Photography, Guns, and National Parks?

Could this have any effect on photography/photographers in our National Parks?



Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Written by Daniel White
Friday, 22 February 2008

NRA press release

Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks

Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.

“Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America’s National Parks and wildlife refuges,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction.”

These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.

The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.

“These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year,” concluded Cox.

-NRA-

I don't know what you think you have to worry about. People are already allowed to pack everywhere else in the wilderness. Allowing them into the national parks is not going to make them suddently turn into violent killers.

I rarely go to national parks, but in the country and backcountry that I visit, I would say that well over 50% of the people I come across have guns. Sometimes they're out in a saddle-sling, sometimes they're packed away, sometimes in a holster, and it's just not a problem. In fact, the folks you run into with guns are, as a rule, the nicest and most polite you'll find.

On the flip side, one of my wife's friends and his sister were gunned down in a canyon inside the city limit, near a home, for no apparent reason. The perp was a drug-addict who was strung out, and just wanted to see what it would be like to shoot someone.

The folks like that, the ones you *should* be worrying about, don't spend much time hiking the backcountry. The folks you run into in a national park aren't a worry at all.

In fact, despite ALL gun crime, it's still more dangerous for you to get in your car and drive to work.

this is about guns in our national parks and what it potentially means to photography.

I dont want people in the parks gunning down grizzly bears when they bluff charge or when they see one approaching their car or think that they were in danger. I dont want bears and other wildlife getting shot at, or hearing gun shots for that matter. Too many "accidents" and too many potential problems with guns in the backcountry of our national parks. It happens multiple times across montana every year. I guess I'd ask you why would you need a gun in a national park anyhow if everyone is soo nice?

It makes me uneasy to think that there could be people poking a rifle out the window of their car because they are just going to protect themselves -- just in case that bear comes too close. I can see wolves and bears now being shot at random, from roads, that makes ME a suspect because I'm in the Park off trail all the time -- I dont like the idea of guns in the back country. I spend a great deal of time in out national parks i dont think we need to have guns in the backcountry of our national parks. wilderness is another matter. I used to be a guide and packer I get your points. . .

If this becomes law, you WILL see wildlife being shot in national parks - what would Denali be like if anyone that wanted to packed a gun?

I personally think this is a big mistake. The national parks have a concentration of both wildlife and tourist. I think we will see not only wildlife being "accidentally" but people to. I can just image John Doe who's never handled a weapon thinking I'd better buy a gun to protect my family on our trip to bear country in Yellowstone. Then the first time something stirs in the brush he gets scared shoots and you have one dead tourist innocently shot because they where in the brush taking a picture of a flower.
Now don't get me wrong, I am all for the freedom of right to carry a weapon but I think allowing them in our National Parks is just a recipe for a disaster. I've also got personal experience with this. I've been shot at 3 times and hit once. All of them in the woods on our farm. The idiot that shot me was illegally trespassing on our property trying to shoot a deer. I guess I looked like one.

Heck I'm the kind of idiot that probably does need a gun in the parks. I love to go alone into the back country to shoot my pics. I move as quiet as possible and hope to see a bear. But, while it will suck if Mr. Grizzly eats me it's my own fault. What right do I have to act that like that in the animals domain and then shoot it because I'm dumb?

I gotta say I am kinda torn on this one. I know there are times I would feel more comfortable in the back woods with a hand gun "just in case". To be fair, I was raised around guns, my father collected guns and was through a gun safety course when I was like 7 yrs old. I dont personally hunt as I cant find much stomach to harm any wild life except in defense.

I have raised wolf hybrids as well and know animals well and I interact well with animals. I also know how ugly things can get under the "wrong" circumstances....hense the desire to carry a gun in the back country.

But....I also know humanity and for the most part....I can see MAJOR problems letting just any yahoo cary a gun in the back country. Animals killed all because a person dosnt know how to act when they are in the animals back yard. People killed because they were suspected to be an animal (I see visions of a south park episode where they would see a rabbit and yell "its comming right for me!!!!" as they pulled the trigger....comedy that is sadly closer to reality than most are comfortable to admit.)

