the bear hurt or kill another human than for another human to kill the animal in defense of themselves or another.

SHOCKING but absulutely true.

The name Timothy Treadwell comes to mind.
 
#6 ·
i'd support ccw in national parks for the same reason to have one
just being in a city. self defense. bg's are everywhere. if poaching
isall thier can come up with,thats pretty sad. same thing can happen
in the parks as there do in the city. robbed,raped,or worse killed.
poachers are just as bad as most crimes anywhere else.
as far as bears,wolves,or whatever theres a big differance between
poaching and defending yourself andfamily.
 
#7 ·
I was born and raised in Colorado, and have spent a majority of my life in the mountains.

I have encountered every natural predator and territorial grass eaters (Elk, Deer, Moose) to Colorado with the exception of a bear, and have had no problems. I own 10 acres on Gore Pass, where we do have a serious Bear problem (stupid property owners leaving trash and food outside - out of the 15 cabins in our section, ours is the only one that has not been broken into and trashed by a bear, only hunters x3 :mad: )

CC carriers are going to have enough common sense to NOT walk up to an animal to pet it or put little jimmy on its back for a cute picture.

I concur that the letter from the rangers reads just like a Brady Bunch flock. The law does not stop poachers now, I don't see an increase happening.

Now the very limited attacks on the campers by the wildlife due to their poor judgment in food storage or camping locations may result in a few shootings, and should be handled the same as they do in urban areas when it happens. Did the shooter exhaust all other attempts to deter the critter - yell, fire, make lots of noise, throw rocks or other blunt objects... BEFORE the gun came out?
 
#8 ·
It seems to me on this matter that people are ranking animals higher than humans. Animals are not my equal. I love to take my kayak out and enjoy mother nature but concerns for my well being FAR outweigh a possible scenerio where one animal MAY be harmed in the next 10 years. I have been an avid hunter my entire life and I think that as a concealed weapons permit holder I am quite able to "control the urge" to blast away at an animal. This is so ridiculous in my opinion. Those of us that have followed the law to the letter to obtain and keep our CCW know that the first rule is to not put yourself into dangerous situations. We do this each and every single day. Why would be do it in a park? There is no one that is going to be able to convince me that individuals are "safer" in the park without weapons there. I live in the country and have coyotes, deer, raccoons and other wildlife constantly running through my backyard. But you know what? NOT ONCE have I ever felt "threatened" by any of these creatures. But I guess if I went to a nearby park that my mentality would suddenly change. Would someone please explain to me the big difference between carrying a firearm in Wal-Mart and carrying one in a natural setting??? Geez! This topic really irritates me. :tongue:
 
#9 ·
My views on self defense are about as permissive as can be, except for National Parks.
That makes about at much sense as the views of those that are anti-personal defense.

Just how exactly are CONCEALED handguns going to ruin your park experience?

Carry if you wish, but I am one of those who really does have a problem with carrying in a place where the natural instinct is to go into 'hunt mode'
You don't hunt do you? You are assuming that because I do, every animal that I see is in danger from my concealed .45. I take that as a personal attack.

On one hand you say
Carry if you wish
but on the other hand you say
there is just something about guns and the great-out-doors that tends to give me pause
.

Are you one of those that could care less that we must be defenseless just because we are walking around in a park? If you are, just come out and say that my life has value everywhere but in a park, and quit beating around the bush.

Please, elaborate, because I am having a very hard time understanding your thought process.
 
#10 ·
If an animal presents a legitimate threat to a human life and every possible alternative is exhausted, then shoot the damned thing! I guarantee you I would shoot a bear if I saw no other way to get my kids safely away from it. I don't care how endangered it is. I would make every possible effort to avoid this, but sometimes there's no way out.

I say let's drop the stupid and unnecessary gun restriction, but let them put the strictest animal-endangerment laws they want into action. That should work out just fine.
 
#11 ·
Carry if you wish, but I am one of those who really does have a problem with carrying in a place where the natural instinct is to go into 'hunt mode'
I have a problem with being unarmed in the face of any animal that would take a firearm to drop, should it attack me. We're biped. We're not immortal. Wishing for no suitable firearm when a mad bear prefers you elsewhere ... now, if that doesn't change the tune, I don't know what else will. BTDT, with only my conscience and wringing hands. That was the last time. Never again will I go into the back country unarmed like that. It can be, literally, taking your life into your hands and serving it up with chips.

