Friday, December 05, 2008
Fairfax, Va. - The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has announced the final amended version of its changes to rules on carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. DOI’s move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these public lands are located. The National Rifle Association (NRA) led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands.

“Today’s announcement by the U.S. Department of the Interior brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges.”

DOI announced the rule change today and will publish the new regulations in the Federal Register. The new regulations allow right-to-carry permit holders to exercise their Second Amendment rights on national park and wildlife refuges in those states that recognize such permits. The move will provide consistency across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.

The NRA has long held that amendments to those regulations were needed to reflect the changed legal situations with respect to state laws on carrying firearms. Earlier this year, fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a strong bipartisan letter to the DOI supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to national park lands and refuges.

“These changes respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens as they enjoy our public lands,” concluded Cox. “We applaud the Interior Department’s efforts to amend these out of date regulations.”

Why in the world would someone need a gun in a National Park?

Remember, only you can prevent forest fires. Wise words indeed.

Yogi better watch his behind. Or he might turn into boo-boo.

Bear Mauls Woman in Gates of the Arctic National Park
Woman Killed In Bear Attack

Human bothers bear
bear defends itself
Good for bear.

Maybe that woman wanted a hug like the idiot who tried to hug a panda in a zoo

Yep, some people just don't know how to live with nature. Pretty silly to be camping in a remote area of a natl.park where there are bears....bears go where they smell food...even if the tent is "bear-proofed" there are still "smells" detectable to a bear. I'm pleased to know pepper spray was used to deter the bear.....not a gun. I guess that will be changing now that people can be legally armed in natl. parks.

The bears should be armed to protect themselves against ignorant people who do not know how to intelligently co-exist with the natural world.

At least you and g4a are on the same wavelength.

Thanx for the "compliment"!

Bears and other wild animals can be a problem when camping. There are non-lethal, effective ways to handle most problems. Non-lethal means of self defense are also a viable alternative when threatened by humans.

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_7183.aspx
Firearms, Bears, And Bear Spray
By Tom S. Smith, PhD, Bear Research Biologist, Plant and Wildlife Sciences Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
Friday, August 22, 2008
Hunting
This article was Archived on Monday, September 22, 2008
Print
I’ve been studying bear-human conflict for the past 17 years, and have heard all sides of the ‘firearms versus bear spray’ debate among big game hunters. The issue is: If you’re hunting and you encounter an aggressive bear—is it better to shoot it, or use bear spray to repel it?

Many die-hard hunters say they would never rely on bear spray to do the job of a gun. Others counter that a gun can possibly maim a bear, causing it to ferociously settle the score.

What position do bear biologists take in this debate? I can’t speak for others, but after studying more than 600 Alaska bear attacks, I’ve learned:

In 72 incidents of people using bear spray to defend themselves against aggressive bears in Alaska, 98% were uninjured, and those that were suffered only minor injuries.
In 300 incidents where people carried and used firearms for protection against aggressive bears in Alaska, 40% were injured or killed, including 23 fatalities and 16 severely injured persons. Another 48 people suffered lesser injuries.
I frequently hear hunters say: “I’m unwilling to let a bear within the range necessary for bear spray to be used." Unfortunately, a hunter generally doesn’t get that choice.

In my research, hunters were generally unable to fire a shot before the bear slammed into them. Some hunters couldn’t get the safety off, others short-stroked the bolt and jammed the cartridge, yet others, out of habit, tried to ‘scope’ the bear, losing critical seconds while failing to zero in.

With a can of bear spray on one’s hip or pack strap, it is simply a matter of pointing and shooting. In areas of poor visibility I always have a can of spray in my hand. It is easily carried over a finger and isn’t as clumsy as a firearm is in the field-ready position. All that is required is pointing the nozzle in the general direction and pushing a button. Accuracy is not nearly as critical as it is with a firearm. You can’t ‘wound’ a bear with bear spray. It also eliminates problems with sticking bolt actions, jamming shells, and hard-to-find safety mechanisms.

One thing bear spray and a rifle have in common is that success does depend on practice and learning how to use bear spray for its optimal effects, including being able to adjust for weather and wind direction.

Why not carry a can of bear spray on your hip or pack strap? Unless you are bear hunting, why take on the complications and possible legal ramifications of killing a bear out of season or without a license, especially a grizzly, if it can be convinced to go somewhere else in a non-lethal manner?

My suggestion to my fellow hunters is to pack bear spray and keep it ready for those times when you simply can’t bring a gun into service: while hiking, while butchering the meat, while packing it out; times when a gun simply isn’t convenient to have in one’s hands. Your family will thank you!

