A survey stemming from the Bush administration's plan to allow concealed carry of guns in national parks and national wildlife refuges predicts the result will be more wildlife shootings and management problems.
The survey, performed for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, found that 77 percent of 1,400 present and former employees of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predict that the controversial proposed rule reversing the long-standing prohibition of carrying loaded, concealed weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges will have an adverse affect on the ability of NPS and USFWS employees to accomplish their mission.
This finding and others are contained in Natural and Cultural Resource Impacts and Management Consequences of the Proposed Regulation to Authorize the Possession of Concealed Firearms in Units of the National Park & National Wildlife Refuge Systems.
While DOI has neglected to provide an analysis of the potential impacts of its proposed rule, the retirees group performed the survey to assess the impacts that these experts foresee should the regulation take effect. Other key results of the survey include:
* 75 percent feel that there will be an increase in opportunistic or impulse wildlife killings in parks and refuges; and
* 83 percent of survey respondents anticipated that the proposal will increase the overall level of complexity for management of their park or refuge.
In issuing the report, the coalition emphasized that Interior Department officials violated the procedural
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act in failing to adequately examine the foreseeable impacts of the relaxed gun regulation. Additionally, the coalition asserts that Interior officials should have consulted the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to ESA, as 89 threatened or endangered species inhabit the parks that would be affected by the regulation.
Separately, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Ethics predicts that once the regulation is published in the Federal Register, a move anticipated to occur this month, “there would be a multi-group suit filed" challenging the legality of the regulation.
The new report from the coalition highlights the enforcement complexities and threats to public safety that should have been addressed in an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the rule under NEPA.
Based on the report, CNPSR is renewing its call for Interior officials to withdraw the proposed rule.
"We think the proposed rule is manufactured and driven politically to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Data show that parks are among the safest places to be in this country," says Bill Wade, chairman of the coalition's executive council. "Moreover, we believe it will create more problems than it can possibly fix. It is likely to alter, over time, the friendly atmosphere visitors look forward to in parks, where they go to get away from the day to day pressures and influences of their everyday lives, including worry about guns."
Comments
As a follow-up to Rick Smith's accurate observation, and as requested by several posters, here's some additional perspective from the standpoint of someone who performed law enforcement in parks for 3 decades:
1. Rick is exactly correct about the much higher incidence of vandalism from gunfire in areas outside of national parks as compared to inside the parks themselves. Furthermore, in NPS areas such as national preserves where hunting is allowed, my experience is that weapons-related vandalism is definitely a greater problem than in parks where loaded weapons are prohibited.
2. Most law enforcement officers I know are very uneasy about people carrying concealed weapons in crowded public places. It has nothing to do with "power," but visitor and officer safety. In addition to the previously covered dismal or non-existent requirements for training for CHL holders, here's one example of scenarios that concerns officers:
If an officer arrives at the scene of an incident and finds one or more people dressed in civilian clothes holding a weapon, the office has to make a split-second decision about whether this person is a threat to the officer and to any citizens in the vicinity. It becomes even worse if the officer finds two or more armed civilians in a stand-off or a "shots fired" situation – which one is the victim and which one the bad guy?
I hope no one will make the laughable claim that CHL holders are adequately trained to know how to respond in such situations, especially when the adrenalin is running wide open. Case in point: I've spent a lot of hours on firing ranges: military, law enforcement and civilian/public ranges. A cardinal rule on the range is "keep unholstered weapons pointed down range at all times." If I had a dollar for every time the rangemaster had to remind people about that rule - in that carefully controlled, low-stress situation - I could enjoy several nice steak dinners. The point is that when people are spoken to, their tendency is to turn toward the speaker. If they're holding a loaded weapon, that's not good! If this occurs in the midst of the scenario described above, that's potentially tragic.
I haven't tried to locate data on situations where officers arrive on scene to find an unidentified armed citizen, and the result is a terrible outcome - I doubt that there is a good database of such situations, but I certainly recall having heard about them. One is certainly too many.
Current regulations for national parks make such potential tragedies very unlikely. If rules are relaxed to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons in national parks, only time will tell if my concerns on this issue are correct.
I WAS a law enforcement officer and Ranger. I also spent 23 years at BLM, documenting HUNDREDS of cases of TOO (Target OF Opportunity) damage to public lands outside National Parks. The issue is NOT just licensed and concealed, but LOADED weapons in the parks and refuges, with free access, outside legitimate hunting areas and seasons.
