HomeNewsSportsMoreWeatherAnnouncementsClassifiedsMy Trib.ComMy CityJobsHomesCars
Advanced Search
 

Serenity should reign in national parks


Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine




trib.popular


TED KERASOTE
Perspective

Under strong lobbying by the National Rifle Association, the Bush administration has decided to change how firearms are regulated in our national parks.

Currently, firearms must be cased, unloaded, and stored unless they’re being used by a hunter in a park that has an authorized hunting season. This regulation, which has been in affect for 25 years, is a good one. It’s also one about which I have personal knowledge, having lived in and hunted from Kelly, Wyo., a small village within Grand Teton National Park, for close to a quarter of a century.

When I hunt elk in the national forest surrounding the park, I have to transport my rifle in its case until actually crossing the park boundary. This has hardly seemed burdensome, as critics of the rule point out, especially when I consider the poaching I’ve witnessed in the park during these decades: elk, deer, and moose shot by people who didn’t know that they were in the park or who, not fazed by the park’s protection of wildlife, couldn’t resist the temptation to collect some big antlers.

If the firearms rule is changed, this sort of poaching, so difficult to control even when weapons are cased and stored, will increase to the levels we see outside of national parks, where poaching remains a thriving business -- one which taxes the financial and enforcement resources of our game and fish agencies.

Allowing loaded firearms to be carried in national parks will also increase the already dangerous job that rangers do as they conduct their most routine daily work, for example stopping people for speeding violations and checking backcountry permits.

The Bush administration, bending to the NRA’s logic that the firearm regulation in national parks violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, has suggested that instead of a blanket rule prohibiting loaded firearms in the parks, each state’s regulations would be put into effect. Not only would this lead to the consequences mentioned above, but it would also create a great deal of confusion for visitors and park personnel. Whose regulations would prevail in places such as Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which straddles the border of North Carolina and Tennessee, or Yellowstone, which lies within three different state jurisdictions -- Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming?

None of these arguments against changing the current regulation on firearms in national parks touches a third concern. National parks aren’t only sanctuaries for wildlife. They’re sanctuaries for people. Today, when gun violence cuts Americans down in high schools, colleges, and malls, how wonderful it is to have large tracts of our nation where guns must be put away. I say this as someone who owns numerous rifles, shotguns, and pistols, who target shoots, who hunts every year, and who is aware that prohibiting loaded weapons in national parks is no guarantee that gun violence won’t erupt. Mentally ill people don’t obey regulations. However, even given this uncertainty about how ill individuals will behave, most of us acknowledge that some public places should be off limits to weapons, in short, sacred places where serenity reigns, for example, church. And for millions of people, national parks are simply another place to worship in peace.

Ted Kerasote of Kelly is the author of "Out There," which won the National Outdoor Book Award, and "Merle's Door: Lessons from a Freethinking Dog."


Previous   Next
Easter and the urban farmer   However salvation comes

Article Rating

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

There are 29 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Danny B wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:11 PM:

" Mr. Kerasote,
You are exactly right. How can one argue that their second amendment rights have been denied just because you have to have your weapons unloaded, cased and stored while in a National Park. You still have possession of it. If you can't transport your firearm in a safe and secure manner while traveling to hunt, maybe your not a very good hunter and should not be able to get a license. Gone are the days of the gun racks in the back window of your trucks. I hunted in central Wyoming since I was 8 years old and my Grandfather had the 2nd Pioneers License issued. We never transported a loaded weapon. I am a proponent of the NRA but not on this issue. "

shut up and write wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:52 PM:

" sanctimonious hypocrite, guns are already there in the hands of the criminals. Park Service spread so thin they are ineffective. your arguments are how to keep law abiding people from access to protection so you can observe your place of worship. "

BULL wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:44 AM:

" When guns are outlawed , only outlaws will have guns. "

WyomingGal wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Why don't you repeat what you wrote to the family members of the women that were killed not too long ago in Yosemite National Park. Or how about the young lady hikers's family who was recently killed while 'enjoying nature'. I'm sure they'll 'have YOUR back' if you ever mosey out either direction. "

Danny B wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:18 PM:

" Hey "shut up and write"

When was the last time you had to access your gun to protect yourself from a criminal? I'll bet never. If the Park Service is stretched so thin why would you want them having to check more people with firearms. If your gun is cased and stored they would not have to bother. More time to spend actually keeping an eye out for the criminals that are so prevelent according to you. Instead of being "shut up and write", why don't you just shutup "

Danny B wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Bull,

Are you for real? No one was talking about outlawing guns. I'm surprised you can type or navigate a web page. "

shut up and write wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Wy Gal and Bull good points.

Had access to guns since i was old enough to handle one, plus that military trained and i have had contact with criminals on more than one occasion. Have you or are you just spouting off to hear yourself talk Danny Boy (with a little b) amongst the grown ups.

