Wildlife Pays the Interest on Credit Card Reform

President Obama last week signed a much-discussed credit card reform bill, after Congress attached an utterly nongermane provision having more to do with reloading than refinancing. An amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) forces a reckless about-face on a Reagan-era rule which had, for a quarter-century, barred national park visitors from carrying loaded weapons. The original policy was enacted in 1983 as a way to combat poaching in these few remaining safe havens for wildlife, where rangers are few, miles of roads and trails are many, and animals are accustomed to the presence of people.

The rhetoric favoring the guns-in-parks amendment often verged on the absurd, and Erich Pratt, director of communications at Gun Owners of America, offered the most startling of arguments: "People have been raped, murdered, attacked by wild animals," Pratt told Congressional Quarterly. "Whether you're in national parks or Washington, D.C., it's just not right to tell people that you can't protect yourself and we will punish you if you try to."

The data show that national parks are some of the safest places in the United States. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006, compared to 473.5 victims per 100,000 citizens that same year. In other words, you're about 287 times more likely to be murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted if you're outside a national park. 

And what about those vicious wild animal attacks? Hunter and author Ted Kerasote, who lives in Wyoming within Grand Teton National Park, suggests that "pepper spray is a far better deterrent than a .44 magnum, especially in the hands of the inexperienced. I've now used it to turn a charging moose, dissuade a cantankerous bison and send a bear scurrying. The animals had a coughing fit, and I a scare, a far better outcome than guns often produce."

In fact, the new rule is likely to make national park visitors less safe around wildlife. Packing heat could give some people a false sense of security and make them more likely to approach bison, elk, moose, and grizzly bears, rather than keep a safe distance which is better for both people and animals.

But the most certain outcome of this congressional action is that it will promote poaching. The National Park Service warned in its fiscal 2006 budget submission to Congress that "the poaching of wildlife from national parks has been steadily increasing each year for the past several years ... The data suggests that there is a significant domestic as well as international trade for illegally taken plant and animal parts." Poaching, the agency said, "is suspected to be a factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks." 

Rather than listen to the very agency charged with stopping poachers and safeguarding wildlife in our national parks, Congress listened to the bombast and balderdash of the gun lobby. The shot will be heard for generations, and our wildlife will pay the high interest on this credit card bill.

Comments

[Ohio9]

Mr. Markarian, do you honestly think that poachers care about gun bans? They don't follow the law on hunting, so why would they follow the law on gun carrying? In that entire article, you provided no evidence whatsoever that gun bans reduce poaching, or that allowing CCW increases it.

Markarian: "The data show that national parks are some of the safest places in the United States. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006, compared to 473.5 victims per 100,000 citizens that same year. In other words, you're about 287 times more likely to be murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted if you're outside a national park."

So what? The fact remains that crime does exist in parks. Everything stated in the Pratt quote you cited is true. The fact that crime is less likely in parks doesn't mean we should not be able to defend against it.

Back in 1983 when the parks gun ban was put in place, only six state allowed CCW. Now 48 do. The old park policy is simply obsolete, and the new one simply forces it to update itself with the current times.

[djkrlsn]

Mr Markarian--since the record indicates that CCW holders are even MORE LAWABIDING than LEOs, what proof do you have that allowing CCW holders to carry in the parks will do ANYTHING to increase crime--including poaching

[Vickster]

Whenever I go camping in wilderness areas, I always bring my dogs (an Australian sheperd and a German sheperd) and a 12 gauge shotgun just in case my dogs need a back-up.

[OdinsEye]

Cont.


5. There is no reason that a law abiding person with a valid concealed carry permit for the state where the national park is located, meaning they have gone through the extra effort, spent the extra money, received the requisit training above simply owning a firearm, there is no reason they should have to disarm and unload prior to entering the park.

[OdinsEye]

1. The 1983 rule had no demonstrable reduction on poaching.

2. Loaded firearms have long been allowed in state parks and national forests with very few problems.

3. Regarding attacks by people: Yes, violent crime is low in national parks, but it is not non-existant. People are still murdered, raped, and assaulted in national parks. Banning a person's ability to defend against such an attack simply because they are not as frequent as in other places simply makes no sense.

4. Regarding attacks by animals: Pepper spary can be effective. And sometimes it is not. Many people have used pepper spray on animals with little positive effect. A firearm is quite effective, more so than pepper spray can hope to be. The reason so many do not advocate it is that the animal will likely be killed. Of course, those people over look the fact that if the animal attacked a person to the point that the person needed to use pepper spray or a firearm, then the animal will likely be tracked down and then put down by officials. As a cop and certified arms instructor who has been sprayed with pepper spray and has been TASERed, I can assure you that pepper spray is a not as effective as a firearm. It is a nice option, but if I am actively being attacked, I want a weapon, not a spray can.

[patianneb]

This is grotesque!

[howeverfaraway]

Wild animals have raped parkgoers?