I am a member of the Oregon Gun Owners Caucus, and a gun owner, and concealed weapons permit holder. Over thirty years experience should make mine, or any other professional's, experience and opinion somewhat more relevant than that of someone who's experience consists of playing video games, target shooting, or even PETA membership.
The Supreme Court D. C. decision said no to banning gun ownership. AT THE SAME TIME the Justices clearly stated that REASONABLE regulations to control firearms use and possession IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
I have a ton of photographic evidence and proofs (damage reports et al) that unrestricted firearms use DOES lead to irresponsible firearms use.
I've seen grizzlies doing what grizzlies do, but never seen a "psycho" one. I've seen LOTS of "psycho" human beings doing what they do. Some I put in jail, some I shot at, and didn't miss(ode to Winston Churchill). PETA likes to anthropomorphize chickens, cows, dogs, and elephants in zoos, I would never do the same to a wolf, coyote, mountain lion, tiger or other predator in the wild- they are far too "civilized" to equate them to human behaviors.
Limiting guns to CURRENT RULES in National Parks and Refuges is merely a common sense application of the Supreme Court's own determination, and DOES protect our Constitutional right to BEAR arms, without abusing that right. It also protects my right to enjoy my national parks without fear of gun owners, when bears and lions have NEVER REALLY BOTHERED ME!
As a former Ohio police officer and deputy sheriff, I find some of the comments about concealed carry in our national parks very offensive. First of all anyone who has a concealed carry permit has undergone an extensive background investigation. These people are responsible ones and have had the proper training to carry a concealed handgun. In my 8 years as a police officer I can tell you if you think the police can protect you, think again. This is the mindset of ignorance. If the police are doing such a great job why are there over 20,000 murders in this country every year ? I do not blame the police and believe me I am still a police officer at heart. In my 8 years of law enforcement I have seen it all. Rape, torture, and murder, violent beatings, you name it. The criminal mind has no sympathy for human beings or for anything for that matter, and they do not have established guidelines for where they commit crimes. You are not safe anyplace in this country today. The fact that the national park service officers are against concealed carry is disheartening to me because you know you cannot protect anyone in you parks as well as I do. And the thought that anyone with a gun is a threat to you is pathetic. Just ask any number of police officers across this country how many of them would be dead if not for armed citizens. For you park rangers to tell people they are safe in our national parks without personal protection is a discrace and you should be ashamed. Maybe you should turn in your guns as law enforcement officers. (Since the parks are so safe) maybe you rangers are right though. Maybe there will come a day when you are the victim of a violent crime in one of your parks, and since no one will be able to come to your aid, maybe Smokey the Bear can assist you.
Respectfully
Richard Lemay
former Swanton Police Officer
and Lucas County Deputy Sheriff
This will be my last comment on this thread because I think we have explored all the angles. There are people who feel that they cannot be safe without carrying. Fine. All I say is that the parks are safer without a lot of guns than with lots of them. That's what the majority of protection rangers say and I think we should pay some attention to their point of view.
Rick Smith
I'd feel a lot better about this issue if that were true. Unfortunately, it is not correct.
I'd ask those who think adequate training is required to obtain a CCW permit to read the comment posted on Sept. 29, 2008 at /2008/09/trigger-happy-man-shoots-another-rustling-brush#comment-8646 . I won't repeat, except to say that too many states require no training at all to obtain a permit – and under reciprocal agreements, they can "carry" in many other states as well. In states that do require training, it is often minimal. We can debate forever how much is "adequate."
With minimal or no training requirements in mind, here are a few comments by Massad F. Ayoob, an internationally-known pro-gun writer, firearms and self-defense instructor and Director of the Lethal Force Institute. He has authored several books and over one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques and self-defense:
A lot of the concern about concealed carry would be eased if proponents of those programs would support reasonable requirements for training – and regular live-fire qualification to prove the permit holder has at least a chance to hit his intended target – as part of CHL programs in all states.
One key point in this issue needs to be emphasized – the effect of the proposed rule on agency efforts to deal with poaching.
As noted by the survey that started this thread, almost anyone who has work experience in a park understands the magnitude of the challenge to stem poaching. Given the vast areas involved and limited staffing, the odds of catching a poacher in the act are small. The current NPS regulation limiting ready access to loaded firearms in vehicles is the most effective tool for dealing with a serious wildlife management and public safety issue.
The guy roaming park roads at 2 a.m. and checking out fields with his spotlight isn't admiring the scenery. When he's caught with a loaded gun on the front seat, current regulations make it clear a violation has occurred, and this problem can be resolved before shots are ever fired. Most state regulations define weapons allowed under CHL's so loosely that "heavier" handguns suitable for poaching are completely legal under the proposed regulation change.
