Anyone else see this?

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by gdurkee »

Finally, I suspect that several organizations may file a lawsuit on the grounds that no Environmental Impact Statement was done. Interior claimed none was needed because there was no substantive change. Arguably, more wildlife and even visitors may be shot or endangered as a result of this rule.
--me
Eric was quite right to post the update. Rather than provocative (in the negative sense of the term) it referenced directly parts of the discussion. Both Mike and I (rangers with over a combined half century of experience) thought it quite possible that increased poaching or killing of wildlife might result from the new regulation. In addition, all of the professional ranger organizations opposed the change as well as all former directors of the NPS. A number of you, of course, disagree; but that's the point of an environmental assessment and why the Brady Campaign and NPCA are suing -- well established environmental requirements (!) were not followed. It's now clear this was railroaded through in spite of serious questions by senior NPS and DOI managers.

While people can dismiss the Brady campaign, Feinstein et al as wild eyed radicals etc., the courts won't. They have shown they have standing, they have shown they have the backing of not-so-wild-eyed professionals with decades of experience; and they have shown that the Bush administration blatantly ignored process. I think there's a good chance they'll prevail to get a court-ordered environmental review and then this regulation will quietly sink out of site.

g.
User avatar
try
Founding Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:27 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fallbrook

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by try »

George, you posted the link to the article; I would be interested in your take on same.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by gdurkee »

Try:

Hi. Not sure which link you mean -- after losing Mao on the Yangtze, I kinda lost track of the thread. I think Dave54 posted the original. But, I'll cheerfully give my cogent and considered thoughts again.

The reason given for adopting state gun laws in National Parks was to make weapons law in national parks more consistent with state gun laws. That is, whatever the laws in the state on carrying a weapon would also apply parks in that state. The problem is that over 20 parks are in several states -- what laws then apply?; federal laws on carrying in buildings supersede state laws (so you might be able to carry a weapon on park land, but definitely not in any nps facility/building); and many states only allow for concealed carry with a permit -- some recognize the permits from other states, many do not (e.g. California). So from both an enforcement stand point (that of rangers) and understanding the laws (that of visitors), there's really more confusion now that there was over the previous law: loaded and easily accessible weapons were just not allowed in a National Park.

The worry of rangers and managers is that there's an increased danger to the visiting public and wildlife. People not used to wildlife (e.g. bears) may panic and take shots at an animal -- either wounding or killing the animal or, far worse, shooting through a tent or RV and hitting someone. I've seen this happen when guns are illegal. Will it happen more as more guns are allowed? I believe so.

I agree that this potential danger is real and not enough to justify the regulation change.

In California parks, the regulation change doesn't make much difference. Only people with a Concealed Carry permit may have a loaded gun in their possession. California does not recognize permits from other states. Counties don't issue many anymore and most charge several hundred dollars for a background check. And even then, as noted, you can't carry a weapon into a visitor's center or other government building, even with a county CCW -- Federal law supersedes both state law and the NPS regulation on this one.

Again,with 40 years as a ranger in California, my experience tells me it's a dumb idea. It would never have happened had the collapsing Bush administration and previous Secretary of the Interior not ignored all the advice from career NPS managers and field rangers and pushed it through.

Neither the need to protect yourself from either wildlife or other visitors even remotely justifies the carrying of a firearm in a National Park. I fully realize there's some weird "cold dead hand" erotica going on with the possession of a gun, but that doesn't overcome the potential harm to wildlife, visitors and property as a result of more guns in parks.

Covering my ass side note: these are only my opinions, though based on extensive experience, and not those of the NPS, it pasty pale bureaucrats, or the new beloved Secretary of the Interior, who shines as a beacon of hope amidst the chaos and ruin of a once great agency.

Hope that helps.

George
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Experience: N/A
Location: Lee Vining/Reno

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by Bad Man From Bodie »

Man....I would be more at ease packing heat in some of the Alaskan National Parks, maybe even all parks with grizz for that matter. YNP could care less, well unless some ranger gets too big for their britches :unibrow: :D :cool: .
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Eklutna, Ak.

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by AldeFarte »

It amazes me that no one on this thread sees this as a freedom issue! Perhaps that is what the Bush admin. was thinking? I am really confounded. It is hard not to disparage the nps and rangers who seem to see this as a right wing whacko play aimed at tweeking the liberals. Personally, I think the nps fears truly free men. I don't carry a gun all the time, but it is good to have that right without the fear of persecution.More freedom is good. Less freedom is bad.Please don't gore my ox. jls
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: between the 916 and 661

Re: Anyone else see this?

Post by ERIC »

Sorry, guys. My fault for putting gas on the campfire.
Not out of hand, yet. But locking this one down before it turns bad. :threaten:
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests