PDA

View Full Version : Feds are at it again (Park Service)


vantec08
02-10-2010, 6:27 AM
http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/

MP301
02-10-2010, 7:02 AM
http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/

" In the world's first national park - Yellowstone, while watching Old Faithful erupt you could be in the company of other park visitors wearing holsters and hand guns. In the evening campfire circle, you may sit next to someone who can legally carry a shotgun or rifle to that special place. "

And there is a problem with this? Cry me a river....

BTW, there will be no gun in MY special place unless I start carrying my Sig in the front of my waistband!

Southwest Chuck
02-10-2010, 7:06 AM
http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/

A "Chicken Little" piece for sure. They're all running around saying "The sky is falling! The sky is falling" :rolleyes:. Predictable.... :sleeping:

hill billy
02-10-2010, 7:21 AM
A "Chicken Little" piece for sure. They're all running around saying "The sky is falling! The sky is falling" :rolleyes:. Predictable.... :sleeping:

Truly. Maybe someone should inform them that there is not much crime, nor are there many wild animals in Federal buildings.

GrizzlyGuy
02-10-2010, 7:34 AM
Here is their letter (http://www.npsretirees.org/files/press_attach/09_1109%20-%20Letter%20to%20Salazar%20and%20Jarvis%20on%20Gun s%20Regulation_0.pdf) to Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Interior) making "legal" arguments for continued tight regulations on firearms. It reads as if it was written by the Brady Campaign, including the usual irrational fear mongering (my bolding):

The potential for "open carry" of firearms seems the most dramatic threat of all. We have already seen the angst suffered throughout the United States when gun enthusiasts openly wear firearms at public meetings and political rallies... For a significant portion of visitors, seeing another visitor openly carrying a firearm will have a chilling effect on their ability to enjoy the parks (as the Congress intended...) as the security and confidence that visitors have long felt while within the parks will be gone. Furthermore, international tourists would likely be shocked to find out that these popular destinations are no longer as safe and family-friendly."

:willy_nilly:

bodger
02-10-2010, 7:45 AM
"Shocking. Dangerous. Chilling. Wariness. Diminished specialness and reverence."

I had no idea guns were so horrible. I'm frightened.

I'm going back to my knitting. :D

vantec08
02-10-2010, 7:46 AM
I worked for the Nat'l Park Service for a couple years back when. I was not a good government employee. I have NEVER been around such a bunch of negativity in my LIFE. They hated their job and their boss and would tape record each other (body wires). These are the morons that want to steer policy in the national parks. Yea, sure. ok. Right.

Untamed1972
02-10-2010, 8:43 AM
Yellowstone......dont they have alot of bears there? Hmmmm........

Dark Paladin
02-10-2010, 9:04 AM
I was at Yosemite during Labor Day weekend last year, and encountered a momma bear with three cubs foraging for food in coolers while we were sitting in the parking lot.

Aleksei Vasiliev
02-10-2010, 9:10 AM
YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A GUN!

Quick! Ban everything scary! Starting with bears, I hope.

Edit: Ursidae bears.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-10-2010, 9:21 AM
The silly thing here is, they make it sound like every person who pwns a gun will actually wear one around in public. Highly unlikely.

Backwoods hikers and campers might.

A few CCW'rs will carry as they now can legally, but who will know?

A couple of guns might be seen in the village areas of Yosemite or GC, but I doubt it will be a 'common' sight; certainly nothing like the fear mongering portrayal of the retired PR's!

And as to rifles and shotguns? Why even mention them being carried? You can't hunt in the parks. Poaching and hunting is/was illegal anyhow, so what will change? Who would walk around the GC village with a rifle? What good is that? It's not even fun to lug around the weight if you don't need to.

Idiots. If only they knew how stupid they sound making statements like these.

bulgron
02-10-2010, 9:36 AM
Idiots. If only they knew how stupid they sound making statements like these.

They don't sound stupid to the pro-gun control people, and to the people with a deep-seated fear and loathing of guns.

This is all the same "blood will run in the streets" kind of FUD that always comes up whenever a state goes shall-issue for CCWs. I suggest we make those parallels in whatever public debates on this issue we might find ourselves in. We also need to collect all these articles and comments, and use them to smack the Park Service upside the head in a few years when people are carrying in the parks AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.

vantec08
02-10-2010, 9:39 AM
The Nat'l. Park Service, like most of the federal gubmint, is political correctness run to extremes. I wont bore you with examples and am sure you have those of your own.