One commenter voiced the opinion that someone intending to break the law wouldn't go out and get a CHL. He's welcome to his opinion, but I strongly disagree, because there is tremendous financial incentive for commercial poachers to do just that.
Poaching is not just Billy-Bob out looking for some easy venison, but big business that is a significant threat to the population of bears and other wildlife. A thriving and highly profitable international market for bear parts such as gall bladders and paws provides ample incentive for crooks to take their chances – and puts wildlife populations at risk. No, that's not anecdotal – do a Google search if you want easy documentation.
I've found nothing to prohibit an individual from having a CHL from multiple states, and no information that states share information about convictions for hunting violations, especially if the conviction is not for a felony. The background checks for a CHL are normally a routine check of computer databases, which while better than nothing, are far from complete - and I make that statement from first-hand experience from my law enforcement career. Serious gaps in reporting convictions of Texas CHL holders to the state have also been previously addressed above.
The legal ability to carry a loaded handgun in a national park would be a poacher's dream. Utah makes it especially easy for residents of any state to obtain a permit which is then good in many other states, and numerous companies are glad to help. Here's just one excerpt:
Utah's "training" requirement? "Approximately" 4 hours in the classroom—no need to fire a weapon. One of these permit mills points out that Utah is "shall issue" state, "Which means that, unless you have a disqualifier on your record, they must issue you a permit." Disqualifiers in Utah? Unless you've been convicted of what they consider a "serious" crime (including a felony, crime of violence, or a recent alcohol or drug-related offense)... no problem. It's noteworthy than non-felonious hunting convictions are not a disqualifier for a Utah CCW permit.
Poaching is also a public safety issue. Only one example for the sake of brevity: at my last park, a bullet fired by a poacher at a herd of deer missed its target and shattered a window in a home adjacent to the park boundary. Fortunately, the homeowner was not injured.
Let's put one issue to rest. I'm absolutely not opposed to hunting, and when practiced legally and safely, hunting is an important tool for wildlife management in appropriate locations. That does not mean that some areas, such as national parks, should not continue to restrict hunting to provide opportunities for non-hunters who enjoy activities such as viewing of wildlife.
And a final point – does anyone really believe the current push for relaxed regulations on handguns is the end of the NRA agenda concerning national parks? In an April 29, 2008 statement on the proposed changes, the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said "This is an important step in the right direction…" Does anyone really doubt that once the camel has its proverbial nose under the tent, the next push will be to remove all restrictions on loaded weapons in parks? I sure don't.
Whether that's a good or bad thing depends upon your ideology and your philosophy about whether national parks should ultimately be any different than any other chunk of real estate.
There's no need for others to restate their views on the 2nd amendment, which have already been more than adequately covered above.
Frank -
Sorry, you missed my point, so perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't attempting to establish what percentage of poaching was done by CCW permit holders and what kind of weapons were used. The key point is that removing the prohibition against carrying any type of loaded weapon in a park eliminates the single most valuable tool in the battle against poaching - because it then becomes necessary to wait until shots have actually been fired before a violation occurs. Once the trigger has been pulled in a poaching case, whether or not the person has a CCW is irrelevant.
All the discussion about CCW has arisen because possession of a CCW is the vehicle the NRA and the administration have chosen to use as the vehicle to revise the existing regulations. If they had chosen instead to simply allow anyone to carry a weapon in parks, as some would prefer, then most of the issues that I and others have raised about public safety, poaching, etc. would still concern me.
The current revisions are based on possession of a CCW as the "ticket" to get guns into parks - I'm only saying that some people will take advantage of that opportunity to "do wrong."
Life would be immensely easier for rangers if, as you suggest, that "roaming park roads at 2 a.m. and checking out fields with [a] spotlight" would be evidence enough of intent to poach and the loaded gun would be irrelevant." While some parks do have local regulations against viewing wildlife with artificial light to help deter poaching, the reality is that "intent to poach" without a loaded weapon won't get you much mileage before most magistrates I've dealt with. Possession of the loaded gun is the key element in proving "intent", and if that possession is no longer illegal, the ability to reduce poaching will be seriously hampered. Yes, that's an opinion, but I'll take it to the bank after 30 years of dealing with these folks.
260,000 of a total population of over 15 million choose to carry. The statistics you cite are insignificant for comparing crime statistics. They only prove how well TX does background checks of the permits they issue. Clearly permit holders are committing crimes.