POACHING IN NATIONAL PARKS WILL RISE UNDER OPEN FIREARMS PLAN

[nosmokes]

original-peer

or Immediate Release: June 26, 2008
Contact: Carol Goldberg [phone]

POACHING IN NATIONAL PARKS WILL RISE UNDER OPEN FIREARMS PLAN

— Rules Will Be Ensnared in Lawsuits for Failure to Review Environmental Impacts

Washington, DC — The ability of national park rangers to control poaching will be crippled by a new firearms policy proposed by the Bush administration, according to formal comments filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). This proposal to allow open carrying of loaded firearms inside parks may never go into effect, however, since the Interior Department did not conduct assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

On April 30, 2008, the Interior Department proposed a repeal of nearly century-old national park rules requiring that firearms be unloaded and unavailable for ready use, except for the very limited authorized hunting opportunities on park lands. In its place, the Bush administration would substitute the various laws governing “any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in which state the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located…” Public comment on this plan ends this upcoming Monday, June 30th.

Besides substituting a hodgepodge of confusing state rules for one clear, long-standing policy, the Bush administration plan removes one of the key tools that park rangers have to safeguard park wildlife from poaching. As long-time former park manager and PEER Board Member Frank Buono explains:

“Rangers are few, and the miles of roads and acres in the park system are many. Park wildlife is often unafraid of people. Parks contain some of the most spectacular trophy specimens. Parks are places where poaching occurs and is most rewarding – to the poacher.”

The Bush administration proposed the rules in response to a National Rifle Association campaign that threatened congressional repeal of the park service rules. The NRA has made no secret of its desire to increase hunting within national parks.

Another large defect with the plan is the failure of the Bush Interior Department to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for conducting a formal assessment of any significant action with potential environmental impacts. In its Federal Register notice Interior concedes the proposal will have effects on “visitor safety resource protection” but states that:

“We are currently working to determine the appropriate level of NEPA assessment and documentation that will be required for the promulgation of this regulation.”

Nonetheless, the Park Service has prepared NEPA assessments for far less significant proposed rulemakings. If these rules are adopted, a NEPA lawsuit would likely result in the judicial cancellation of the rules until NEPA requirements have been satisfied, a process that would take months, if not years.

“NEPA litigation will stall these firearm rules until the next administration where they may never again see the light of day,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is completely in character for this Interior Department to overlook the very environmental laws they are supposed to be administering.”

###













complete release including links to related sources here

[Redstone]

1. Why do you hate our freedoms? This is America! Guns, guns, everywhere!

Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and GUNS! It's the American Way!

Redstone

[pt22]

3. Guns long before baseball or hot dogs. You almost got it right.

...

[pt22]

2. Of course...a poacher would never dream of violating a gun law.

Whoever authored that farrago of bullshit is an idiot.

[Oregone]

9. My first thought. Absolutely ABSURD topic here....

"Well, I might use a spotlight, but fully auto-assault rifles are for cheaters!"

[devilgrrl]

4. Well someone's got to do something about those problem Jack-A-Lope!!!!

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Poaching in national parks will increase with increasing food and oil prices.

Squatting will increase as well.

[virginia mountainman]

6. GROAN....

No it wont......

If a poacher, is already not deterred by hunting regulations, what makes you think that the gun ban stopped him in the first place?

More of the anti-guns bullshit...they are going nuts since they got their asses handed to them in DC today.

[slackmaster]

7. Being "progressive" or "liberal" doesn't prevent you from being a bigot

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Bigot?

Come again?

[slackmaster]

10. The assumption that someone who carries a gun lawfully would be inclined to violate hunting laws

Sounds kind of like bigotry to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Against who?

Dipshits who carry guns lawfully?

[slackmaster]

12. Referring to people who carry guns lawfully as "dipshits" sounds like bigotry to me too

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Really? What about dipshits who drive hummers, where toupees, or vote republican?

Or how about the dipshits who don't understand the fairly simple concept of "bigotry?"

[slackmaster]

14. What about them?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Are we talking about people who were born that way?

People who subscribe to a particular religion or culture? Or are we just judging people based upon the content of their character?

[slackmaster]

19. You think that all people (other than police and military of course) who carry are of bad character?

I don't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Pretty much.

Maybe not the antiques collectors, or the target shooters.

The NRA nuts? The chickenshit ones worried about home invaders? The emasculated ones who need guns to feel macho? Man, fuck those dipshits.