Why would they need to check or deny one with a CCW to have their fire arm on them.

They already do not keep eyes out for the criminals read the reports on crime in the various parks if you can read. If you are in the back country forget it guess Danny Boy (with a little b) thinks 911 is working there with horse and sirens.

So danny boy (with a little b) just keep on being the flower of your house and i am supprised you can use a computer. Who turned it on for you and i will not be silent. "

Danny B wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:01 PM:

" Hey " Shut up and Write"

You need to learn and read. The subject of concealed weapons were not part of the article I was commenting on. That is an entirely different matter. If you actually have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which I highly doubt, you would know the difference. I have been hunting since I was 8 years old, I am now 48. I have have numerous expert marksmanships on a number of ranges and with several calibers. I have probably hand reloaded more rounds by the time I was 12, than you fired in the service. I have forgotten more about computers than you will ever know. If you want to have a serious debate let me know I will give you a call. "

Danny B wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:10 PM:

" Wy Gal,

The murders you speak of are truly tragic indeed. My prayers go out to all the people affected. Nothing in my comments have any bearing on those matters. Do really think that those familys would have been armed if the law was changed as proposed? Very few familys carry weapons when camping in our national parks. "

Lamp Lighter wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:38 AM:

" I can't understand why some people think words on a paper equate to compliance in the field......Laws only affect honest people, so the most that can be done is make a firearm less accesible to the honest. That leaves the dishonest to do as they please. Or put simply as Bull stated " When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" ...Any area is made much less tranquil when guns are checked in at the gate........Can't gun control advocates understand where peace and tranquility come from????.....They should be handing every honest, responsible person one at the gate......................Not trying to lock them up..................... "

shut up and write wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:06 AM:

" danny boy (with a little b) i am 56 and have 20 years military 18 months in combat and all you can boast about is shooting paper targets, in your dreams have you fired as many rounds as me and doubt you ever fired a 90 recoilless or a tow a 40mm a m14 sniper rifle a russian sniper rifle a m60 mg or other serious military ordinance especially in combat where it counts because at 46 you did not make it to combat. you ability to get awards for shooting paper does not impress me one bit. by the way my markmanship is and always has been exceptional.

oh and by the way i hunt with a flintlock or a bow as the challange is greater. used to help a friend at his dads range so reloading not an issue.
plus i dont think your reloading the cork back into your barrel counts.

so mr computer wiz tell me what is the ncic system and its use or stuff it.

the subject was weapons in the park it did not specify specifics so it included and or implied CCW weapons as usual. "

BELLSTOWN wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:46 AM:

" shut up and Danny: you are both not contributing, just having a little childish "my x is bigger, better than your x" argument, how mature. The letter was very informed and well balanced, and most of all: REALISTIC! The chance that one will use their firearm to rob or murder an innocent visitor in the park is much smaller than the chance that a bunch of otherwise law-abiding citizens get drunk and rowdy in the campground and start shooting around for the heck of it. The current regulation has worked for the majority of park visitors for a long time, so let's not change the rules and preserve the park experience as it is. I like to enjoy my spiritual refuge in the backcountry of YNP without hearing the gunshots of trigger-happy hicks killing the wildlife under the pretence of being attacked! "

Semper Fi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:02 PM:

" shut up and write, I am 46, two years younger than Danny B is. I have served 28 years and fought in our three most recent wars; DS/DS, Somalia and most recently in OIF. Your remarks about him may well not be true. More over they do not serve you or the audience in making a reasonable argument. They do serve to make you come across as bitter, shallow and ignorant. I choose to believe that you are not, but are merely angry. Perhaps you should consider a more measured approach to this matter, and I suspect others in your life. Live well and be safe.
"

shut up and write wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:44 PM:

" semper fi you maybe partially right but i dont think he/she was correct in telling me to shut up when i made a comment that was appropiate first. i will be the first to admit i do not express myself well in writen form. but i have the right to try.

this issue keeps comming up regards to the park. it is always a slanted arguement as is this article and not well balanced. and the sn shut up and write is a toung in cheek sn taken after shut up and sing from the political front.

yes i did react but getting medals for shooting paper does not impress me and he did not say he had served. the remarks directed at me were uncalled for as he/she does not know me. as an pagan/equal rights activist i have a tendency to react and i give respect to those who show it and do.

i take this time to thank you because if not for a marine patrol in nam i would not be here. the marines saved 2 of 28 that day and i am eternally gratefull. you know what it is like on the line and what you feel when a friend is lost and all the other stuff.

bells one does not get a ccw for being ignorant, i spent much of my military life as LE after nam and ccw holders do not shoot wildlife, plink around. if one who holds a ccw does so then they shouldnt have the right to hold one or have a gun ever again.

