Does the National Park Service have an obligation -- before the public comment period closes -- to better inform the general public about proposed changes to the existing gun regulations? While those who closely follow national park issues and gun issues more than likely are aware of the proposal to allow park visitors to arm themselves, does the general park-going public?
[url=/2008/04/interior-officials-propose-allowing-concealed-carry-national-parks]
Those changes[/url], of course, might allow holders of concealed weapons permits to carry their loaded weapons with them while admiring Old Faithful, hiking into the Grand Canyon, or strolling across the Colter Bay campground in search of a cold beer.
That question about alerting the public to the possibility that the park visitor standing next to them might soon be armed was raised this week by the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police. In a letter to Park Service Director Mary Bomar the groups asked her what "specific steps have you taken or will you take to ensure that National Park System visitors and National Park Service employees will be informed of this proposed change to a regulation that has been in place in some form for 88 years?"
"Will you provide them with the opportunity to know that they have the ability to officially comment on this proposed change?" the letter adds.
Disconcertingly, according to the groups, top Interior Department officials specifically prohibited Park Service employees from commenting on the proposed change in their official capacities. Wouldn't you hope that if such a drastic change were being made to your workplace environment that you'd be able to voice your opinions on it?
"Their professional expertise in managing parks should not be ignored in making this decision, nor should it be hidden from the public as they weigh their individual decision on whether to oppose or support the proposed change," reads the letter.
At the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters, Communications Chief David Barna says the agency went about publicizing the proposed change the same way it publicizes other proposals up for public comment.
The Interior Department "did put out a press release announcing the public comment period and articles have run in over 200 newspapers. That's the process we use for all public comment issues," said Mr. Barna.
Some no doubt would argue that a proposed change of such magnitude and with such potential wide-ranging impacts would merit more publicity during the ongoing 60-day comment period and would gain more visibility if notices explaining the proposal were inserted into park newspapers given to visitors as they enter parks and were placed on park websites.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Thank you, Lone Hiker for injecting some sense into the debate. I'm sick of hearing the crap that people put out about how the big, bad, liberal government (or is it the gub-ment?) is out to ruin America by placing reasonable restrictions on guns.
Is there any word yet what the Department of the Interior (DOI) decided was proper procedure for this proposed rule change? The official notice for the proposed rule indicated that DOI wasn't sure what its legal obligations were in regard to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Depending on what DOI determines is the proper NEPA process--and whether that determination holds up under public scrutiny--there could be additional public notification and public comment.
My opinion has been, and remains, that the Park Service should hand out a questionnaire at the entrance station of each and every National Park. Ask the people who actually go to our National Parks. This should not be decided by politicians, the NRA or internet blogs. It should be decided by those families, individuals and foreign visitors who actually visit the Parks, with strong input from Park Service employees, especially law enforcement rangers, who are going to have to (and will be expected to) deal with this.
How many of the Senators and other politicians suggesting this change actually spend any time in our parks, for anything other than a photo op?
Kelly,
I've been getting conflicting signals. The most optimistic is that there might be an EA.
Kurt -
What is an "EA"? Is this some means of informing folks about this proposed rule change?
Due to the ever increasing threat to citzens in our parks systems as well as in everyday life.i strongly support carriying of legal and trained pepole in our parks system.including our park Rangers.We have to many wack out maniacs that want to commit violent hanus crimes agaist the innocent and agaist wild life without a permit.I see no reason as long there are responsible adults that have the experience and the trainning shouldn't be able to carry them(firearms).
Fred,
"EA" stands for Environmental Assessment. This is a measure of review -- short of a full-blown, much more encompassing and costly, environmental impact statement (EIS) -- that examines how a management action will impact a park's environment.
In the Yellowstone snowmobile situation, they conducted three EISes and one EA (at a cumulative cost of about $10 million) over the course of about eight years. All reached the same conclusion -- that snow coaches presented a more benign impact on the park's resources than did snowmobiles. But politics won out in the end. Kind of, that is, as the lawyers for both sides have this football back in the courts.
In this case, apparently the ongoing debate is whether there's even a need for an EA. If there is one, it will push the outcome of this matter more than a few months down the road.
Dear Anon, there is no "ever increasing threat to citzens in our parks systems as well as in everyday life". The crime rates are dropping, the violent crime in the parks is virtually nil. There may be valid reasons to carry a gun in a National Park (even though I doubt them), but there is no threat of violence to visitors that would make self defense a necessity. If you argue for a revision of the existing rules, please stick to the facts and don't use straw man arguments.