Firearm carry law is being updated for National Parks

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Captain Vlad

All it takes to make that bear a lot less agreeable is for you to have, unintentionally, placed yourself between her and her cubs. I've been raised the same way you have; respect nature, but I still carrying a gun in the woods is a pretty good idea.

The bear, generally, will not do anything to me if I don't do anything to it. This works both ways, as I'm not going to shoot the bear unless it's acting in a hostile fashion. But if the bear decides, for whatever reason, that he isn't pleased with my continued existence, I would much prefer to have the means to defend myself.

Bear mace would be more effective than a .45. You can shoot a bear five times through the heart, and it will not slow. Read about Lewis and Clark's encounter with a grizzly. Three shots to the head and three to the heart, I believe it was, and it finally died after chasing them for half an hour!

Repellents like mace work well because they irritate the bear's vital sensory organs. A gun is just going to make it even more pissed off than it already is.

You don't need to carry a gun around on a national park, and the reason why the law was introduced in the first place was to prevent poaching of endangered animals, like buffalo, wolves, eagles, etc. that live on the parks.

[Frame57]

Larry Kelly has taken every large game animal with a meager 44 magnum. Bob Munden took a Grizzly at 60 yards with one shot with a 454 Casull. No animal with its heart shot out can do the exploits Stealth referenced. Usually when tales of such things occur is that non lethal shots were placed and the animal had not yet bled out and rode on pure adrenaline.

[Sailor Steve]

I live in the state known as Utah. The total land area of The UK is 94.5 thousand square miles. The total land area of Utah is 85 thousand square miles - pretty close to the same. The total population of the UK is about 61 million. The total population of Utah is 2.6 million.

I have a friend who lives in a small town 30 miles from Salt Lake City. He has what we call a "horse property" - a small farm/ranch with a couple of horses, a cow, some chickens, ducks etc. He regularly has what he jokingly describes as "kitty problems". Cougars, aka mountain lions, regularly come out of the nearby foothills to try to get a cheap meal.

The bordering state of Wyoming (where the oft-maligned Dick Cheney is from) has a total area of almost 98 thousand square miles - bigger than the entire UK. Wyoming also has a total population of just 523,000 people. Unlike Utah, which is half desert and half mountains, Wyoming is mountains and plains. What isn't forest is grass, but it's mostly forest. And only half a million people live there. In Wyoming it really is possible to have the nearest policeman be 300 miles away when a criminal, or a bear, or a cougar, or a wolf, decides to see if there are some easy pickings around.

What a lot of Europeans - and eastern-seaboard Americans - don't realize is that what's good for Copenhagen - or New York - isn't necessarily what's good for Wyoming - or Utah. I don't care if this state or that wants to ban guns, or to have socialized health care, or anything else. What I object to is anyone else trying to force their ideals on me by using the federal government as a lever. That's why we still have States, and why we need to make our own rules, not somebody elses. It's also why why you calling the way we choose to live "stupid" is, well, stupid.

[sunvalleyslim]

"would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

Doesn't allow for everyone to "carry".........you need to be a law enforcement officer or have a concealed weapons permit from a law enforcement agency to be armed. Los Angeles City and County do not give private citizens concealed gun permits

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Larry Kelly has taken every large game animal with a meager 44 magnum. Bob Munden took a Grizzly at 60 yards with one shot with a 454 Casull. No animal with its heart shot out can do the exploits Stealth referenced. Usually when tales of such things occur is that non lethal shots were placed and the animal had not yet bled out and rode on pure adrenaline.

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-b...dclark/bears_1

:hmm:

Clark's full diary entry reads:

Sunday, May 5, 1805

"In the evening we saw a Brown or Grisley beare on a sand beech, I went out with one man Geo Drewyer & Killed the bear, which was verry large and a turrible looking animal, which we found verry hard to kill we Shot ten Balls into him before we killed him, & 5 of those Balls through his lights This animal is the largest of the carnivorous kind I ever saw we had nothing that could way him, I think his weight may be stated at 500 pounds [227 kilograms].... we had him skined and divided, the oile tried up & put in Kegs for use."

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by August

Our national park system alone encompasses 84.4 million acres.

Look, all this regulation does is bring the national park lands in line with the laws of the states they're located in. It's not like these huge wilderness areas have a fence around them.

How many acres in a hectare? We have 60.4 million hectares..?

[magic452]

If memory serves me right about 2.5 acres to the hectare.
About 151 million acres. Lots of room to get lost in.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-b...dclark/bears_1

:hmm:

Clark's full diary entry reads:

Sunday, May 5, 1805

"In the evening we saw a Brown or Grisley beare on a sand beech, I went out with one man Geo Drewyer & Killed the bear, which was verry large and a turrible looking animal, which we found verry hard to kill we Shot ten Balls into him before we killed him, & 5 of those Balls through his lights This animal is the largest of the carnivorous kind I ever saw we had nothing that could way him, I think his weight may be stated at 500 pounds [227 kilograms].... we had him skined and divided, the oile tried up & put in Kegs for use."

You should have had a spoiler alert. That's the next book I'm going to read.

PD

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-b...dclark/bears_1

:hmm:

Clark's full diary entry reads:

Sunday, May 5, 1805

"In the evening we saw a Brown or Grisley beare on a sand beech, I went out with one man Geo Drewyer & Killed the bear, which was verry large and a turrible looking animal, which we found verry hard to kill we Shot ten Balls into him before we killed him, & 5 of those Balls through his lights This animal is the largest of the carnivorous kind I ever saw we had nothing that could way him, I think his weight may be stated at 500 pounds [227 kilograms].... we had him skined and divided, the oile tried up & put in Kegs for use."