if you think the parks are so safe research it thru the gao and associated reports. or re read wy gals post above.

i have a ccw and i hope to the gods i never have to pull it and i hope even harder that i do not have to use it if i do i will do so regretfully and i do not need another ghost or memory that stays with me 24/7. but just because you think it wont happen is no reason to deny another the ability for self protection or the ability to protect another should the occassion arise.

i am further amazed over the comments of hicks, hillbillys and rednecks used adversley in remarks in many responses to this and other posts ect. this posting stuff is new to me only been at it for a few months but i really hope these comments are not reflective of the equality state mindset as a whole. country does not mean dumb, country does not mean uneducated and country does not mean an ever present beer can and anyone who thinks so needs to look within theirselves and work on the bigotry.

"

Wyoelkhunter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:26 AM:

" Its becoming obvious to me that these blogs are not the place to have an intelligent discussion on anything. If you give an opinion the ideologues immediately come out of the woodwork and start the name calling.

I've spoken to Ted and I know he is not an anti gun nut. He is an avid hunter. He gave his opinion and that his all. His opinion should have stimulated a lively intelligent debate. Instead the attack dogs come out. Next thing you know he'll be given the Jim Zumbo treatment.

I have to go through the park every fall while hunting. Casing the gun is no big deal. I agree however that simply writing a regulation does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and one should have the right to defend ones self. This may me the kind of NRA issue that may do the law abiding gun owner more harm than it does good. Kinda like the cop killer bullets of a few years back.

Anyhow if you want to show your backside instead of making a respectful intelligent comment go ahead. "

coming4u wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:31 PM:

" WELL wriiten and stated BELLSTOWN!!!!!!! The brightside! from bushy? I will not or have any hesitation to take OUT a poacher(s)!!!!!!!!!! Always watching- "

Semper Fi wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Wyoelkhunter, I have long enjoyed Mr. Kerasote's work and for that matter Mr. Zumbo's too. I suppose that I mostly have envied them while reading their prose underway embarked on ships or deployed on less than hospitable foreign soil. I find Mr. Kerasote's observations and remarks to be sound and based on measured deliberation. Publicly offering one's honest ideas remains a key to our democracy and should be respected, even if some do not agree with them. I appreciate your restraint with the loyal oppositions' flamboyant and heated words of protest. You are a gentleman Sir. My firearms, on the occasions I am blessed with opportunity to use them, go from the safe into cases and are only uncased once on the range or in the field. It is a measure I've practices for years while living in and around urban areas across the nation with varying laws regarding the handling and transport of firearms. It has also avoided rough handling which might blemish or "bump off of zero" an old friend unnecessarily on our way to exercise a uniquely American freedom and have some good old fashioned fun. Don't loose faith, I like to think that we still have more level headed citizens than not. I have to, as it is they whom I serve. "

Old cop wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:15 PM:

" Why does the NRA always get villified as an organization hell bent on creating chaos with
firearms. I believe the main intent behind this regulatory change was to provide a legal means by which a person with a concealed carry permit could continue to carry within a National Park.
People who have criminal records are not eligible to obtain a permit nor would I think a person contemplating criminal activity in which he wished to use a gun would bother with the process of trying to get a permit. Mr. Kerasote made it clear the poaching in the park is present now, even with a restriction on firearms. Do you really think a person taking the risk of shooting a big game animal in a National Park cares about the rule on having a firearm cased and unloaded.
The NRA is also a very strong advocate for hunters rights and it would be crazy to believe they would support something which would make it easier for poachers. What the NRA supports is the rights of HONEST citizens to not be restricted in the use of firearms AND strongly supports harsh punishment for anyone breaking any law while in possession of a firearm, whether the firearm is used during the commission of the crime or not.
Never once in my 25 years as a police officer did the law itself deter someone bent on criminal activity. It is the potential and actual punishment which creates the deterrent, the component which is sorely lacking in society today.
Creating gun free zones does nothing to prevent criminal activity, on the contrary, it provides a level of ease for a criminal knowing they have only the police to fear. Which as we know are spread pretty thin and in the vast majority of cases are reactive and not preventative. Criminals know their chances of being detected and caught are perhaps one in 10.
As an officers I always sought and encouraged the support of the honest citizen within the community. Those extra eyes are what solve many a crime. I did not fear the armed honest
citizen I feared the lawless.
"

motoboy wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:06 PM:

" How does Mr. Kerasote propose to keep out bad guys with guns? Make it against the rules? That worked real well at Virginia Tech and a hundred other government mandated "Helplessness Zones," didn't it?

