Are guns and national parks a good mix? (photo of De Soto National Memorial, Florida, courtesy National Park Service)

Are guns and national parks a good mix? (photo of De Soto National Memorial, Florida, courtesy National Park Service)

Rate this article:

Printer friendly view Send to a friend

Time Will Only Prove Folly Of New Gun Law For U.S. National Parks

Packing Heat: Rangers Fearful of Tourists Getting Shot And More Animals Being Poached

Written by Todd Wilkinson (Authors Bio)

Always, the first question responsible legislators should ask when writing a law is this:  What significant problem is being solved by putting another code on the books?

This is the nut of a conundrum now before the U.S. National Park Service as it prepares to deal with a new gun law buried as a rider (amendment) in a hastily-passed credit card reform bill on Capitol Hill.

Public Law 111-24 will allow tourists, beginning in 2010 if not sooner, to openly tote the legal gun of their choice through national parks such as Yellowstone, Grand Teton and other bustling crown jewel preserves.

In contrast to how the legislation was originally proposed,it is not a provision that only empowers licensed individuals with concealed weapons permits. 

In some states, it allows any citizen, of legal age, to holster a loaded sidearm or walk with a rifle or shotgun slung over their backs through campgrounds, along hiking trails and while standing off roadways at popular overlooks.

Tourists will even be able to use their riflescopes, while still on the barrel, as optical devices for viewing wildlife.  As one seasoned professional with a state game agency told me:  “It really opens up some mind-bending dilemmas, doesn’t it?”

Park officials nationwide say they are committed to enforcing all laws handed down by Congress and the president. 

But privately, rangers are deeply concerned about how thepotential, expanded presence of firearms in crowded parks will affect human behavior in places where guns, for the most part, have not existed before, and where public and wildlife safety have not heretofore been problems in need of fixing.

Environmental groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition have all warned of dire consequences. They are not anti-gun;  they just believe the tradition of not having armed national park tourists, which has worked well for nearly a century, should be upheld.

Although the law was packaged in the flowery rhetoric of  “expanding liberty” and protecting Second Amendment rights when first drafted during the Bush Administration, it is, when one looks deeper, little more than a calculated wedge issue that only inflames our fear of each other.

Authored by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn  (R-Oklahoma) and endorsed by the National Rifle Association,it is a thinly veiled attempt to create a false “pro-gun versus anti-gun”litmus test aimed at further polarizing the country.

I too own guns, and support and defend the right to bear arms that is a boilerplate component of the U.S. Constitution.  I even firmly agree with the NRA on certain issues. But I have never, after hiking thousands of miles and visiting dozens of national parks, ever felt the need to carry a loaded firearm inside one.

Proponents say it will “protect Americans against violent crime”, the kind that exists in urban parks and remote preserves along the U.S.border with Mexico.   That may be.

But tell us, Senator Coburn, how many homicides, drug killings, and acts of gang violence have occurred in Yellowstone and Grand Teton in the last decade?

Name one in Yellowstone and Grand Teton.

Fact:  Nearly all of the violent offenses ever involving people and guns in these parks werecarried out by poachers killing animals and not as acts of self-defense.

One wonders: Has Coburn not been to Yellowstone?

Another thing he won’t find in the Yellowstone and Grand Teton statistics are deaths or serious injuries caused by accidental gun discharges during the busy summer months.

This law will actually increase the likelihood of that happening.

One can also imagine these scenarios:  A family approaches a bison.  A lone bull, say 40 yards away, raises his head and apart from roiling of tail, shows no indication of an imminent charge.

Is papa with a gun cleared of wrongdoing when he tells investigating rangers he shot and killed the bison because he was afraid the animal was about to trample a family member?

 Or what about the autumn chaos that ensues when tourists and photographers swarm around bugling elk?  In recent years, afew bulls have charged people who got too close.  Will it now be acceptable to provoke an animal and then gun it down?

Or picture rangers pulling up alongside suspicious looking individuals standing near a steamy elk or bison or wolf carcass, fitting the profile of poachers, only to claim their lives were endangered? 

Even more importantly, how will the presence of guns compromise the welcoming ambiance that three million visitors seek during their visits to Yellowstone and Grand Teton? 

