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."
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Danny B wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:11 PM:
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:
BULL wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:44 AM:
WyomingGal wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:07 PM:
Danny B wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:18 PM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
shut up and write wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:06 AM:
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:
Semper Fi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:02 PM:
"
shut up and write wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:44 PM:
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:
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:
Semper Fi wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:10 PM:
Old cop wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:15 PM:
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:
Pie in the sky, Ted. Grow up. "
Wyoelkhunter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:47 PM:
First Time Responder wrote on Mar 29, 2008 3:57 PM:
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:
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:
read the truth wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:34 PM:
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:
"
Semper Fi wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:22 PM:
"
Dennis wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:11 PM:
Elvis wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:14 PM:
hmmmmmm wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:57 PM:
Submit a Comment