MudCamper
02-10-2010, 9:55 AM
I find it odd, really that they are so afraid of guns. All they have to do is look at the National Forests and they will see how much of a non-issue it will be once everyone gets over the initial novelty of it in the Parks.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-10-2010, 10:08 AM
I find it odd, really that they are so afraid of guns. All they have to do is look at the National Forests and they will see how much of a non-issue it will be once everyone gets over the initial novelty of it in the Parks.

Kind of my point above.

Californio
02-10-2010, 10:39 AM
I was the tender age of 8 when I first saw a man get out of his car with a gun belt on, I can't get it out of my mind, large single action hog leg with dozens of gleaming lead tipped cartridges placed in leather loops around the belt. He went into Safeway to get supplies before heading up the mountain. We were innocent kids just buying licorice whips and could not imagine that one event has haunted our dreams forever. The horror, the horror of it all. :D

Damn City Sissies.

wellerjohn
02-10-2010, 10:50 AM
Looks like they are getting geared up to accommodate it including the literature.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=266215&highlight=national+park

MudCamper
02-10-2010, 11:01 AM
Looks like they are getting geared up to accommodate it including the literature.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=266215&highlight=national+park

Yes. They may not like it, but they will comply. Although not all of them seem that bad. I've exchange a couple emails with Phil Selleck, the Chief of Special Regulations and Park Uses in DC, and he seemed quite reasonable. But then he came over to the Park Service from the Forest Service, so he's quite possibly got a reasonable attitude toward firearms.

darkshier
02-10-2010, 11:48 AM
I find it odd, really that they are so afraid of guns. All they have to do is look at the National Forests and they will see how much of a non-issue it will be once everyone gets over the initial novelty of it in the Parks.

I think it is more a fear of a lack of control, than actually fearing the firearms themselves. I find it so appalling that it would be a bad thing to "maybe" see a firearm at a national park, but people have no problem watching tv/movies/video games which feature firearms prominently. Double Standards for the win.

truthseeker
02-10-2010, 6:16 PM
You know the funny thing about this whole conversation is that there will probably be the same amount of firearms in National Parks as there were prior, but no one ever knew they were there because they were hidden in the vehicle under a seat, etc...

Skidmark
02-10-2010, 7:32 PM
I was at Yosemite during Labor Day weekend last year, and encountered a momma bear with three cubs foraging for food in coolers while we were sitting in the parking lot.

Very bad form by whoever left food in a place that a bear could get it. When bears get used to human food, they become problem bears, and problem bears eventually get euthanized by the Park Service. An old saying is "A fed bear is a dead bear."

But I've seen lots of bears in Yosemite, both in campgrounds and in the wild. Pretty cool sight, no question about it. I was never moved to think of shooting them.

SJgunguy24
02-11-2010, 4:46 AM
Nothing bad ever happens in National Parks:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Stayner

Maestro Pistolero
02-11-2010, 7:21 AM
They are a retiree organization. They have no weight or authority. Old age is a *****. One minute you're in diapers, the next minute, poof, your back in diapers.

Asmodai
02-11-2010, 7:33 AM
Crime statistics in National parks (http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/crime_in_nat_parks.html)

In the world's first national park - Yellowstone, while watching Old Faithful erupt you could be the victim of Homicide

During your visit to Cliff Palace, you could be listening to the ranger's interpretive discussion while standing next to someone considering you as a victim of Forcible Rape

At the evening bat flight program and even on the cave tours, you could be joined by others considering Robbery

While hiking the famous "Wonderland Trail" you could encounter other hikers prepared to commit Aggravated Assault

While riding on an NPS-licensed bus operated by the park concessioner on a day-long trip on the "park road" (the only way to get into the heart of the park other than to hike) you could be the victim of Burglary

The grounds of Wolf Trap, including the "lawn seating area," will be open to Larceny Theft

While standing on Mather Point, enjoying the breathtaking view of the canyon, you could see another visitor commiting Vehicle Theft

2009 article
Survey Says National Park Service Is Far from the Best Government Agency to Work For (http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/06/survey-says-national-park-service-far-best-government-agency-work)

2008 article
Troubling police problems
Poor training and equipment place national monuments and visitors at risk (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/feb/07/troubling-police-problems/)

2005 article
Crime rates tick up across national parks
Amid the daisies and national monuments, more rangers find themselves battling lawlessness.
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html)

Rare, really? Ask those approximately 4000 victims per year if they would have preffered to carry a firearm or be a victim, and the 8-14 dead people? Well we can't ask them that can we?
Serious crime in national parks is relatively rare considering the number of visitors each year. A new proposal would ease restrictions on loaded firearms.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html)

dantodd
02-11-2010, 8:07 AM
I was the tender age of 8 when I first saw a man get out of his car with a gun belt on, I can't get it out of my mind, large single action hog leg with dozens of gleaming lead tipped cartridges placed in leather loops around the belt. He went into Safeway to get supplies before heading up the mountain. We were innocent kids just buying licorice whips and could not imagine that one event has haunted our dreams forever. The horror, the horror of it all. :D

Damn City Sissies.