[slackmaster]

21. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with

And some pretty serious assumptions you're making about what's going on inside of other peoples' heads.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. If they were something going on inside their heads...

they'd figure out their more likely to shoot a family member than any home invader, and get rid of the gun.

[slackmaster]

24. Some people who carry guns for self-defense are victims of stalking, rape, and other crimes

I'm sorry you have no empathy for them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well then that would be an extenuating circumstance and a legitimate reason.

So those aren't the people I'm talking about.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

26. You just ASSume that many or most people who carry don't have reasons that you would consider legit

Shameful.

As for me, I make no such assumption. There may very well be a lot of people who carry guns for reasons I wouldn't necessarily agree with. The difference between you and me is that I trust people to make their own judgements, right or wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Well, yeah.

I'd assume that most gun owners aren't being pursued by stalkers, disgruntled loan sharks, or time traveling cyborgs come back from the future.

And maybe that guy with the hummer's got a very good reason for wasting so much gas.

[slackmaster]

34. Most gun OWNERS don't CARRY guns for self-defense

And maybe that guy with the hummer's got a very good reason for wasting so much gas.

I don't really care whether he does or not. The consequences for me of his decision are minimal, if any. I'm content to let him live with his decisions.

That, again, is the real difference between you and me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. What's the number one reason?

Because it's cool?

[slackmaster]

43. I don't know, and once again in case you missed it the other two times

I don't care.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Then how do you know it's not for self defense?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

52. I'm OK with people carrying guns for self defense

Aren't you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Guns are more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder...

So unless there's a justified threat, people who think they've got guns for self defense don't.

[Redstone]

64. You're wasting your breath. Such statistics are lost on the GunNutters.

Redstone

[slackmaster]

65. Body Count Fallacy

Falsely assumes that the only USE for a gun involves firing it at a person.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. body count fallacy fallacy

Falsely assumes that guns aren't used to intimidate family members the same way they intimidate intruders.

[slackmaster]

73. Is this more anti-gun-owner bigotry I'm seeing?

Most gun owners don't use guns to intimidate family members, ever.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. No, it's your ass getting handed to you.

"Most gun owners don't use guns to intimidate family members, ever."

Neither do they intimidate home intruders with them, Einstein.

Maybe you should have thought more about this dumb NRA fallacy before trying it out.

[slackmaster]

82. Here's a list of things I don't do, since you insist on making shit up

- Carry a gun for self-defense.

- Keep a gun ready for self-defense at home.

- Use a gun to intimidate family members.

- Shoot at people.

- Hunt.

- Leave guns unsecured when they aren't in use.

- Take crap from anonymous twits on the Internet.

Sorry to have to bust up your comfortable little stereotype.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. Listen, just because you're so defensive...

It doesn't mean I think you do any of these, nor do I care.

[Dimensio0]

89. Can you provide a factual basis for your claims

or is the sum total of your position supported entirely by hyperbole?

[aikoaiko]

79. Will the sky fall, too? Will rivers turn to blood?

[Irreverend IX]

85. That's not true.

The "more likely to shoot a family member" lie comes from the Kellerman study, which has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

http://www.guncite.com/Kellerman93Letters.html

http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html

[pt22]

15. All Marines carry guns lawfully...I really doubt you have the cojones to call them

dipshits to their faces.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. So do cops.

But I thought we were talking about dipshit civilians, not people with a legitimate reason.

[pt22]

27. No, YOU were talking about dipshits...you didn't delineate their affiliation.

Given that Marines (and soldiers) are "trained" to kill without regard to the guilt or innocence of the shootees, I'm a hell of a lot more comfortable around a citizen with a gun who isn't programmed with that mindset. Your mileage obviously varies. But then I guess you're ready to walk up to any armed person and call them a dipshit. That probably won't work very well outside your mommy's basement.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Uh...

I'm pretty sure marines are trained not to shoot civilians, although whether or not they follow that training is another issue. Tell you what, why don't you go up to their face and call them indiscriminate killers.

:rofl:

[pt22]

33. Well, it's obvious you never got within 20 miles of a recruiting office.

Does REMF have any meaning to you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers.

People who've got guns but no reason to use them.

[pt22]

72. I congratulate you on the appropriateness of your username.

:hi:
It lends a certain bit of je ne sais quoi to the discussion.

[fascisthunter]

37. lol... a "Bigot"... That's a New One

[slackmaster]

39. Look it up

OK, I'll look it up for you

bigot
One entry found.

bigot

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[fascisthunter]

46. Lol... awwwww..... poor poor "bigot"

hates it when others disagree with him. Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot!!!!!