How will parents feel about paranoid individuals sitting around adjacent campfires with guns, leaning them up against their RVs or bringing weapons with them to outdoor ranger interpretive programs? 

Apparently, handguns, rifles and shotguns will not be allowed in visitor centers, but there is a question about whether the prohibition applies to park hotels and restaurants where alcohol is served.

Public Law 111-24 does not enhance public appreciation for the Second Amendment; it is a liability.

If, and when it results in just one headline grabbing human tragedy or leads to an increase in wildlife poaching, will politicians who voted for it hold themselves accountable?  

NOTE:  This commentary originally appeared in the Jackson Hole News and Guide .

Rate this article:

Printer friendly view Send to a friend

header_discussion-blog

We'll know in a few years

Posted By Todd Wilkinson on Nov 14, 2009
As a point of historical fact and reference, Yellowstone was created, in part, to serve as a refuge from market hunters who were decimating wildlife in the later half of the 19th century. In fact, the impetus for the federal Lacey Act (a benchmark anti-poaching code) was born in Yellowstone and embraced by President Theodore Roosevelt. During the 20th century, the prohibition on tourists bringing rifles and shotguns into Yellowstone was imposed and re-ratified in response to persistent poaching problems. Some can argue that all gun owners will be responsible citizens and, with their freedom to carry, will refrain from shooting park wildlife. Rangers hope that will be the case, but they have a suspicion the new law will lead to increased poaching incidents as well as unnecessary wildlife killing. Fortunately, statistics in the months ahead will settle this debate, in addition to demonstrating whether or not there are positive or negative implications for park visitor safety.

Self Protection

Posted By Wm. MacKay on Nov 12, 2009
Sir/Madam:
Gun free zones are impossible to enforce and only serve to make one a target for the insane and criminal intents, think Ft.Hood or Va, Tech. for prime examples. I have carried (legally) for over 20yrs and the only time I have had to defend my family was in a national park from a crackhead (who was armed with a knife) and thankfully the incident ended with the doper fleeing. You can weep for the loss of another gun free area if you wish, just don't try to infringe upon my rights.
Respectfully,
Wm. Mackay

Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh MY!

Posted By Dennis on Nov 5, 2009
I spend a fair amount of time in Yellowstone and the surrounding Wilderness areas. I am also an avid hunter. But when hunting season is over, or when visiting the Park, I leave my guns at home and will continue to do so, despite Public Law 111-24. There is something about an encounter with someone carrying a gun who is not hunting, that gives even this seasoned outdoorsman the creeps. I wonder how it will effect the park experience of a family, from say the east coast, that came out here in part as a reprieve from urban crime and gun violence. But what about all those dangerous wild animals you might say. Lions and tigers and bears Oh My! That's what makes a trip to a national park so memorable. While the chance of a wildlife attack is slim to none, most park visitors feel a sense of accomplishment after "surviving" a hike in bear country, or a close encounter with a bison that wandered through their campground. Packing heat, for me anyway, would diminish that sense of awe and respect for wild creatures that could potentially hurt you, but seldom do. But with a gun, you could most certainly hurt them and I fear that people will shoot first and judge their real chance of a serious attack later.

No, I like to say that real men don't carry guns in the Wilderness, unless its hunting season. Even the cowardly lion found that much of what he feared in the forest was a figment of his imagination. Though he might want to carry non-lethal but effective bear spray, just in case.

The Happy Wonderer
There are 3 comments on this article See All Comments >

Leave your comment

Your e-mail address will not be publicly displayed, but is required. We respect your privacy and
never send spam. Read our privacy policy for details...
Your Name*:
* = required fields
eMail Address *:
Comment Headline*:
What is your comment?*

Hard to read? See a new code.
Please type the letters you see in the image above. This helps us to prevent spam submissions.
Enter code here:

Already a subscriber? Log-in here.

LOG-IN HERE
Lost Your Password?

Receive our free articles by email

Sign up now and we'll send you a free monthly newsletter that reminds you of important stories in Wildlife Art Journal, blogs and other content you'll want to know about.

First Name:

Email Address:

Yes, please let me know about special subscription savings.