Do we need guns at Paradise?
Some Northwest lawmakers have pushed the Bush administration to allow visitors to carry loaded guns in our national parks. It gives backpacking a whole new meaning.
How do you feel about allowing loaded guns in our national parks? Do you feel the need to pack heat while wandering the wildflower meadows of Paradise on Mount Rainier? Are you determined to protect yourself against overly aggressive squirrels at Hurricane Ridge? As you may have heard, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne has agreed to modify existing rules that prohibit people from carrying loaded weapons in the national parks. The new rules will be ready for public comment by the end of April [289K PDF].
The push comes from the U.S. Senate. Fifty senators added their signatures to a letter by Sen. Michael Crapo of Idaho to Kempthorne (the former governor of Idaho), pressing him to address the issue. Basically, the proposal seeks to ensure that national park rules match the gun laws of the state in which the park is located. So if Montana allows you to carry a loaded weapon, so should the rangers at Glacier National Park. Currently, you can bring guns into parks, but they have to be unloaded and stowed away. You can't hike the trails or gaze into the Grand Canyon with a firearm on your hip. No using Mount Rushmore for target practice.
A similar proposal in the Senate has stalled a bill that contains, among other things, designation of the Wild Sky Wilderness Area in Washington. Democrats have claimed it is a political ploy, backed by the National Rifle Association, to force Democrats to take a tough gun vote during an election year.
The NRA is happy about Kempthorne's decision to make the rules change. Proponents argue that it is an issue of basic rights and liberties: You have the right to protect yourself wherever you are, consistent with state law. That's what the editorial board of the Idaho Statesman says.
But not all westerners from gun-friendly states draw the same conclusion. Both of Montana's senators back Kempthorne's move, but two anti-guns-in-parks editorials worth reading appeared in Montana papers. One, from the Kalispell Daily Inter Lake, argues that in nearby Glacier National Park there is no crime problem and that guns are a poor defense against the main predator, grizzly bears. Pepper spray is both non-lethal and more effective, since you don't have to hit a bulls-eye to deter a charging griz.
I'm reminded of what a friend in Alaska once told me about guns and grizzlies. I asked him if he carried a .357 magnum with him in the back country, and he said well, if you take one of those as grizzly protection, you better be sure and file off the gunsight. Why? Because that way, he said, it won't hurt so much when the bear shoves it up your ass.
The government has worked for many years to both bring back Glacier's threatened grizzly population but also to establish peaceful co-existence between the park's bears and people by keeping them wary of – and away from – each other. That seems to have worked pretty well. For those who don't want peace with bears, there's always hunting season.
Another op-ed, in the Billings Gazette, by veteran chief park ranger and superintendent Pete Hart, emphasized that the national parks are unique. "They are special places of inspiration and education with a sense of tranquility, history, and beauty," he writes. Current rules, Hart says, don't infringe on gun ownership and allow the parks to be managed as special, protected places with rules that apply to all of them, from urban parks like Independence Hall to Yellowstone. He quotes a longtime National Park Service employee named Bill Brown, who wrote in a 1971 book called Islands of Hope that he sees the national parks "as sanctuaries of nature, as landmarks of history and culture, and as places of contemplation, discovery and adventure."
There seems to be a division between those who see our national parks as special places outside the norm and those who think you should be able to do in a park whatever you do at home. But the parks, by definition, are special and require care and stewardship. They cannot survive without protection, regulation, and sensitive regard. Much of this is already eroding as groups lobby for greater commercialization of the parks and as funds for care and upkeep fail to keep pace with need.
There are a number of areas where I stray from liberal orthodoxy, and one of them is on guns. I am a strong supporter of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms for protection, sport, or any other legal purpose. That said, I think guns can be regulated to a degree. It seems to me that allowing people to carry around loaded guns in our national parks creates more problems than it solves. There is no major crime or outlaw problem, and to the extent that wildlife pose a risk to visitors, well, no wilderness park should promise a risk-free visit.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Mar 5, 8:34 a.m. inappropriate
Who's going to protect us from the armed park visitors?: Those who know and love Goldmyer Hot Springs (near Snoqualmie Pass in the Cascades) know what it's like to dodge bullets--irresponsible people with ammo like to hang out on the forest roads, drink and shoot. Last time I went there, which was some years ago, a group of young men was shooting right next to and parallel to the road my family and I were driving in on. Staff at the hot springs said they had problems, too, with people shooting toward them from across the river--all in good fun.