I say let's drop the stupid and unnecessary gun restriction, but let them put the strictest animal-endangerment laws they want into action.
The silly thing is, the "animal" endangerment laws nicely exclude bipeds, in the mistaken belief we're all-powerful. Nothing could be further from the truth, in the back country, being the soft, weak edible morsels that we are.

Agreed, on all points. The laws crucifying people for having the gall to take control of their own self-defense and security is just as ludicrous in the woods as anywhere else.
 
#12 ·
One of the ANPR and NPS's main stands is that National Parks are safe. Anyone even hinting otherwise is presented with the "300 million" calculation. It goes like this:

"Our National Parks had over 300 million visitors last year. When you look at violent crime in the parks, the percentage of people who are victims to such crime is much lower than any city anywhere!"

This is deeply flawed, and here's why:

1. The statistic cannot be compared to a city. Since "visitors to national parks" include people who have visited for 1 minute, or 1 week. Whereas statistics for towns include people who live there 365 days per year. Many people even commute THROUGH National Parks and are counted in this overall "300 million" number. If I take any small town an on interstate highway I can easily exceed the claim of "300 million visitors and virtually no crime!" It's an absurd number with no real-world meaning.

2. The statistic fails to account for population density. If you were to compare the crime in parks to crime in a region with similar population density, the national parks come out on the losing end of the deal.

3. At least some of the crime is organized crime. By the very admission of the NPS and some of the people who are attempting to block gun ownership. Drug Cartels and illegal alien smugglers are setting up shop in the largest "Gun Free Zones" in the US. It's working out well for them, at least one National Park in California has no rangers at all, and no agreements with state law enforcement to pick up the slack.

4. The "safety myth" fails to take into account response time in an emergency. In my neighborhood, I have a much higher density of population, but it remains safer -- in part because there is a reasonable law-enforcement to citizen ratio. In a national park, it's 100,000 people for every ranger, and that ranger may have hundreds of square miles to cover. You think calling 911 at home takes a long time?

The NPS and the ANPR depend on this image of safety to keep the people coming. While they are telling us it's safe for visitors, they are at the same time lobbying congress for more money for rangers and busily pointing out that Park Ranger is the most dangerous federal law enforcement job. A ranger is 12 times more likely to be injured or killed by crime than an FBI agent. How can the National Parks be *so safe* for you and me and yet, so dangerous for Rangers?

The answer is simple: False Advertising.
 
#13 ·
1. The statistic cannot be compared to a city. Since "visitors to national parks" include people who have visited for 1 minute, or 1 week. Whereas statistics for towns include people who live there 365 days per year.
The number of vehicles on a highway doesn't accurately indicate the true likelihood of a crash. Vehicle-miles, though, does give a more accurate picture of the probability of having a crash on a given mile. Filter by highway, city road, back road, etc, and then you have a clearer picture of the risk.

Likewise, visitor-minutes would closer to the reality. For any given minute, what would the risk be? A person staying a minute would have nearly no risk, whereas a person staying a season in the woods would have (1sec x60sec x60min x24hour x90days =) ~7.8 million times the exposure of that first (1min) person, and that in wilder surroundings. Filter for lodge, parking lot, highway, forest road, logging trail, foot trail and wild lands, and you'd get a far more accurate picture of the relative risk. In such a model, many are, indeed, at far greater risk than advertised.

As a rough estimate, based on a dozen backcountry trips to the areas around Yosemite, Lassen and the northern Calif. Coast Range, I'd estimate an afternoon's walk to have one-thousandth of the risk relative to a week off the trails. Been chased by bears, had them tear into my tent, had a cougar eyeing the party, had a badger get ornery. All of this holds risk that someone who "flies" an office chair can't fathom.

As suggested, be mindful of the source. The NPS has one goal: to keep visitors coming back. Can't be doing that if Smokey Bear's got a hankerin' for buttock, tonight.
 
#14 ·
I have hiked in the desert southwest a number of times, and have been warned by everyone EXCEPT the park service about criminals in the back country. The Superstition mountains are said to be particularly bad. This letter also strikes me as being eerily similar to the police opposition in pre-CCW states and the anti's "blood will run in the streets".
 