So....with the balance of safety and the knowledge of human nature....I agree that while even I would feel a bit safer with a sidearm in the back country....for now...as we are in our evolutionary adolesence...I can see wisdom in NOT allowing guns in the backcountry of our NP.

Roman

You're forgetting that people can (and do) already take guns everywhere else outside of national parks, and there are still plenty of wildlife out there.

I can hike locally where bear, cougar, moose, deer, coyotes, and other wildlife are plentiful and easily found, despite the fact that people can (and do) take guns there.

If I thought that guns in a national park would mean any significant impact on tourists or wildlife, I'd be against it, too. But my experiences outside of the parks leads me to believe that it would work out just fine in a park.

The places where you see a serious impact on wildlife are in close proximity to small towns. The locals go out and shoot things for fun. Any time I'm within five miles or so of a small town, wildlife becomes scarce to none, and spent casings and trash become the norm. But in any area that's even remotely similar to a national park, that's just not the case.

I am like Roman on this one. Maybe my emotions are a tad raw right now since I am only twenty minutes away from the NIU college shooting on Valentines Day. I do not think people should be allowed to carry guns at a school either but they do and always will.
I really do believe that National Parks should be safe for wildlife and not allow "hunters". Gun carrying would make people more inclined to use if it is permitted. No Mr. Bush - you are wrong!

"You're forgetting that people can (and do) already take guns everywhere else outside of national parks, and there are still plenty of wildlife out there."

Abolutly not foretting that. The main difference is 1. millions, I mean MILLIONS of people concentrated around "habituated" animals in the parksand 2. wildlife, including bears that are at or near road, and places where people camp and eat. . . put them together with a wing-nut with a gun and park pass and you got a mess. . .

Jamesdak, is right on the mark! and as other's have pointed out, it spells trouble.

Consider this, there probably is no place that represents the spirit of this nation, freedom, democracy, around the world, and is more "public" than the National Mall in washington dc, the arlington cemetary, the national catherdral, the white house, the federal courthouse, the jefferson building, the Dirkson building, the national archives, I could go on and on, should just anyone with a gun be allowed in those buildings?

I'd like your oppinions on this, come on, guns in national parks, nevermind the serious poaching issues that cause the ban in the first place, how about guns in the capitol, that's a national park folks . .. ..

Take a look here, the National Parks Conservation Service has some good information on this subject, just posted today.

http://www.npca.org/media_center/fact_sheets/coburn-amendment.html

Law abiding citizens are never the problem, theres always an idiot somewhere around, the thing to remember is the right to carry is changing not the right to use fire arms, you will still be responsible for what you do. just because you have the right to carry doesn't mean you have the right to shoot when ever you want to.

if everyone understood that gll, there would be no need for laws. . .

Hey Guys,

There have been several times when I have been in the parks when I had wished that I had a gun at my disposal just for safety. LOL, this is coming from a New York liberal. :P However, I have a very high tollerance for anxiety, and I have never been in a situation where I have not been able to think my way to safety. This includes a few situations where I have been - sometimes unwittingly - way too close to wildlife that could do me serious harm.

Be that as it may, my gut tells me that having guns in the parks are wrong. I have a belief that crisis situations where serious harm is committed can most always be avoided if one is paying attention to the environment around them as well as following common sense precautions.

Some have mentioned the concern of poaching and hunting as a result of this law. While this is indeed a danger, it is one of many. I also worry that the amount of fatalities in the parks could significantly increase as people put themselves - and the other animals - into harms way thinking that they are safe when they really are not.

-JM

Good point james, I never thought about it that way, but you are right. some people if given a gun to "protect" themselves would would be like giving them a shot of courage as well, making them do what otherwise they would not have done. . .

Boy, I can see it now, stumbling onto a dead grizz or wolf in the park, i'm sure that whoever shot it would at least leave a note explaining who, what, when, where, and why. . .

I still think it its a recipe for disaster. . . I'll appose it. . .

The points that have been made on this subject are all reasonable and good. I'm with Tony on this one: no guns in National Parks. Period. Of course, I think people should have to pass an IQ test to own a gun in the first place but that's another issue .