For more on hunting safely in bear country, visit FWP’s at fwp.mt.gov. Click "Be Bear Aware." Hunters can also p ick up a copy of " How to Hunt Safely in Grizzly Country" brochure at any FWP office.

Guns are just another safety option available to the outdoors person. Common sense and awareness should be number one.

I'm a Vikings fan, why should I be upset if a Bear gets hurt?

OK, seriously, pepper spray is too short range (if the bear is in range of accurate spraying you're in range for the bear) and relies on very good luck (try to hit a moving animal in the eyes, nostrils or mouth with a squirt gun). Noisemakers depend on the bears not getting used to them and not having a cub. With most handguns the average person wouldn't be likely to kill the bear but the combination of noise and pain will chase it away.

Apparently, most bear attacks happen quickly and they're close enough to you for a bear spray to be effective. Did you glance through the article I posted above?

Your points are well-taken, Tom. I personally have had first hand experence with bears in the wilderness. The one constant is that they are unpredictable.

You know what? I would prefer to be injured by non lethal means if a "shooter" misses his/her target. I want to be in a park where people are carrying guns? What about my right to be in a public venue without the fear of some idiot accidently shooting me or my family...or some drunken, high on drugs idiot deciding he/she doesn't like me or my dog, or my family. There is no way I will change my mind on this unless ALL people who are carrying a weapon in a public place (open or concealed)have been through mandatory gun use and safety training. Now that's common sense.

The cite was conditions far different than in the lower 48 where bears are more used to the ways man tries to scare them off (even the relatively shy brown bears in the north woods can be stubborn, aggressive and brave when lots of cabins get built). Of course hunters had almost all of the attacks and at close range, at long range they'd avoid the bear (unless it's what they're hunting). They were trying to use rifles in close, horrible disadvantage, that's why I looked at handguns for that situation.

Drunks, people high on drugs and idiots carry in parks despite it being illegal anyhow, that's already happening.

This is what some people don't understand. Those that flaunt the law have no interest in those that are law abiding. I see no reason to give them an advantage.
How can there be a massacre in a mall, when there is a ban to carry them there? How could Columbine and VA Tech happen, when firearms are banned from those places?

Well, since there's a threat around every corner, in every neighborhood, at every park, I better get myself armed. The argument is that an armed public deters crime and of course being armed allows one to protect self and property. How foolish of me not to be legally armed! It could become a trend among women...making a fashion statement with designer holsters.....a new market for the fashion industry.

The great thing about this country is the right not to carry.

I remember when it was very common to open carry around here (and I'd say over a third of the women carried concealed despite it being illegal at the time), there were a lot fewer shootings than when it became socially unacceptable or since concealed carry became legal. Then again I don't blame it on the laws or how many people are carrying, I blame it on breakdown in society.

There are lots of drunk drivers, would you make cars illegal? Does it mean you need a big SUV to be more likely to survive the crash if one hits you while you're driving? To my mind it means learning to be alert to the dangers, drunk drivers give warning signs and so do people who are careless with firearms, maintaining distance from both is prudent.

I understand what you're saying. The criminals are illegally armed and the rest of us have been unarmed because we abide by the laws and are "sitting" ducks for the armed, deranged humans out there.
BUT, I look at this right to carry with a practical eye,looking to see if more harm than good might be done if we all have the right to carry in certain situations. I have read that law enforcement people are not happy with students or faculty being armed to defend themselves against a Vtech situation because once they arrive on the scene they won't know the "good guys" from the "bad guys". So, are there better ways to protect students and faculty from being murdered? I'm not sure, but I think it's worth a discussion which is happening in certain states. And again, I press the point that unless people who carry are well trained in gun use and what to do in a "real life" situation, there could be additional unintentional carnage in a chaotic situation.
Does it make any difference whether one is shot dead intentionally or unintentionally? Dead is dead.
It's a complex issue and one that deserves careful consideration taking into account all sides of the issue. But what I don't think is practical or intelligent is for citizens to make "knee jerk"decisions based on fear and/or lack of information.

I emphasize again....with freedoms come responsibilities.....
So, this conversation is good....as long as we all keep open minds to others' point of view .

There are also people who come to the National Parks with other more nefarious things in mind than the natural beauty of the great outdoors. Back in the 60s, I used to go back-packing with some friends. One night, around the campfire, I asked if any of our group ever thought about the possibility of getting attacked, not by a bear, but by some crazed person. The answer I got from one of them was not what I expected.

He said, "Not me, because I sleep with a loaded pistol under my pillow."

Words I remember to this day.

Oh, and I slept better that night.

The parks and forests are becoming prime grounds for Meth production. I remember a time when parks and forest rangers were un-armed...not anymore.

Rangers being law enforcement I approve. John and Jane in the parks armed no way.

How bout Frank and Betty?