Firearms allowed in National Parks

[JBo6]

How true is the NPS ranger's being armed or not. The National Park I have spent the most time in is Denali, and it seemed pretty obvious that there were the rangers and then the "police" rangers. What is the breakdown on that ratio, is it different depending on the park? Parked next to a ranger vehicle complete with AR-15 and shotgun.

[tvashtarkatena]

Whenever the gun thing pops up here, as it cyclically does, and somebody invariably cites 'grizzly danger' as a reason for packing, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with our game warden and guide in South Africa's Hluhluwe Umfolozi National Park (HUNP) while on a walking safari there back in 1995. Steve was his name, as I recall. HUNP has a rich population of dangerous animals, which includes black and white rhino, elephants, cape buffalo, lions, and leopards, hyena, hippos, crocodiles, cobras, and black mambas, to name a few. Poaching, particularly of rare white rhinos, is a constant concern, so all game wardens are required to have prior military training. If a poacher is detected in the park (basically, any unaccounted for human prints), all game wardens deploy with fully automatic weapons and are authorized to track them down and shoot on sight. It's assumed that the poachers are heavily armed and will shoot first. They do. Steve himself, had been involved in a fierce firefight with poachers not two years prior. Game guides also carry .458 rifles (elephant guns) while on safari.

 

Steve, obviously no stranger to the use of firearms, was also an ultramarathon runner who trained regularly in the park...unarmed. "If you bother to learn the habits of the wildlife here, you don't need a weapon, you just need your brain and your senses" he told us.

 

I asked him how many animals had been shot in emergency situations by game guides in the park's then 45 or so year history. "Two, both by the same warden. Both killings were deemed unnecessary; he was finally fired."

 

Like many attitudes in America, any feeling of increased security one gets from being armed in a national park is based on myth and a lack of knowledge about both the wildlife and largely non-existent crime in those areas. It's the Lazy Boy approach: buy the appliance, get that manly, 'protector' feeling.

 

Back on planet earth, however, the danger from wildlife in our national parks is a statistical joke, particularly when compared to the tooth, claw, and poison running around a park like HUNP. Despite this rather glaring fact, some of us continue to harbor significantly more selfish and paranoid cultural attitudes towards this kind of non-existent threat than do, say, most South Africans, who, by all rights, should be a lot more worried.

 

Unfortunately, this indulgence comes at the expense of the security of wildlife and other park visitors; a sacrifice many 'no exception' gun toters are perfectly willing to make for everyone and everything else. For some, its not about visiting and respecting a wildlife habitat that, after all, isn't YOUR home. Its not about sharing a national treasure with other citizens. It's about 'exercising your rights' and making yourself feel good at the expense of pretty much everyone and everything around you.

 

There will likely be a few shootings in national parks in the coming years; bears mostly, but just as likely the occasionally brush bashing night hiker or disgruntled campground neighbor, some likely fueled by booze, as such incidents often are. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out after a few inevitable and avoidable firearms related deaths occur.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

It's no secret that American policing at all levels has become extremely militarized, and NP Rangers are no exception. In the case of park rangers, this came as a response to several shooting incidents that, um, wouldn't have happened had the shooters...you know...not had firearms.

 

This new policy will only serve to increase the level of militarism and heavy handedness that some of us would argue don't quite fit in a national park setting. Thank you gun toters. So glad you feel safer out there.

Edited February 24, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Having said all this, if your partner sprains an ankle slipping on some stupid wet log 20 miles from the car, you should definitely be allowed to shoot them.

[Dirtyleaf]

And if that poor mistake is made, I'd recommend using this:

 

[Dirtyleaf]

Because some things are just worth the extra weight. Like this Colt .44 Mag

[Lucky Larry]

a while ago, approx 10 yrs(?), at skull hollow cg, a little ways from smith rock, during some busy holiday this dude jumps out of his camper, walks up to juniper tree and unloads all his rounds into it then jumps back into his camper. There were people all over the place. It really pissed me off but I wasn't about to knock on his camper door.