Bottom line is that the parks would not be safer with folks carrying guns. Not for people; not for the wildlife.

Jim

Ya know...the funny part is...if they DO pass the law...I would almost HAVE to cary a gun....not for the animals...but for the most dangerous animal in the outback....some other person with a gun. :~)

Roman

touche!

I would almost bet a surprising number of the cars going thru the park have a firearm in them already.
From the park service web site:
"Weapons
No firearms or weapons, including state-permitted concealed weapons, are allowed in Yellowstone. However, unloaded firearms may be transported in a vehicle when the weapon is cased, broken down, or rendered inoperable, and kept out of sight. Ammunition must be placed in a separate compartment of the vehicle. "
so the guns are there just unloaded, so how longs it take to load up ?
I've read to many stories where they find someone that gets attacked by a bear and had a handgun and never got off a shot, as in most situations it the surprise that gets you. As for poaching I read the other day where they prefer a spotlight and a bow, we saw where a bull elk was killed in RMNP a few years back, shot with a bow and the head removed, within 100 yards of a gas station on the edge of town.
all that said I will probably not carry a gun, I'm just not gonna be worried if some one else is, after all I got my pepper spray

I am against it also. I really don't think the wildlife is at risk but think about that poor Park Ranger who needs to confront a drunk camper who may be packing.

transport is legal in MOST national parks, not all.

making legal the carry of guns in our parks will tell the people that it's okay to pack loaded guns into the park. This will encourage those that would not other wise carry, it will also allow people who are "afraid" of the outdoors to carry a weapon that they then are likely to use when something goes bump in the night. It also will make it hard to find people doing the shooting. if passes the criminals that already kill our bears and wolves with little regard for the law now have a national park to shoot in. . . It's a horrible idea, just horrible.

If there are other safety concerns in the parks of the SW, they should be handled locally, yosemite and crater lake the same.

So what are the going to do allow pack and carry, but say, "but you cant shoot them?"

Dont allow pack laws in yellowstone and glacier, bad move. . . If it becomes law, i'll have to pack just so that I can shoot back. . .

I am getting a big kick out of all these doom & gloom reports about if firearms are allowed in the National Parks. I can remember when firearms WERE allowed in the National Parks and there were NO problems reported back then. Don't blame an inanimate object for the behavior of crazy people. Blame the crazy people for their own actions and then lock them up.

Here's the latest . . . looks like the bill will get shot down, pardon the pun. . .


Park ranger group opposes gun proposal
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian

- Thousands of national park rangers, police and retirees are speaking out against a plan to allow loaded guns in national parks - a proposal first put forward by Congress and now made possible by the White House.

“It's a terrible idea,” said Doug Morris, who has 40 years' experience with the National Park Service, from law-enforcement ranger all the way up to park superintendent. He's also a member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, a widely respected group whose 640 members have a combined 19,000 years working in the nation's parks.

At a Monday news conference, Morris joined the Association of National Park Rangers and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the National Parks Conservation Association, in opposing any plan that would put weapons on the hips of national park visitors.
Previously, an Oklahoma senator tried to place an amendment on a public lands bill allowing loaded guns in parks. When that measure drew political opposition, a stand-alone bill was crafted that would change Park Service rules to allow guns in parks.

At the same time those congressional wheels were turning, pressure was coming to bear on the Department of the Interior to take up the cause from inside. Some 50 senators - including Montana Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester - penned a letter to Interior, asking that the rules be changed.

And according to NPCA legislative representative Bryan Faehner, “There has been pressure, top down, from the White House.”

On Friday, Interior announced it would open the current rules to scrutiny, taking public comment on a possible “update” to park gun regulations.

Proponents argue guns are necessary for personal protection. They also say rules for gun use should be consistent across federal lands - on Forest Service lands, for instance, hunting is allowed.

Proponents also have said it is a fundamental Second Amendment issue, and rules prohibiting guns in parks infringe on those citizen rights.