#15 ·
The most recent news has 51 senators supporting the request for a change in policy-even Russ Feingold of Wisconsin! Some common sense may prevail after all.

I wish the paper pushers and policy wonks in government would figure out that "gun free" zones are, by nature, invitations to increased threat of violence.
 
#17 ·
I own forty acres of critter-infested woods, and have 3 handguns and a deer rifle. In all the years I've owned that property, I have never shot an animal on it. I regularly scare up deer and rabbits and squirrels ON MY WAY to shoot at the range I have on my property. Never have I been tempted to kill an animal just because I can.

That gun-owners will be going into "hunt-mode" just because they are around animals and have a gun is just about the dumbest rationality against legitimate self defense I have ever seen.

Are you sure you're not a politician from Illinois?
 
#19 ·
Hunting and carrying for self defense are 2 different things. Our National Parks have a high rate of crime with very little Law Enforcement available. I know I don't have a Officer with me when I'm in a Park, so I'm responsible for myself.
 
#20 ·
I don't care what their statistics say, or how they compare to our statistics. I don't care how safe or un-safe the parks are. I don't care if they are undermanned, or if there are going to be park rangers every 50 feet. All I care about is my safety and my rights, both of which are being threatened.

I respect nature. I like camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and just sitting and admiring the view. But I respect my rights a great deal more.

No matter what the statistics or studies or experts or arm-chair quarterbacks say, it's all moot. My rights, and by that I mean American citizen's rights, trump all.
 
#21 ·
In addition to the threat of lawless persons, some of these places include admittedly rare but present threats from "lawless" fauna as well. Those who remind us about the importance of clean camping and bear wise behavior are right to do so, but there is no guantee that behavior as a model camper/hiker/visitor will keep one safe. Two issues come to mind: 1. There are a few "crazy animals" (just like there are a few crazy people) who's behavior defies expected norms. Do a search on human/bear encounters (usually black bears) over the last decade and one begins to discover that not all bears, black, brown or purple, have read the Disney script. 2. More importantly, the most bear-wise camper is often at risk because OTHER campers have taught animals bad behavior. Ten years ago, late in September @ about 5:00 p.m., my buddy and I were just setting up camp in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. A butterball fat and very large boar walked into camp as if he owned it, sat on his butt about 40 feet away, looked at our food pack (which had not yet been hidden) and began to drewl (sp?). We weren't alarmed because his behavior wasn't agressive, but after taking our pictures, we discovered that "Yogi" had no intention of leaving...even after I fired a load of birdshot (grouse season) over his head. Ultimately one of us stood "guard" while the other packed up camp and we ceded the space to our very fat, camp wise friend. Our visit ended well with a wonderful memory, but I have to tell you, that 12ga. improved the pucker factor considerably.

Am I a sissy for preferring to be armed against extremely rare but real danger? Probably. But I'll be a more comfortable sissy (grin). (By the way, when I got back home, I made a trip to the local gun store and bought my first handgun-a stainless Ruger Super Blackhawk. That tool has made all subsequent trips with me into wilderness areas where it was legal to carry it).
 
#25 ·
Ditto on many posts her. I lived in Jackson Hole, WY for 20 years and when I went into the parks (Grand Teton or Yellowstone), I carried three things, gun, knife and bear spray. The kids carried something to make noise with so when walking around blind corners you could alert animals to your presence rather than surprising them. I also hunt, but as many have already said, I didn't become some crazy wild-eyed nut job bent on killing any animal I came across. Just out to enjoy God's creation and spend some time with the family.

Given the precautions we took, we rarely saw bears and only a mountain lion from a distance. But animals were not the only dangers in the wild. Many transients roll through parks. Camp grounds and parking lots are easy targets for thieves. Robberies were common, but there were worse incidents including murder rape.

Also, in many park areas, there is little or no cell phone coverage. Depending on where you are, you may see lots of people or you may hike/camp for a couple of days and see no one. Not a good place to be if the SHTF from the furry or bipedal sort. Park rangers are spread too thin given the large areas so you are really on your own.

Given all this, I felt protection of my family was of first and foremost importance. I'm sure they (insert hippies and tree-huggers) would have strung me up had I ever damaged one of mommy natures blessed creatures (with a gun) but I was willing to take the risk for myself and family.
 
