How will families with youngsters feel about attending interpretive programs in national parks when the person next to them might be armed? Will the National Park Service have to install metal detectors in parks to ensure gun owners don't enter buildings with their sidearms?
Those are just two of the questions being asked today by active and retired National Park Service rangers lamenting adoption by the Bush administration of a rule that will allow park visitors to carry concealed weapons.
While many 2nd Amendment rights backers and the National Rifle Association view the rule change as long overdue, not everyone shares their belief. The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police jointly voiced concern Friday that the rule change will not make parks safer and could in fact make them more dangerous.
“This new rule is fraught with a variety of threats and hazards to the solitude and atmosphere visitors have come to appreciate and to seek in national parks,” said Bill Wade, chair of the coalition's executive council.
The coalition has nearly 700 members, all former NPS employees, with more than 20,500 accumulated years of experience in managing national parks and NPS programs, including law enforcement and visitor services.
Mr. Wade, whose Park Service career included a stint as superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, said the rule change stands to create risks to "natural and historic resources in parks." Additionally, he said the coalition is "troubled by the likelihood that the way park visitors relate to each other will be affected."
"Until now, parks have been conducive to visitors having casual chats with each other on hikes. Not uncommonly, visitors camped next to each other share a morning cup of coffee. This open social interaction is liable to change as suspicion and apprehension about the possession of concealed firearms makes people more distrustful,” he said.
At the 1,200-member Association of National Park Rangers, President Scot McElveen, a retired chief park ranger, expressed apprehension about the ability of the Park Service to provide the best available protection to park resources under the new rule.
“Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said Mr. McElveen. “We also worry about increased vandalistic shooting at historic monuments, archeological petroglyphs and park signs and markers.”
The ANPR president also described situations in parks that will be confusing or troubling:
* How will a family with small children who are on a ranger-guided tour feel about the fact that other visitors on the tour very well could have concealed guns in their pockets or backpacks?
* How will visitors attending an evening program at an amphitheater in a park campground feel about the possibility that others attending the program could have firearms in their purses or jackets?
* Firearms will still be prohibited in most federal buildings, but will parks now have to provide places for visitors to check their firearms before entering visitor centers or ranger stations? Or will they have to install and staff metal detectors to ensure that firearms don’t get brought inside?
* Some parks lie in more than one state. Natchez Trace Parkway, for instance spans three states, each with a different gun law. What do visitors do when they pass from Tennessee to
Alabama and then to Mississippi?* Some park visitors have a predisposition to kill on sight animals that they believe to be “varmints.” Such animals include coyotes, wolves, prairie dogs, snakes, and some raptors. Even though harming such animals has been illegal and will continue to be illegal under the new rule, having a loaded, readily-accessible firearm increases the chances that these visitors will act on their misplaced beliefs and fears.
John Waterman is a law enforcement ranger at Valley Forge National Historical Park and president of the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents the majority of commissioned Park Service law enforcement rangers. He worries about employee and visitor safety and visitor confusion.
“This new regulation has replaced a clear and consistent regulation prohibiting guns in all national parks unless they are rendered inoperable and inaccessible, with one that opens a Pandora’s Box of confusing exceptions," he said. "Now, if you are in a national park in a state that allows concealed firearms and if you have a concealed-carry permit; or if the state you're from has reciprocal laws with the state you are in, then maybe you can carry a gun, but not in public buildings or if the state says you can't have one in a public park.... This is a regulatory nightmare both for the public and for rangers.
“More guns means more risk," Ranger Waterman stated. "For example, rangers sometimes have to intervene in disputes in campgrounds. With the possibilities of guns being present, the risk increases, not only to the disputants, but to the rangers who have to resolve the problem. Moreover, traffic stops now become more hazardous for rangers in parks.”
Mr. Wade of the retirees group scoffed at the Interior Department's intent in ramming this regulation through without appropriate analysis of the impacts it will have on national park resources and visitors.
“They said it would increase consistency for the public. Clearly it doesn’t. They said there won’t be any impacts to park resources or visitors. But thousands of current and former rangers and other employees – who actually work or worked in parks – say otherwise," he said. "They said this is what the American people wanted, but over 70 percent of the 140,000 who commented during the public comment period opposed the proposed rule.
"They said, ‘if you can carry a gun on Main Street you can now carry a gun in a national park.’ We don’t think Americans want their national parks to be like their main streets; they go to parks because they are special and different, and knowing they can get away from the pressures and stresses they face where they live and work.
“January 9, 2009 is not a good day for national parks or for their visitors,” Mr. Wade added. “We hope the new Interior Secretary will reconsider this ill-advised regulation and keep national parks special and safe.”
Comments
Bob,
I know it happened in El Portal, but the young naturalist that was also killed WAS in the park. She should have been allowed to defend herself. My young daughter carries wherever she goes, and she knows how to use it. She is so dang quick on the draw! Wish I had her reflexes!
The point to be made as far as the Sunds, however is that if they wanted to carry a weapon, they would have had to leave the gun in the room while they visited the park. That is not good idea for anyone to do that while they are on vacation for many reasons, the most obvious being the gun may fall into the wrong hands. That is the unintended consequences of gun control laws and how the bad guys get guns. Thus, law-abiding citizens should be able to keep their firearms with them no matter where they go, and this is the intent of the new NPS law. Myself, I believe visitor centers should not be any different, and as time passes they will probably won't be as it is also not a good idea to leave it in the car in the parking lot.
The only ones who benefit from "gun free zones" are the criminals...they don't care what the law says.