Pie in the sky, Ted. Grow up. "

Wyoelkhunter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Semper Fi: Thanks for your words of support. Sometimes hearing this hatefulness gets a little discouraging. Thanks much for your service too. We appreciate it greatly. "

First Time Responder wrote on Mar 29, 2008 3:57 PM:

" I have read this and related issues for a long time. I have not felt the necessity to involve myself in the sparing between factions untill now and probably will not do so again.

Something in this article with the various views got my undivided attention and is ripe for review.

I noticed one person made a remark that was perhaps not clear and was imediately attacked with assumptions a reasonable person would not make. This person responded in like fashion and both were wrong. Others joined in some with perhaps crude but valid points others with points that were not valid in the conversation.

One who joined in made is a specific point to target the responder with some of the same or similar assumptions he faulted the responder with yet did not address the initial attacker in a like manner and this was unfortunate. Even when the responder tried to voice his point and even thank another for something it was ignored in total.

28 years in the service means you are a Senior Non Commissioned Officer or an actual Officer and i suspect the latter. Your comments were one sided, you are verbose in showing your education, more than a little stuck up and stand offish along with lack of returning a compliment with the appropiate response. I hope to God this is not an indication of those who serve this country. You must be very proud and my sympathy for those who serve under you. This is one time you also were wrong. Now let us see if you have the leadership traits and integrity to make it right.

"

Inky wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:18 AM:

" Poaching in and around national parks is a fairly regular problem.
However, criminals running amuck with guns is extremely rare in national parks.
Just based on past experience (not the hyper-inflated fears of the NRA), it appears that the current policy works and that allowing guns in the parks would cause more problems for the rangers -- not less.
Let's deal with facts, people, not emotion. "

to old cop wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:06 PM:

" old cop you have spoken more wisdom than any other posting here. inky is deluded if he thinks crime is rare in the parks but he wont take the time to research it. wy gal only touched on the problem on her march 24 post. "

read the truth wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:34 PM:

" Google "crime in national parks" for a real eye opener. Anyone who thinks crime is rare in our national parks has their head buried in the sand or an agenda. to claim it is rare is patently decietfull.

These reports are not the NRA they are from sources such as Christian Science Monitor, National Geographic news and other reputable news sources.

These reports are supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, the GAO, Public Employees for enviornmental Responsibility (a national non profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists,LE, Land Managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding enviornmental laws and values) and others. all of these groups are definetly not NRA connected.

Also do a search under "most dangerous national parks" then you will be able to view the type of crimes and it lists the 10 most dangerous parks and gives the address for the full report if you want it.

not a site listed was a NRA site. and by the way yellowstone was number 10 on the list for 2003 as reported by US Park Rangers Lodge Fraternal Order Of Police released june 28, 2003.

It does not take a lot of time to look for this data and if you want to deal with facts then these are facts you can look up. i want you to look it up dont take my word for it or anyone elses read it yourself then decide how to deal with it from a position of knowledge and not just a biased letter or so that appears in the paper.



"

Hammer wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:00 PM:

" OK, I'd agree that the parks in Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are pretty troubled places due to illegal aliens and the drug trade. However, more murders are reported daily in Dallas, Phoenix, Albuquerque and San Diego than are in all of the parks across the nation combined from all causes. Is the answer to that "forced" open carry of firearms (if you don't have one, you're issued one at the entrance)? Or, should we seek to attack the causes of these problems instead of going after the symptoms? My wife and I are both NRA life members. I also must say that I appreciate the efforts of a couple folks posting here to keep this a civil discussion, using some reasoning. These personal attacks are not useful and reflect poorly on those making them.

"

Semper Fi wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:22 PM:

" First Time Responder, I cannot make apology for clearly articulating my thoughts. Nor can I make apology for my one sided position, it is after all my chosen position on this subject, and I am not bi-polar (that was attempted levity, please take it as such). I do think that the collective we need to deal with one another in a civil fashion, offering mutual respect and applying the known facts in matters. Hyperbole, vitriol and ad hominem attacks won't solve the issues we all face together. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings.
"

Dennis wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:11 PM:

" Balance people, balance. I do not want my 2nd ammedment rights to be trampled, but I also don't see mountains of body bags being pulled from the national and state parks on a daily basis. Somewhere between the two extremes must lay the truth. "

Elvis wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Looking at the papers these days it seems that a lot of kids are getting shot up in schools. Maybe body armor and weapons systems should replace backpacks and lunch boxes on campus? Seems a higher priority than the park is to me. "

hmmmmmm wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:57 PM:

" Nice tactics however it did not work all that well danny b aka semper fi and probably aka wyoelkhunter. i am amazed you did not even try that hard to change your writing styles. the tactics were too evident and i only needed one more example to expose it. there can be no true honest debate when the attempted subtrifuge destroys credibility of one appearing too be many atempts to bias the discussion. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
(optional)
   
Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.