Years ago there was great controversy about the .44 magnum being an effective big game cartridge and the fellow arguing used biased and un-educated information to make his point. It was argued that at point blank range the 44 magnum could not penetrate an adult grizzly sufficiently to engage the vital organs. The problem here is that what was not reported and later found out was that the alleged incident involved the 44 being loaded with lead semi wad cutters and the charge was at the level of a 44 special. On the other hand, the experienced hunter know that you have to have a balance of penetration and expansion in order to have an effective game stopping cartridge. A 44 magnum with a hard cast 310 grain bullet (see Garrett website) can go right through a bear. So the fact that these fellows you are referencing were using lead balls, it does not surprize me that they had a problem on their hands. I do go along in that an enraged bear is harder to stop than a docile one because of adrenaline issues. It is all about using the right cartridge and shot placement...

[Enigma]

The other side of the argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/op...wed4.html?_r=1

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

The other side of the argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/op...wed4.html?_r=1

Unfortunately, far too many states have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. But no one should misinterpret those laws as the will of the people. They too are the will of the N.R.A., which has done everything in its power to force dangerous gun laws through one State Legislature after the next.

Yeah because everyone in the whole country thinks like a New York opinion piece writer...

[Enigma]

More....

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

Seven former National Park Service directors went on record opposing any changes in the Reagan-era regulation last April in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.
The letter stated in part: “The current regulations have served the Park Service and the public well for the past 25 years. These rules, promulgated during the Reagan Administration, are essential to park rangers in carrying out their duties of protecting park resources and wildlife, and in assuring the safety of visitors to the parks.
As matters stand, visitors to the national parks are not prohibited from having guns. The regulations require merely that firearms in a visitor’s possession be unloaded and put away while within park boundaries. The regulation was crafted to be as narrowly restrictive as possible while assisting park personnel to prevent unlawful killing of wildlife. Informing visitors as they enter a park that their guns must be unloaded and stowed away puts them on notice that they are entering a special place where wildlife are protected and the environment is respected both for the visitor’s enjoyment and the enjoyment of others. While most gun owners are indeed law-abiding citizens, failure to comply with this minimal requirement can be a signal to rangers that something is wrong.
Removing that simple point of reference would seriously impair park rangers’ ability to protect people and resources, and if necessary manage crowds.
In all our years, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance. Park boundaries are required to be well marked. Even where national parks border wilderness or other open public or private land there is really little reason for hunters to claim confusion as to their location. Rangers have discretion to determine whether a particular violation of the rule should be prosecuted. There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
The seven directors signing the letter included: Ronald Walker, 1973-1975; Gary Everhardt, 1975-1977l; George B. Hartzog, 1964-1972; James M. Ridenour, 1989-1993; Roger G. Kennedy, 1993-1997; Robert Stanton, 1997-2001 and Fran P. Mainella, 2001-2006.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early this week and take effect 30 days later. Federal officials say overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

[Captain Vlad]

You can shoot a bear five times through the heart, and it will not slow. Read about Lewis and Clark's encounter with a grizzly. Three shots to the head and three to the heart, I believe it was, and it finally died after chasing them for half an hour!

See other people's replies for why this has little relevance in the modern world. Also keep in mind that a lot of national park land in the US doesn't feature grizzly bears.

As for bear mace...I'd prefer not to wait until the grizzly was quite that close, sorry.

You don't need to carry a gun around on a national park/

Your perception is that no one needs to carry a gun on a national park. There's been plenty of reasons listed as to why the reverse is closer to the truth.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Captain Vlad

See other people's replies for why this has little relevance in the modern world. Also keep in mind that a lot of national park land in the US doesn't feature grizzly bears.

If a black powder musket doesn't kill a bear after shooting it FIVE TIMES through the head, do you really think a magnum is going to be much better? I mean, it's more powerful, but are you a good enough shot to get five consecutive shots on a charging GRIZZLY BEAR with a revolver? You're betting on an awful lot.

Oh, and can you name of any national parks that have huge fences preventing animals from coming and going as they please?

Also, a bear is slower than a mountain lion. Imagine having one of those fast beasts coming for you.

Originally Posted by Captain Vlad

As for bear mace...I'd prefer not to wait until the grizzly was quite that close, sorry.

Read up a little more about it. They don't have to be like three feet away from you. Not that it matters. If you're a good enough shot to get off a full magnum chamber into a charging and pissed-off bear's head, you can definitely use mace against it...

Originally Posted by Captain Vlad

Your perception is that no one needs to carry a gun on a national park. There's been plenty of reasons listed as to why the reverse is closer to the truth.

Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? Be worried about the people, not the animals. Bears and cougars and such generally avoid people, unless you trespass in their territory or act like an idiot and/or keep your food in the open.

Use your brain, and you have nothing to fear from the animals.

[Frame57]

I have friends who like using blackpowder to hunt to this day. But the blackpowder is much better than it was in those days and they use hard cast rather than soft lead. Even still when we go to the range they often get misfires and i would not trust a ball and cap when i can use modern technology. But the discussed case of these fellows shooting a bear and allegedly hitting 5 times in the knoggen etc... is not suffiecient to stand alone as a case in this matter. Not when modern famous hunters like Kelly, Munden, Peterson, Jamison etc... have taken big game using a handgun.

But i do agree that the #1 reason I carry when i hike is the subhuman threat rather than a rogue animal attack.

In regards to these sprays people advocate. I was a letter carrier in Florida for about two years. I was attacked by a dog and used my authorized pepper spray on him, and all the damned dog did was roll his snout in the grass for a moment and then was really pissed and came at me again. But this time i used my unauthorized retractable baton and took care of Mister doggy. So I have very little confidence in these pepper sprays, especially against a friggin bear...