Give me a break. Next you'll accuse people of terrorism too.

[slackmaster]

54. Struggling to parse your comment

Are you calling me a bigot, or taunting Bornagainhooligan for being a bigot (and BTW I didn't call him that or anything else)?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. That's true. You accused nosmokes.

Fascisthunter isn't accusing anybody, just pointing out how with, ironically, a simple, logical extension of your own accusation you called yourself a bigot.

[fascisthunter]

74. that is all I was saying... and slackmaster is not a bigot in my book

neither are you.

[fascisthunter]

63. Yes... You Too Are a Bigot Now, through Your very use of that Word

According to you, people who seem prejudiced against another's point of view, or "SEEM" to hate that person for their point of view are bigots. So, everybody on DU can be considered a bigot for one thing or another, for hatred get's defined subjectively. Bigots against the right, the left, bigots against war and their supporters, bigots against the anti-war movement... all bigots. Because you know somebody will think it's hatred.

So now we are all bigots ...

PS - You aint no bigot.....

[slackmaster]

67. Go back and read the dictionary definition I posted

A person occasionally engaging in bigotry does not make that person a bigot. People who do it all the time are bigots.

PS - You aint no bigot.....

Thank you. I consider myself to be a curmudgeon, and a smartass.

:hi:

[jody]

18. PEER ignores the simple fact that citizens want to carry legal firearms in National Parks and

Forests to protect themselves against crime that park rangers are powerless to prevent as well as attacks against predators like mountain lions and bears.

[depakid]

23. "...attacks against predators like mountain lions and bears."

You'd never see a mountain lion coming- and if you shot a bear, all you'd likely do is piss it off- and get yourself mauled for sure.

The only protections a person needs in a national park is something like this:



Anything else pretty much invites tragedy or disaster (quite aside from being weighty in the pack).

Those experienced in the wilderness know this- unfortunately, the Bush Administration decision will only encourage those with little or NO experience to behave irrationally or attempt to assuage their paranoia- and in the end, this- like most every other Republican policy will make EVERYONE -animals and humans alike, unsafe.

[pt22]

28. There's a name for people who depend on "Bear Repellant"

Lunch

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. What do they call people who feel so insecure going for a walk in the woods?

I mean besides cowards, chickens, etc.

[slackmaster]

36. Golfers

[fascisthunter]

40. paranoids?

macho dipshits? carry a gun for fear of animals????? Lol.... that's bullshit. But a great talking point for those who know others know nothing about wild animals. I'd say the animals had more brains than those who think they need a gun with them in a national park.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. I mean if the national park were in Alaska, sure.

I mean polar bears are actually known to be a threat.

But lower 48? C'mon.

[slackmaster]

45. I've spent a lot of time outdoors in Southern California

Not once have I been threatened by any species other than Homo sapiens.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. So you feel threatened by people.

Does having a gun make that feeling go away?

[slackmaster]

50. No, I don't feel threatened by people

Does having a gun make that feeling go away?

Since I neither have that feeling nor generally carry a gun, the question is irrelevant.

[fascisthunter]

49. Exactly....

There are safer more practical ways of staying away from danger out in the Wild... If people are that scared, stay away from it, because those that do on a regular basis do just fine with a gun. Very rarely do animals seek out folks to kill them. This is about giving people as much access to places with guns, so that gun sales will go up! The arguments in favor of this are ridiculous. I feel like we are reading the Onion sometimes.

[OnionPatch]

56. It's not like it doesn't happen.

We had a few people eaten by mountain lions here in California a year or so ago, there are plenty of instances of bear attacks, too. Some people prefer to stay at the top of the food chain. Why should someone else care if one wants to stay safe wherever they are?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. How many accidental shooting deaths have you had?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

69. According to the CDC, there were 789 fatal shooting deaths in the USA in 2005

The most recent year for which statistics are available.

Roll your own query at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/WISQARS/

[OnionPatch]

88. So far I haven't had any accidents at all that led to death.

Obviously. However, that doesn't make me less protective of my life.

[depakid]

35. LOL. No one "depends" on it

but it's a nice thing to have- both safe and much more effective than a gun.

Think about it- bears noses are even more sensitive than a dogs. What does a dog do when it's hit by pepper spray?

For more, see: http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/pepperspray/pepperspray.htm

What you want of course is NOT to attract (with a messy camp, for example) or surprise them -which holds particularly true for Griz.

In griz country, we use something similar to these:

[fascisthunter]

53. It's What Folks I Know Use

Never seemed to need to use it either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Who's more admirable?