#26 ·
I hope the new law is passed and we're able to carry in our nations National Parks. In our subdivision, everyone has 3 acres or more that has our homes situated on them. Deer and other animals are always eating in our yards and crossing the streets. Not once have I had the urge to shoot any of them - IMHO that is a flawed argument for not having CCW in the parks.
 
#27 ·
Apparently GBS you are not a hunter, because your opinions sound kinda, well.......sheepish. I've bow hunted for 8 or 9 years. I buy a license every year and not once have I been tempted to shoot an animal without a license. The laws are there to be abided by. That stands in the city, the country, the woods or a National Park. I should be able to carry my ccw while bow hunting, but can't, and if I did, It wouldn't cross my mind to use it on an animal "just because it's there". Your post sounds no different than saying ccw should'nt be allowed on college campus .Law abiding citizens obey the law.
Where is there an easier place to get away with rape or murder than out in the vast wilderness? I would use my gun to protect myself against a bear attack, but only as the last resort just like anywhere else.
 
#28 ·
Lets be sure that we understand that Poaching and Hunting are two completely seperate things. And so is self defense a completely other issue. Poachers intent is to kill animals regardless of laws and where they might be. In most cases there is no hunting season in a National Park anyway. And poachers know this and no law seems to keep them out nor deter them from going about the business of poaching for whatever reason they do it for. They often are trying to gather items for unusual black markets. Such as Bear gall bladders and Bones for the oriental market. They don't now nor will they obey the no guns rules. Poaching is NOT hunting. It will not be curbed in any fashion at all by restricting guns from the law abiding. At its very root it is forbidden and yet it occurs anyway.

As to self defense, there recently has been a rash of articles pointing out that crime has increased dramatically in our nations National Parks. And often it is cited that the number of Park Rangers is down compared to 10 or more years ago. And that being a Park Ranger is one of the most dangerous jobs in the Federal government now. So now we have Park Rangers, who know they are not sufficiently staffed to provide safety to themselves LET ALONE to visitors wanting to deny that right to the visitors? Makes little sense at all. If they could protect themselves then maybe I would listen. But they cannot! They cannot even protect themselves in the parks they oversee. They admit it too. There is about one Park ranger for about every 100,000 visitors and about 112,000 acres of land. Not even a small city police department is so poorly staffed. And even those cannot protect every resident 100% of the time. Violent people can easily take up in a camp ground. Its not like you can lock your doors either. And not like you will have dependable cell phone service nor fast emergency response. Let alone even adequate chance of response...

Recently we have had a predatory killer in our area that took advantage of this fact. He sought his victims out along hiking trails knowing full and well they were alone or disarmed and relaxed to the threat of any dangers. He knows that it is not likely they will be armed. Luckily he messed up and left a few clues and they apprehended him long after he had killed at least three and suspected of several more. There have been other famous cases, solved and unsolved, of "trail killers". They all read the papers. You are likely to see more of them and you are not safe in the woods from them no matter how peaceful the surroundings.

It is just a fact that violence occurs way off in the woods. And your being told that you can either take the risk or stay home. Leaving the woods to the criminals and the few Park Rangers that remain to fight it out.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Ditto on that ******* that jacked the elderly couple in pigsah and then the young lady in Georgia (and probably another female in FL too). I'd like to have a few minutes alone in the woods with him and his baton.

I really don't understand why this is even an issue up for debate. The number of folks who've been attacked (and most of them killed) by violent felons in the parks is staggering. I have talked to some non-gun folks about this issue. One of the significant misunderstandings is this: a lot of antis don't realize that we're talking about concealed carry. They're under the impression that every jo blow is going to be trekking down the path with a 44 on their belt (or, in a tacti-cool holster). This is entirely not the intent of the letter!

My SIL is from CA - her arguments against CC in general seethe with ignorance. When she talks it sounds as if she learned about gun control on Oprah.

If you do your homework, you'll quickly see that there have been many crimes in parks against unarmed visitors that warrant this amendment in a dire way. Now that I have two little ones hiking and fishing with me - you can be assured that I will always be armed when in the woods.
 
#30 ·
seriously theres more endangered wildlife living on the ranges where i train than there is in any given national park. these critters survive even with tank round fire overhead, arttilery being called in and countless rounds of small arms fire as a routine occurance. i doubt a few dozen chl's is going to seriously impact the wildlife. and yes i do spend time outside.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top