Gunning for trouble in national parks

Proposed changes to long-standing gun rules that would enact a patchwork of state restrictions could lead to more altercations

In its last months in office, the Bush administration has decided to spend time and energy on upending long-standing restrictions on carrying loaded guns in national parks. Proposed changes announced last week would end national rules and instead “reflect current state laws” on concealed weapons.

The rule in place since the 1930s has been clear and easy to follow: Ready-to-fire guns are not allowed on national lands where hunting is not permitted. Visitors may possess unloaded, stored guns. In national parks that allow hunting, people can carry loaded guns during hunting season.

Advocates of the change argue that visitors need protection from animal or human attacks. Yet the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees notes that a visitor has a 1 in 708,000 chance of being a victim of a violent crime in a national park — less likely than being struck by lightning. The same is true for animal attacks. Yellowstone National Park, for example, had more than 47 million visitors from 1980 to 1997. During that time, 23 people were injured by bears.

But if the proposed change takes effect, national parks certainly will see more wildlife poaching and human altercations involving guns.

At root, the issue really is not about guns. It’s about an agenda to de-nationalize national parks. In the Federal Register background to the proposed rule, the Bush administration asserts that federal regulations should “defer” to state laws and “respect the ability of states” to determine activities “within their borders.”

Hmm. Aren’t national parks national territory that belongs to all the people of the United States?

The public needs to tell the Bush administration that the old rules were just fine. Tell them to reject a patchwork of state rules and keep America’s national parks truly national.

Editor’s note: Editorials from other newspapers are offered to stimulate debate and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Tribune.