You didn't mention victim number four, Gerald, so how were we to know? Incidentally, I feel really bad about victim number four. The police screwed up. Stayner killed Victim number four AFTER the police had already interviewed him about the Sund murders, failed to make the connection, and let him go.
The Ranger can lament all they want but CCW is now allowed and they will not know as there never dis who is armed or not. In all propbability the number of CCW at NPS will be very small and have little or no impact.
The kids will not know and neither will their parents if a gun scares them so. Poaching will not increase since that is still illegal and this change has nothing to do with poaching. Most of those concens are just Gun scared hysteria.
A very good point is that guns will not be allowed in buildings and that presents a practical problem. Guns can not be left safely in camp since there is very little security and the need to prevent theft of a weapon is a very high priority.
Problably there will be a cost to secure storage for CCW holders for buildings and that may become a standard item in many states with CCW and prohibitions in several area that secure storage will be a need to provide.
Kind of like spitoons were everywhere when chewing tobacco was more common or ashtrays for smokers.
If I visit a park, say Gettysburg, and want to attend a lecture or a diorama, then a room set aside like a cloakroom but more secure for weapons to be checked for CCW holders. Serial number recorded and a receipt given and then that info given back when the owner retrieves the weapon. Like a check stub. Easily sone but it will add cost to the NPS.
I expect that courtrooms should also do this since they check at entrance and then the guns are not left in unsecure cars where they can be stolen. I believ that Ohio was required to do this when they approved CCW.
So this rule will require changes beyond changing signs and posting new signs at buildings.
Murders have happened on NPS land and the worst in recent times was the young women killed in Georgia, I believe. She stayed alive for several days but was subdued and she fought hard. She was jogging and her dog survived but a gun may have helped her, Her martial training was not enough even against an older man.
The fact is that some murderers do prey on people on NPS land since they think the solitude allows them more free reign to committ mayhem.
CCW in NPS will not impinge on visitors solitude or the children's sensibility. They wil never know any more then they know at a movie or grocery store that someone has a gun hidden.
Criminals hide their guns also so there may be guns already on people with bad intent. This just allows the good guys and possible victims to also be armed and even the playing field.
RAH -
I presume you're referring to the young woman who was murdered around New's Year Day in 2008, while hiking in Georgia. The case was widely publicized.
Unless we're talking about a different incident, that case did not occur in a national park. As pointed out above, similar highly publicized cases near Yosemite in 1999 also did not occur in the park.
I'd like to invite those who are convinced violent crime against park visitors is a significant problem to present even a modest analysis of how many of the extremely small number of cases actually: (1) originated on park property, (2) involved park visitors, and (3) could have been prevented if the victim had been armed. Feel free to use news reports, flawed as they may be. I think the results would be revealing.
My personal experience during 30 years of performing law enforcement in 8 parks, including heavily-visited areas such as Grand Canyon and Lake Mead, is that many of the small number of violent crimes reported in park originated outside the park (example: a rape that is reported in a park actually began with an abduction of the victim outside the park, and a homicide reported in a park is actually a body dumping after drug-related violence that occurred outside the park.) Whether or not park visitors are armed is a moot point in preventing such incidents.
Furthermore, many of the small number of violent crimes that do occur in the park are premeditated incidents involving family members or acquaintances (example: the man who pushed his wife over a cliff is a homicide reported in a park, but I doubt that the outcome would have changed if the woman had been armed. If your spouse who is standing behind you gives you a shove over the edge, good luck in whipping out your concealed handgun in time to change the outcome.)
Are park visitors victims in very rare cases? Yes. Whether or not that justifies this major change in parks is more a question of philosophy and politics (i.e. interpretation of 2nd amendment rights) than a public safety issue.
Do the presumed gains for gun supporters outweigh the presumed risks for those who oppose the change? If the new regulations remain in force for an extended period of time, only time will tell.
I've hiked backcountry in Yellowstone three times, many times in Washington, and even more in Alaska. I honestly do not feel the need to have a gun. However, the thought has occured to me that having one of those small .22 derringer 4 shots would be nice- it would make a loud noise and a big flash. Plenty to scare off a cougar or black bear.
The best thing is to be smart when you're in the woods. be kind of loud, and watch where you're going. And have a big can of pepper spray in a holster.
Anonymous -
You've summed up the correct approach for bear safety:
I'd like to note one comment about pepper spray for benefit of all readers of this post: it's essential that bear pepper spray be carried for defense against bears. The small canisters of "personal defense spray" purchased by many people for "urban" use are not the same product and are not effective against bears.
Canisters of bear pepper spray have a larger capacity, discharge the product over a much longer range, and have a different formulation than the product sold for use against people. Look for EPA registration for use against bears when you purchase bear pepper spray.
An informal survey of hikers in Glacier a couple of years ago found that about half who were carrying pepper spray had the "human" version, not the correct one for bears. It's an education issue.
Incidentally, although it's not licensed for use against people, if push came to shove, I'd put my money on the average citizen having more luck defending himself against a human attacker by using bear pepper spray than a handgun. In a panic situation, some (many?) untrained shooters will have a hard time hitting their target with a handgun, but it's hard to miss at 30 feet or closer with bear pepper spray.
Jim,
Regarding bear spray, perhaps you could resolve a dilemma I've been faced with, and my bet is that more than a few other carriers of bear spray also have been confronted with: What's the shelf life on a can of the spray? I've got one that dates to 1991, and I'm guessing I should probably toss it. Do you know of any guidelines pertaining to the viability of the stuff? I've never seen any notation on the cans themselves. But then, perhaps they've added something since '91;-)