The NRA talks about responsible gun ownership, but a big part of its constituency is people who want to act like bullies and yahoos and do whatever the hell they want in the wilderness--the whole "tear it up, we dominate" mentality. As a woman, I don't want to have to meet them on a hiking trail in a national park. I think it's a crazy idea to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks. It's not as though the parks are well-enough funded these days to have enough rangers to do law enforcement--they're stretched thin enough as it is.
Posted Wed, Mar 5, 9:18 a.m. inappropriate
The outlaws don't obey gun laws: Despite being a liberal, I've given up the fight against gun control because the reality is that gun laws and anti-gun idealism only put peaceful, law abiding people at a disadvantage. As a family man, I don't feel I have the luxury of sticking my head in the sand and taking the principled stance I once did.
It's been a while since I've been out in the woods camping, but if I ever do it again, especially with my wife and kids, I'd pack a gun. When you are in the backcountry there's no one to protect you but yourself. I like my chances against a bear or cougar much better with a gun than without. The risk of being attacked by some creep in the woods may be small, but why would I take any risk at all given what's at stake?
Whatever your position on this law, the debate is entirely academic. There are plenty of good, responsible (and liberal) people who pack a gun when they hit the backcountry, whatever the law. As the above post proves, there are plenty of wankers packing guns as well (sad, because Goldmeyer Hotsprings is one of the most beautiful places on earth.
Posted Wed, Mar 5, 9:42 a.m. inappropriate
Paradise through rose colored glasses?: National parks belong to the people.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Except in a sanctuary?
Is that like a church where no one would harm others?
www.thevoicemagazine.com/blog/breaking-news/
church-woman-slays-mass-murderer/
Church Woman Slays Mass Murderer
A woman carrying a concealed weapon shot and killed the gunman believed to be responsible for the recent shootings at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, and at Youth With A Mission in suburban Denver.
According to Colorado Springs Police Sgt. Jeff Johnson, mass murderer Murray had over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. You don't have to be a math major to realize that with 7,000 worshipers in church that day, had it not been for Jean Assam, many hundreds of people could have been slaughtered like sitting (unarmed) ducks...
Well in National Parks you only need... "protect yourself against overly aggressive squirrels"
Really?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0802/p02s01-ussc.html
URBAN CRIME HITS NATIONAL FORESTS
Rangers are clashing more with drug smugglers, armed robbers, and alienated city dwellers...
...Jack Gregory, a special agent who heads the Law Enforcement and Investigations Branch of the US Forest Service's southern region, which includes 13 states and Puerto Rico. "We've even had stickups in our campgrounds - these guys are doing armed robbery right there in the woods."
That's not Washington, no problems here you say?
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/
2003305418_safetrails15m.html
Crime slowly creeps into parks, forests
Olympic National Park Ranger Jessie Jordan patrols the campgrounds at Kalaloch along the Pacific Ocean. A bulletproof vest and firearms are part of her gear. ("overly aggressive squirrels"?)
...on federally protected lands, officers and rangers in Washington say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry.
That fact was underscored by the July 11 slayings of a Seattle mother and daughter on a trail in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, killings that remain unsolved. ...
..."If you see it happening in the city, it happens in the forest," said Capt. John Klaasen of the U.S. Forest Service...
If you are truly " strong supporter of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms for protection " Perhaps you'd like to review your view of Paradise
Posted Wed, Mar 5, 10:39 a.m. inappropriate
Kevlar field vests for biologists?: I sometimes work in national parks doing biological field work, This may involve me "sneaking" around, as in walking around stealthily and quietly.
I suppose that if this lunatic proposal goes through, I'll have to add a clause to my contract requiring the Park Service to supply me with full kevlar body armor.
