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
Gentle souls... you have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens who are willing, unlike yourselves, to assume the responsibility for legally carrying a firearm. In fact you should find comfort in the thought that help may be near by rather than far away at the ranger station should trouble befall you. Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away. In the national parks that may be hours.
I just finished watching an old "West Wing" episode where the President and an advisor had recently been shot. A conservative pundit is arguing about how the ability of "law-abiding" citizens to carry guns makes us all safer. One of the President's men points out that three people (including the President of the United States) had recently been shot despite being surrounded by the most heavily armed, best trained security team in the world; and that they had been shot with a weapon legally purchased. Fiction, yes. But seven US Presidents have been shot in real life, four have died. Guns do not stop crime.
Someone above wrote, "When I went to Yellowstone, I had a .44 Mag. revolver in my back back when I hiked and camped in the wilderness areas." Another states that he keeps one in his RV. I have read many such statements on these pages over the past several months that this issue has been debated. How can these individuals argue for the rights of "law abiding citizens" when they themselves are not?
Most people who have actually spent a considerable amount of time in National Parks (as I have, back country and front) will tell you that there is no need for guns there. My daughter spends quite a bit of time hiking (alone and with her girlfriends) in Yellowstone, as well as in the Gallatin National Forest. She has never felt the need to arm herself. However, I do understand that there are grown men out there who are afraid to do so. So be it. Let the buckaroos have their toys. As Kurt implies, there are a lot of issues facing our National Parks. The fact that a handful of machos are walking around our parks with their chests (or something) all swelled up in second amendment pride, thinking that they are protecting the rest of us, is of little consequence in the big scheme of things (a shame, but of little consequence). My daughter, myself and millions of others will go about our business as usual. As has been pointed out, some law-abiding (read that law-breaking) citizens have always carried in National Parks. Carrying and discharging are two different things, after all. I believe that the millions of (truly) law abiding citizens who visit our parks safely every year should be able to expect that, in the event of an illegal discharge, the full weight of the federal government would come down hard....and I mean hard....on the perpatrator. As long as that happens, let the children play cowboys and indians while the adults get back to exploring our beautiful National Parks.
Kurt, get rid of the bear spray. Most manufacturors recommend replacing it about every three or four years (the date on mine is an expiration date).
Well said, Frank N!
Kurt –
Here's some information on the shelf-life for bear pepper spray from a paper ("Bear Pepper Spray: Research and Information") by Dr. Tom Smith, who at the time was at the USGS Alaska Science Center. I'd rate him as one of the top bear researchers in the country:
I'd say use your '91 vintage can for practice, or as a demo for someone who needs a chance to become familiar with how the spray works :-)
The best news is you've had it this long and didn't need it!
Frank C: The goal of law enforcement officials is to "get the drop" on criminals, just as the goal of criminals is to "get the drop" on their victims. I submit that guns are very effective on offense, somewhat less so on defense.
Ya NAILED it, Frank C!!!!
When liberals like Frank N refer to goofy TV shows like "West Wing" ya know they are in deep trouble with their argument. Garbage in, garbage out.
Uh...pssst...Frank...West Wing is produced by flaming liberals!
Pepper spray can result in unexpected problems. I have experienced the results of an accidental discharge of pepper spray and can testify to its extremely painful and disorienting effects. I flew light aircraft for the National Park Service in Alaska including moving persons to and from remote sites. I banned the carrying of pepper spray inside the plane allowing it only in compartments of the floats where leakage or a discharge would be harmless. Believe me, if a can of bear spray goes off, even in a tiny amount, while you are flying or even driving a car the chances are that you will crash. I would also caution that you carefully note the direction the wind is blowing before using the spray. It can blow back into your face.
I hiked and camped in bear country for many years and had several close encounters with bears, both brown and black. Sadly, I had to use a firearm twice in response to serious attacks. The great majority of bear approaches are bluff charges where the bear does not intend to cause injury. My concern is that people carrying pepper spray or firearms may have a false sense of security and take unnecessary chances.