I'm the poster who made the comments about illegal immigrants and drug smugglers making Organ Pipe a 'no go' for hikers and the marijuana fields problem in Sequoia. Hikers are in danger in the foothills of that park from drug growers. But rather than railing against the criminality in the parks, rather than excoriating pot smokers and people who hire or otherwise aid and abet illegal immigration, which make the parks dangerous, this website opines against carrying guns in the parks. It's the former making the parks dangerous and contributing to the environmental degradation from human waste, trash and fertilizer runoff, not the latter. I'm no gun owner, don't like guns personally. But I'm not afraid of law abiding people carrying guns to protect themselves. I'm afraid of criminals and the people who help them. The outrage should be directed against them.

P. S. I've been reading this website for only a few months. There have been articles posted on snowmobile noise, ATVs, cell phone towers and other things that may damage the parks or the park visitors experience. But I didn't read here about the pot growing by organized drug gangs at Point Reyes National Seashore that has obliterated the native plant species, in addition to causing other damage to the land and water. It was the largest pot growing bust in a national park in years, if I'm remembering the article correctly. This was reported within the past few months in the San Francisco papers, I believe. Advocates for the parks need to report all sources of damage and danger to the parks, whether it's politically correct or not.

Kurt-- You are getting the standard reaction from the "guns don't kill people; people kill people" crowd. Visitors don't need guns in parks and these places are a lot safer because people are not carrying weapons. Legitimate hunters break down their weapons before transporting them across parks. Senator Allern (soon to be former Senator Allen) could do a lot for parks if he concentrated on some of the real park issues such as staffing shortages and declining maintenance budgets. That would be a very useful way to end his service in the US Senate.

Unfortunately, the majority of people think that smoking pot and by extension growing marijuana aren't serious crimes. There needs to be some sort of public educational spots showing the damage to the parks it causes and linking that directly to those who think that smoking pot is a harmless diversion. "This is your national park on drugs" comes to mind.

Here's the article on the bust in Point Reyes. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/06/POTFARMS.TMP

Here's an audio documentary about the work it takes to restore a pot plantation after the growers have been busted and the plants removed by law enforcement: http://www.wildebeat.net/shows/outings/E019.html This is a big job that has to be done by volunteers, because none of the parks can afford the labor to do it. Back on-topic about guns: I'm still interested in hearing more from the rangers and park staff on this question.

Quote------ Under most of the counterarguments offered, the general thinking seems to be that to protect ourselves we all should be carrying our own gleaming, semi-automatic, or perhaps even automatic, pieces to ensure safety in society. Frankly, folks, I don't see how that's going to accomplish much beyond an increase in the number of shoot-outs. Quote------ Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I do not personally advocate for each and every person to carry a firearm. Not every person is qualified, proficient, comfortable or safe with a firearm. Training can address some of these issues with most people but if you're not comfortable with or around guns, sometimes that cannot be overcome. That's no excuse for projecting that fear on to everyone else. Ask yourself when the last time you read of some permitted citizen committing a crime was. Now, compare with a law enforcement type. Research carefully, you might be surprised at the conclusion. Virginia relaxed the state park weapons ban years ago over the hue and cry of DGIF, including the exaggerated hyperbole predicting "Wild DC shootouts" and "blood in the parks"... None of which came to fruition. In fact, I'd like to see evidence to support that theory in general. So far, I think 38 states have a shall issue permit system, the bulk of which came post '87 (Florida). This has been debated time and again at the state and "specific venue" level, and there's no case I'm aware of in which one of these states or venues can show an increase in "shootouts" or for that matter general violence as a result. You also mentioned not seeing law enforcement "jump on the bandwagon". Frankly, who cares? Do you need permission from Law Enforcement to post to this blog? I couldn't care less what the LE arm of the National Park Service thinks about me or my law abiding friends carrying weapons for personal protection since they're perfectly happy to have a certain level of crime in their parks to help justify their staffing levels. So long as crime exitsts in the Parks, my right to protect myself trumps their opinion on law abiding park visitors carrying personal protection guns. And, in the FWIW column, I haven't heard or seen of their opposition to the proposal either... It's irrelevant either way, since the odds of a Parks LEO being around to protect me when a crime occurs is non existent. Their own morning report confirms this. What it really comes down to is the golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you choose to not carry a personal protection device of some sort; be it a gun, mace, pepper spray, katana, PR-24, taser, stun gun, what have you... Then the Grace of God be with you. If you opt for one of the above or some other form of protection, Peace be upon you. However, before you make that decision for everyone else, ask just who you are helping by making that decision.