One unfortunate effect of people packing guns (besides shooting other people) is it makes them ridiculously over confident. So instead of making themselves look big and throwing rocks at a Cougar they'll think they're Daniel Boone. Or instead of taking reasonable bear precautions with their food they'll have dinner in the tent. "Don't worry honey. I've got my little ol' pistola right here. My balls are bigger than any 350 pound bear's." The result will be crunchy NRA yahoo. No loss there. Unfortunately, we can expect lots of "accidents" that will result in deceased people who were not packing.
Remember - guns don't kill people. People who have guns kill people.
Posted Wed, Mar 5, 8:16 p.m. inappropriate
Personal Safety is a Personal Responsibility: I live in an area between at least five Federal Parks. They are popular recreation areas for picnicking, hiking, and canoeing. They are also popular with the marijuana growers and meth cookers. As another person commented here, the Park Service Rangers are too few and spread too widely to provide any meaningful law enforcement. Thus, the only reasonable protection to be expected is that which one provides for oneself.
I have no argument with any law-abiding citizen who wishes to protect him or herself from the two-legged predators who prey upon innocent park patrons. But I and my family have spent the time and money to be trained and undergo background checks in order to be licensed by our state to carry weapons for defense. It is only right that those who have done as we have done have that right on the Federal as well as State woodlands within our state's borders. If you or someone you know wish to practice the art of prayerful whimpering as self defense, then so be it. Just do not force the rest of us to also die helpless when faced with the occasional criminal.
Posted Thu, Mar 6, 4:49 a.m. inappropriate
'yahoo' logic: The comments of biologist S.E. regarding NRA members remind me of nothing so much as a good ol' bigot talking about some despised minority group. He has worked up such a caricature in his mind about gun owners (yahoos, as he calls them) that he can no longer think rationally about them. Maybe his state agency needs to put him through some sensitivity training.
Obviously the best strategy is avoidance of human-bear affrays, and obviously a .357 handgun is inadequate. But that is why the Lord in his wisdom has provided .45/70 carbines.
As for pepper spray the way I heard it was that to ward off bears, carry pepper spray, wear little bells, and look carefully for bear dung while hiking. The bear dung is easily identified by the traces of pepper spray & little bells therein.
Posted Thu, Mar 6, 8:38 a.m. inappropriate
RE: 'yahoo' logic: I was the one who used the word "yahoos," not S.E. But I rather carefully said people were "acting like yahoos"--I think "yahoo" is an accurate term for a kind of reckless, selfish behavior, but not for people. But I regret having used a term which could easily be taken as a slur against people--what I meant to criticize was the dangerous behavior of some people who go into national forests, get drunk, and fire weapons irresponsibly.
I don't think all gun owners act this way, in case that's still not clear. What I'm saying, and I think S.E. was expressing a similar concern, is that I'm worried about the danger to everyone if more people are armed in national parks. Bringing a loaded weapon into wilderness to protect yourself from a bear strikes me as very poor judgement. Bear attacks are so rare that I think they fall under the "acceptable risks" category. And if the risk isn't acceptable, then don't go into the backcountry--there are plenty of pretty, more civilized places where you can go and never see a bear.
Bear bells, pepper spray, and a little education about bears--used with common sense--can go a long way to reduce the danger for hikers. But they won't make you omnipotent. Neither will a gun! But I think some people imagine that guns make them omnipotent, and that's what worries me, because that belief makes people more dangerous, more brittle under pressure, more apt to shoot at biologists rustling in the underbrush. Someone who's too scared to hike weaponless is, in my opinion, too scared to be trusted with a gun.
If people had to go through rigorous training before they were allowed to carry a gun into a national park, I'd hate the idea a tad less.
Posted Thu, Mar 6, 9:50 a.m. inappropriate
Dysfunctional Leftist Philosophy: There seem to be two unshakable tenets of the left operating in full force whenever the issue of the "Inconvenient Amendment" comes up:
1) Individuals are inherently irrational.
2) The government is inherently competent.