[JoshK]

a while ago, approx 10 yrs(?), at skull hollow cg, a little ways from smith rock, during some busy holiday this dude jumps out of his camper, walks up to juniper tree and unloads all his rounds into it then jumps back into his camper. There were people all over the place. It really pissed me off but I wasn't about to knock on his camper door.

 

C'mon, is that not a perfectly reasonable excercise of one's "rights"?

[PChaus]

Nice towel back drop!

[Drederek]

Went to paradise a few weeks ago, the ranger watching the sledding area had a gun! "No cutting in line Jimmy, or I'll pop a cap in your ass!"

[Figger_Eight]

I would suggest the folks who you should worry about having a gun have been carrying one into parks for many years now.

 

And as for rangers carrying guns, just check out the NPS morning reports to see how often they're involved in things where they probably should be armed.

 

I'm no gun nut...but, I too, think people who are paranoid about them are kind've in the same category as those who judge Mt. Hood accidents and don't climb.

[nhluhr]

Try pulling in the reigns with the paranoia. Chances are that you won't notice any change. The people who are legally allowed and permitted to carry aren't the ones you should worry about.

Precisely. Outside of a few nutjobs who haven't yet tripped the alarms, very few of the licensed carriers are going to pose a problem. The real danger will always be the unlicensed folks carrying for the wrong reasons.

[pu]

I am not scared of Guns. I don't believe they are evil or make people do evil things. People do bad stuff on their own. I don't believe my piece is going to protect me from wild animals. It will protect me from humans when the time comes. If you trust all humans then more power to ya. Label it paranoid if you like.....but the guns have been in the national parks for a long time, they just haven't been worn on the hip. Oh, and they've been at your rock gym, your sushi bar, your day care, your local crag and yet you're still alive.

[JosephH]

52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907

 

Read it, but please don't weep...

[mountainmandoug]

Personally I think there is much less need to carry a gun in a national park than in most other places, as I regard humans as pretty much the only sort of threat that it's necessarily appropriate to arm oneself against, and in my opinion not all that often....

 

I think that there are some people who carry guns out of un-reasonable paranoia, but some that don't. I have a friend who is retired law-enforcement who has survived multiple encounters with criminals only through the use of his pistol, both on and off duty. It is simply his habit to be armed at all times and his personal statistics seem to support that idea. Before this he had to go to some trouble to go into a national park, as he would have to un-load and secure his weapon while doing so. Now he just doesn't have to bother.

 

And I think in the grand scheme of things that's all that this law will amount to. Everyone on this board probably encounters dozens if not hundreds of people every day who are carrying a gun concealed, and if you ever research the statistics on concealed carry and crime you would be happy about that. In Washington all this really means is that people who already carry guns will no longer have to un-load them when entering a national park. There may be some problems with people going target shooting in some national parks and leaving litter, however litter is already illegal so hopefully such irresponsible folks will be prosecuted.

 

I think this whole thing is mostly much ado about nothing. I always thought this law existed to make it easier to arrest poachers trying to hunt illegally in national parks, and I don't know if that will turn out to be an issue or not. I think Washington, as well as most other states, already has adequate laws on the use of firearms and killing animals that any actual mis-use of firearms is already illegal, and in reality it is not that people carry a gun around is a problem, it's how they use it that's the problem.

 

 

[Stonehead]

The mistaken assumption is that the restriction was lifted to allow self defense against wild animals.

 

However, my understanding is that the restriction was eased to allow consistency between state laws and federal law. This is especially pertinent in the western states where there is a large percentage of federal land.

 

Federal Lands in the US

See map at link for percentage of federal land in each state.

[goatboy]

In response to Tvash:

 

This is a fascinating and interesting story, especially to me since i have actually been to Hluhluwe Park myself a few years ago. Thanks for the info!

Edited February 25, 2010 by goatboy

[Off_White]

In over 50 years I've never been in a situation where having a gun would make anything better or safer, so naturally I find Tvash's post very convincing and agree wholeheartedly.

 

Those rules for staying safe unarmed in Hluhluwe Park? They work pretty well out and about in the urban world too.