The guy who goes up against a bear with a gun, or the guy with a spray bottle?

[slackmaster]

60. Anybody who goes after a bear with a gun is just plain stupid

In my opinion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. bigot

j/k

[fascisthunter]

70. That's a Good Point

It's why I have much more respect for people who don't walk around with guns. Of course I am talking about those who feel threatened by people and are always afraid something might happen so they buy a weapon and add more danger to the mix. Too many variables... life is not a movie and when the moment arises, I doubt anyone untrained knows what to do. People who are trained already have had a hard time in documented situations...

Well.... we will live in a country with more guns, and as we have seen, more guns lead to more guns and we already have too many deaths due to guns. It's really too bad, because nobody will be safer, and gun manufacturers will be the beneficiaries at the expense of our safety. So unnecessary.

[slackmaster]

75. I think you're running on pure stereotype there

:argh:

[fascisthunter]

81. Well... that's Better Than Calling Me a Bigot

[jody]

30. I have decades of experience in the wilderness including work as a forester. Have a nice day. n/t

[depakid]

58. Then you know not to try to shoot at a bear

The old timers' stories are true: bullets- particularly lower velocity bullets from handguns can and do bounce right off their skulls.

Incidentally, here a couple we recently saw by the road near Mt. Baker. They weren't too concerned with us (or anyone else) and so unfortunately, the situation is ripe for someone to do something stupid and feed, heckle ...or shoot them.



-------------

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Baker? No kidding?

Had some mountain goats approach the car down at Nooksack Falls, never seen a bear.

[slackmaster]

71. Interesting factoid - Black bears have been sighted in San Diego Co. recently

For the first time in history. Biologists believe they never lived here previously because the now-extinct silvertip grizzly (the one on our state flag) kept them out of the area.

I'm not afraid of black bears, but respect them. I've seen them up close many times.

[depakid]

84. That is interesting.

Occasionally one wanders down from the Angeles National Forest to the LA suburbs, but I hadn't heard of sitings that far south.

Yep- respect is the key. Black bear will almost always run from humans even when startled- but if they set their nose on a person's food- it "belongs to them" and they're considerably less inclined to be run off...

btw: I've also a healthy respect for rattlesnakes as well, having nearly been bitten once on the hand while scrambling up a rocky canyon. That would have made for a lousy day.

[depakid]

78. Yep, right about snowline on June 12th

which at the time was about a mile or so before the turnoff to the lodge with the raven statues (forgot what it's called).

Didn't know there were mountain goats in the area! Seen plenty too many in the Olympics (they're pests and hard to shoo away).

Nooksack falls is pretty impressive. In particular the sign which lets folks know about what's happened to the foolish who wandered too close....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Ha! Neither did I!

They sure surprised me.

Nooksack Falls, man. When I was a kid I used to get way closer than the sign. Still scares me think how dumb I was.

[jody]

77. You do know that a .44 Mag, 250 gr. bullet, MV 1760 fps, ME 840 is much better than your insect

repellent?

[depakid]

80. No ranger I've ever met would agree with that-

particularly if it were in the hands of the inexperienced (which is the VAST majority of those who'd startle a griz or attract a bear with their smelly food).

Nope, rangers in the lower 48 especially would prefer NOT to have to deal with armed neophytes in the woods.

[jody]

87. I agree with you re experience. No one should rely on a .44 mag for protection unless they are

qualified to use it.

That's no different than saying no one should use a chain saw unless they are qualified to use it or no one should venture into a remote area without survival equipment and know how to use it.

I believe my backpacking days are over but I have enough memories to last me the rest of this life. :hi:

[RebelOne]

90. It would be very stupid to try to kill a bear with a handgun.

[napi21]

38. I don't want to upset all you city folks, but hunting in some national

parks would be fine if not necessary. When I was first married, we didn't have much money, and my husband did a lot of hunting on farms near us. There were some years when we didn't buy any meat in the grocery store, and ate deer, bear, rabbit, squirrel, wild turkey, and grouse. We had a vegi garden, and the only things we had to buy at the store were milk (for the babies), cereal, flour shortening and yeast to make bread, , and eggs. I'm seeing times like that coming again, and we no longer live near farms were we can hunt. There are Wildlife Management Areas where the hunting is allowed and governed under the State rules of different seasons for different game. I don't know what they mean by hunting in National Parks. What the rules would be, and exactly where in the parks?

[raouldukelives]

51. It might also rise from that hunger thing

That I hear more and more folks are bitching about.