I suspect their real fear is that being exposed at a young age like you were might ultimately lead to people being in forums like this one. The last thing they REALLY want is people being exposed to firearms and thinking they are acceptable.

Fate
02-11-2010, 1:48 PM
But I've seen lots of bears in Yosemite, both in campgrounds and in the wild. Pretty cool sight, no question about it. I was never moved to think of shooting them.
I shared your outlook until a bear ripped apart the rear passenger window/doorframe of my Accord. If I had a gun, I woulda shot it :)

Mr. Bear did >$1k of damage. No food in the car. A medium-sized zippered bag was the only thing in there. Bear pulled it out, actually opened the zipper, tossed some clothes about and moved on. Later that morning, we drove about a mile away and saw another Honda like mine with the same damage. Freakin' bear liked Hondas apparently.

Maestro Pistolero
02-11-2010, 2:02 PM
I shared your outlook until a bear ripped apart the rear passenger window/doorframe of my Accord. If I had a gun, I woulda shot it Please do not do this. If your life isn't threatened, keep it holstered. That's what insurance is for. One or two bear shootings like you are proposing could undo the progress and prevent the rest of us from access to self protection.

7x57
02-11-2010, 2:04 PM
But I've seen lots of bears in Yosemite, both in campgrounds and in the wild. Pretty cool sight, no question about it. I was never moved to think of shooting them.

I wouldn't shoot a bear if I could help it, unless hunting of course. But if you are armed you need to think of shooting a bear the minute you see it. A recurring theme in attack accounts I have read are comments like "I didn't draw because he didn't seem threatening, and when he suddently ran at me I didn't have time."

I don't like being in bear country without a suitable gun I really intend never to use--but I'll draw on sight and then wait and hope things go well. 99.9% of the time they will, but I won't feel bad for having drawn.

When I'm in bear country I regard it as their country, and play by their rules. The difference between me and the disarmers is I actually know what those rules are, and the basic one is survive by any means necessary. No animal renders himself helpless if it is avoidable.

Draw--then try not to use.

7x57

Fate
02-11-2010, 2:06 PM
Please do not do this. If your life isn't threatened, keep it holstered. That's what insurance is for. One or two bear shootings like you are proposing could undo the progress and prevent the rest of us from access to self protection.

I was kidding. Jeez! :rolleyes:

Vtec44
02-11-2010, 2:18 PM
Are National Parks Becoming Crime Havens? (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123679&page=1)

7x57
02-11-2010, 2:19 PM
Please do not do this. If your life isn't threatened, keep it holstered.

As just stated, this can get you killed. Bears are too fast for that kind of strategy unless they're a long way off (and I would pretty much draw at any range anyway). However, I think you really meant not to shoot a bear over property damage, which is different. Drawing on sight doesn't imply shooting on sight--it means you have given yourself options.

I have some mixed feelings about not shooting over vehicle damage for a couple of reasons. A bear willing to tear into a vehicle is probably already aware that people are a source of food. Most animals will avoid you if you give them the chance, and I'm concerned that this animal is already a serious danger. I'd feel very bad killing a bear I didn't need to. But I'd also feel very bad if that bear went and killed someone else because it is habituated to humans and their artefacts, and I could have stopped it.

On the other hand I like having the bears out there, and bungling a shoot may turn a merely annoyed or curious bear into a mountain of rage. So you don't decide to shoot lightly. Worse, bears will often mock-charge, but generally you won't know whether they will break off or finish the charge until almost too late to fire.

As a slight digression, local knowledge can help. There is a wonderful dirt-road drive going West from in between Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons on grassy lake road. It's wonderful, but a long way from anything, far far less travelled than the park. If a bear attacked my vehicle there it is very likely that I would shoot if suitably armed, because it is a serious threat to my life just to be caught without transportation there. Much of bear country is like that--your vehicle is worth a lot more than the purchase price, because it may be worth your life. It's likely that I would decide that my chances of failing to stop him and getting mauled are not worse than my chances of getting into a bad survival situation without the vehicle. That goes quadruple in the winter. Some life-long Californians may not have an instinct for just how deadly being caught out at night without suitable gear is.