You would think that seven years of George Bush would disabuse them of those fallacies, but dogma dies with great difficulty. There are "yahoos" out there of all persuasions. On the one side are people who shoot off guns with no idea of where the rounds will ultimately land, on the other side are people who would throw away their rights for the comfort of knowing that Big, Competent Brother is protecting them from everything that threatens them, real or imagined. Society would benefit from the elimination of all yahoos.
Posted Thu, Mar 6, 4:54 p.m. inappropriate
yahoo, continued.: Well stated, Breneman.
Yarrow: the biologist also used the term 'yahoo.' He quoted an imaginary figure as saying "'My balls are bigger than any 350 pound bear's," and concluded, "The result will be crunchy NRA yahoo." Great minds, right?
What is the evidence for all these overconfident gun owners ? Any evidence, or s it something you just saw a hint of, and transformed in your mind into general rule because it was conducive to making fun of them?
In my experience, people w/ guns tend to be far more cautious than normal. That's why they have a gun--because they are concerned something bad might happen and they might need it.
Sure there are irresponsible fools that drink and shoot, just as they drink and drive. They need to be brought to the attention of LE. If LE does nothing, complain to LE. Do not complain to, or blame, gun owners as a whole.
Posted Thu, Mar 6, 9:54 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Dysfunctional Leftist Philosophy: Whoever these dysfunctional leftist philosophers are, I see no sign of them on this thread. They seem more like straw men to me.
Many individuals are irrational. They're the one's making headlines everyday by shooting other people. This isn't a tenet, it's just a fact.
As for our government, should it ever devolve into a fascist dictatorship, the fact that every right wing zealot in the country has a stash of weapons in his basement doesn't come as much comfort to those of us on the left, given that those weapons would more likely be used to kill disloyal liberal "traitors" rather than to defend anyone's freedom.
Posted Fri, Mar 7, 11:12 a.m. inappropriate
RE: 'yahoo' logic: I wasn't talking about gun owners in general. I was talking specifically about NRA members - a minority of gun owners.
If you are caught in a National Park with a .45/70 you will be in deep doo doo.
You don't have to catch a bear precisely with pepper spray to ward it off, unlike any firearm short of an elephant gun.
Finally thank you for confirming what I wrote about overconfidence from carrying guns.
Posted Fri, Mar 7, 11:21 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Dysfunctional Leftist Philosophy: Oh, I see a sign of them. They're hiding in the basements with the non-strawman right wing zealots. :-)
Posted Fri, Mar 7, 8:09 p.m. inappropriate
good yahoo, bad yahoo: Now it's getting better. We've got the good gun owners and the minority of bad ones, the NRA ones. It's just like the good ol' boys around the stove told me as a kid--there's good "coloreds" and bad "n's," but the bad ones are runnin' things.
As for my "confirming what you wrote??" My man, you know nothing about me. I go nowhere near grizzly bear country. That's how 'overconfident' I am. I am more of a downtown Bellevue person. But thanks for confirming what I wrote about you having worked up a caricature in your mind.
Posted Sat, Mar 8, 8:13 a.m. inappropriate
circular logic: And as for your retort that anyone caught w/ a .45/70 would be in deep doo-doo: the question asked by the post was 'do we need guns at Paradise?' Mr. Berger noted that a commonly carried gun like a .357 was ineffective against grizzly bears. My response was to point out, ok, then carry a more effective gun like a .45/70. Your retort was that they are illegal in the parks. So you're saying that it should not be allowed because it is not allowed.
Again, I hope the reports that you file with your agency have better reasoning than that.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 2:41 p.m. inappropriate
Just curious... the original laws were drafted by Reagan Era, GOP bureaucrats.: in the mid 80's... have we de-volved so much in the last 7 years under Bushco that the rules need to be remade to allow guns? If it was good enough for Reagan Appointees, it should meet the mark of most of us. The NRA continues to take an extreme approach on most of these arguments, sometimes to the detriment of its goals.
All things with due moderation... But before I would loosen these Reagan era regs, I would make sure the Rangers and their employees have the budget THEY need to have the tools, armor, and weapons to deal with the occasional mis-use, now made easier once again by the ever intransigent NRA.