[timmy_t]

The embarrassing thing is that I found out about this law when I was on The Onion's website. "Finally I can protect my family from the giant sequoia."

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/guns_now_legal_in_national_parks

[gyro]

I've run across all sorts of "dangerous" wildlife while backpacking, including black and grizzly bear, cougar, and wolf. One grizzly encounter scared me, as it was me and my wife, and we walked around a bend of trees, and boom, mother bear and two cubs. We grabbed our dog and back peddled out of sight around the trees with moma bear watching us. We were 2/3rds of a mile from our goal, but ended up back tracking 9 miles to camp to be safe. A second time that scared me I was backpacking alone and off to my right looking out of some trees was a cougar. We looked at each other uncomfortably for a few seconds, and then each went the other way.

 

In either circumstance, I don't think I would be able to wield a gun in time had they decided to charge instantly. I do carry bear mace in certain areas, like yellowstone, and like the gun I don't know that I would be able to use it in time.

 

In all my encounters, the only dangerous animals I have been attacked/chased by are a moose, and a mountain goat. The mountain goat was my groups fault for staying too long enjoying views near baby goats. The moose was just bad tempered and chased my canoe for about 10 mins. Never had to actually fight any animal.

 

By and large, I've never felt that my situation would be dramatically improved by a gun.

 

One trip while on my second to last day of a 9 day backpack, I got to a good camp site by a river when I noticed a solo backpacker around college age wandering around with a state atlas and a gps, wearing a pair of shorts and crocs. We chatted for a while and he told me that he was out for three weeks with nothing but oats and rice to eat. He was asking where he was on the map, so I showed him, and knowing he needed it more than me, gave him my topo map, at which point I taught him what contour lines were. As we were talking in his camp I noticed that he had setup his tent right next to a pile of bear scat, in grizzly territory. I asked him if he knew what it was and he said no. He also didn't know it was bear country, and didn't have a cord to hang his food in, so I gave him some of my parachute cord. I can't help but think that this is the kind of hiker that ends up getting eaten. The ones that are oblivious to their surroundings and don't take proper precautions or head/learn about warnings. If he was to end up provoking a bear through ignorance, and he had a gun, I'd root for the bear. No fault to him, either, don't want to see people get hurt. But it is the bears home out there, and you need to learn their rules or pay.

 

All of that said, I'll try and stay optimistic that by and large, there will be no significant problems or fallout from allowing guns, and I certainly hope to not see an increase in signs with bullet holes in them in national parks. Honestly, a good law in my opinion would be that in your possession you can either have alcohol, or a gun, but not both. The only major incidents with guns I've witnessed were alcohol fueled.

[mountainmandoug]

Either alcohol or a gun, I like that idea. I to see the problem with that combination, it's a lot like alcohol and control of a vehicle. I think that might be the most practical gun-accident protection legislation idea I've heard.

[billcoe]

If anyone is bothered by folks having guns in this country, they have only to move here, where the populace is unarmed.

Paradise?

Beautiful mountains.

[pink]

In over 50 years I've never been in a situation where having a gun would make anything better or safer, so naturally I find Tvash's post very convincing and agree wholeheartedly.

 

Those rules for staying safe unarmed in Hluhluwe Park? They work pretty well out and about in the urban world too.

 

 

it was a heart warming story but the guy who told it was a gun toter, and a responsible one at that....

[billcoe]

Outside of Alaska, don't know what wild animal people are so afraid of that they need to carry anything. Of course, we could just let the gov't be armed instead of regular folks like all of you. Our gov't is much more trustworthy than most others, like China, where they censor the internet and would have hauled many of you off a long time ago for re-education based on the yowling ya do on this site. Today's surprising poll:

 

"CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights

Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

 

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.

Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.

 

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

 

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

 

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

 

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

 

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey."

[billcoe]

LOL, check out the first comment below the artical:

February 26th, 2010 9:50 am ET

 

The 44% that does not think the government is a threat to citizens rights, must be employed by the government or receiving entitlements from the government.