BTW, while you think about that scenario, consider what a hunting guide I met along Grassy Lake road told me--the park service releases problem bears down there because it's out of the park and thus not their problem. There are probably more habituated grizzlies there than most places. :chris:

7x57

Maestro Pistolero
02-11-2010, 2:39 PM
Brown bears are rarely aggressive toward humans. Loud noises, yelling, waving arms, banging stuff together (pots and pans if at your campsite) has always sent them running in the other direction for me. Grizzlies, on the other hand . . . .

7x57
02-11-2010, 3:11 PM
Brown bears are rarely aggressive toward humans. Loud noises, yelling, waving arms, banging stuff together (pots and pans if at your campsite) has always sent them running in the other direction for me. Grizzlies, on the other hand . . . .

We may have a language issue here--"brown bear" means Ursus arctos. Inland they grow smaller and tend to be known as "grizzlies," but they are the same species as the huge salmon-fed coastal bears of Alaska and Kamchatka. Grizzlies *are* brown bears, and not the largest type....

I suspect you mean "black bears," Ursus americanus, which have that name regardless of their actual coat color (which can be brown). Much smaller (on average--but a big black bear may outweigh a small brownie, especially from different locations) and less aggressive, as you say. Common joke in bear country:

Tourist: I'll be OK, I always wear bells and carry pepper spray.

Native: um, OK.

Tourist: I hear you have grizzlies here too. How do I tell a black bear from a grizzly?

Native: well, you can check the scat. Black bear scat contains nuts and berries.

Tourist: nuts and berries, got it. What about grizzly scat?

Native: they usually contain little bells and smell like pepper spray. :43:

However, in the US black bears are far more numerous and live closer to humans, and actually account for more attacks (twice as many my memory suggests). So statistically, and averaging across the country, you're more likely to need protection from black bears than brown bears because their commonality outweighs their lower aggression. It's probably silly to average across the country, though, as there are very few grizzlies in the lower 48.

Also, black bears don't seem to attack for dominance reasons as grizzlies will, so if attacked you never submit and play dead. That sometimes works with grizzlies, but apparently just lets the black bear dine in peace.

I love sharing space with them, and don't ordinarily(*) worry about them, but I respect them a great deal. Fortunately, I believe the advice to stay in groups works for grizzlies as well as for black bears, so with three or more adults together you're statistically very safe.

7x57

(*) OTOH, I feel much better during the day on my own two feet. The first time I camped in grizzly country I had a wife and baby along, no gun suitable for bear, and it was raining. I spent the whole night listening to sounds, as did my wife. Once when I did get off to sleep my wife (in the other tent, as we needed too much space for all three of us and a dog in one tent) woke me up and said she heard footsteps--and sure enough there they were. Couldn't have been bear as they sounded more like boots coming up the gravel road--really gets your attention. The next day we found out a herd of deer had come through, and one had been clip-clopping on the gravel.

I must say that I've seldom felt so alert or vulnerable as being responsible for a baby in grizzly country at night.

dantodd
02-11-2010, 3:52 PM
Brown bears are rarely aggressive toward humans. Loud noises, yelling, waving arms, banging stuff together (pots and pans if at your campsite) has always sent them running in the other direction for me. Grizzlies, on the other hand . . . .

When I was in Alaska our guide told us the same thing. Apparently the more scarce diet which drove the Grizzly branch of the family to a smaller size also created a more aggressive bear, much more territorial and more likely to ambush too.

Dragunov
02-11-2010, 5:32 PM
I will shoot anything that's higher on the food chain than me if it even so much as FLINCHES aggressively towards me or my family whether or not I'm in its space or not. I don't go for "That bear has just as much right to be there as you do" BS, no he doesn't! If me and my family are there, we have the rights to be there and have priority!

Where I camp at, the property owner told me "The bears are very aggressive up here and if you see one near your camp, don't hesitate, don't even think about it, just shoot it then call me. Don't run the risk."

I intend on doing just that. Hopefully it won't ever become neccessary to do so.

Skidmark
02-11-2010, 6:48 PM
Please do not do this. If your life isn't threatened, keep it holstered. That's what insurance is for. One or two bear shootings like you are proposing could undo the progress and prevent the rest of us from access to self protection.

Yes, exactly.

And not to forget, bears are not the problem - people being sloppy with their food and waste are the problem. When food is properly stored, by all visitors and residents, bears learn to look elsewhere. The black bears in CA are not inclined to aggressive behavior.

b.faust
02-11-2010, 7:03 PM
Edit: Ursidae bears.

Haha, nice.
(I don't think anyone else caught that)

B.