Under current rules, guns are allowed in parks, but must be unloaded and properly stored. The National Rifle Association - which helped write the letter sent by senators to Interior - has argued existing regulations are overly burdensome.
Those rules date back to the mid-1930s, and were most recently reauthorized during the Reagan administration.
Faehner and other critics say allowing loaded guns in parks would put wildlife at risk, as well as endangering both people's safety and the “family friendly” reputation of national parks.

Morris said “parks are special places,” and predicted any public comment period will result in an overwhelming rejection of guns in parks. In his 40 years with the National Park Service, Morris said he'd seen animals shot on “impulse” when urban visitors - who were breaking the gun rules - felt threatened by surprise encounters with wildlife.

Putting guns in parks, he said, illustrates a “total disregard for how society values our national parks.”
Scott McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, agreed, and added his organization's 11,000 members to the growing list of those opposed to any rule changes.

He worries about wildlife being killed or injured, and about park employees and visitors, too.

George Durkee, director of the Ranger Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police, said there is “absolutely no practical reason” for changing current rules, noting “how panicked some visitors get when they see a wild animal.”

He imagines scared campers, hearing noises in the night, firing rounds from tents in crowded campgrounds.
And guns provide only a false sense of security in the woods, Durkee said, because “getting shot is just going to piss off a 500-pound grizzly bear.”

In fact, parks are some of the safest places in the country, he said, and are refuges not only for wildlife but also for visitors.

Hunters, the rangers said, already can pass easily through parks with their guns, so long as they're unloaded and packed away.

“It's just not a problem,” Durkee said. Adding loaded firearms to campgrounds, however, “changes the whole tenor of how a family area feels.”

In Morris' estimation, allowing guns in parks “truly opens a Pandora's box of possibilities.”

Nevertheless, the Bush administration has said it will publish a draft of its revised regulations by April 30, opening the issue to public comment.

In announcing that move to the Senate, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said the draft would take into account recent changes to laws governing guns in federal buildings, as well as gun laws in individual states.
It will, he said, preserve the “values of our public lands, including the safety and enjoyment of all visitors, while enhancing local control and respecting an individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Tom Keirnan, however, agreed with Morris' prediction that the public ultimately will reject any move by Interior to allow loaded guns in parks.

The president of NPCA said his group is “convinced when the review process is complete, it will show the existing regulations are not unduly burdensome, but are limited, reasonable and necessary to enable park rangers to carry out their duties of protecting the millions of families who visit our parks every year, and the wildlife that inhabits them.”

Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@missoulian.com.

Quote:

---

I am getting a big kick out of all these doom & gloom reports about if firearms are allowed in the National Parks. I can remember when firearms WERE allowed in the National Parks and there were NO problems reported back then. Don't blame an inanimate object for the behavior of crazy people. Blame the crazy people for their own actions and then lock them up.

---

But, do you not see the shift in social dynamics in respect to firearms? When I grew up in the mountains of VA the game wardens did not even pack weapons. But society and the respect people have for each other has shifted some and they are armed now for self protection.Are not the Parks running at all time highs in terms of visitors? I run into folks occasionally in the various Utah wilderness area I frequent and of those times only a few are openly carrying. But man you go to a national park and you are constantly tripping over people. I'm sure someone with more brain power than me can provide so statistical model showing how much greater the risk of an accident is. I think we all realize it's the idiot behind the gun that kills, not the gun. The SOB that shot me certainly was one of those idiots.

I'll use my own situation last summer in Glacier. We had just arrived and I took the family down to the little lake by the swiftcurrent inn because I figured we she the usual moose or two there. While walking in the brush, my wife started complaining (she's no country girl and was terrified of the thought of bears) and just as I turned to tell her to relax a Moose Cow and Calf burst right by us by no more than a few feet. Now my wife about had a heart attack and I wonder how many other edging people would have been startled and shot at the sound? She told me afterwards that she thought it was a bear attacking even though it was actually moose trying to get away from us. Who else is going to think bear?

I'm not a gun control liberal nut either(said slightly humourously so as not to offend). I believe in our right to bear arms. Heck I spent 22 years in the Army and carried various weapons throughout my carrier. I even spent 6 years in special ops carrying concealed weapons daily and it took several years after that for me to feel comfortable not carrying. But the national parks are the wrong place for weapons in my opinion.