I retired from law enforcement and spent 20 years as a Ranger for the National Park Service. I may be able to put some perspective on this. First, hunting is banned in all National Parks; always has been since Teddy Roosevelt set aside Yellowstone. The Baucus bill was to allow visitors to carry guns in the National Parks for personal protection. This reversed a "No Guns" policy that, once again, had been in effect forever. Now the quandry is what is for personal protection? Is it a .40 pocket Glock or a Remington 700 in 300 Winchester Magnum? In my experience, people are a whole lot more dangerous than wild animals. In all but the Parks with grizzlies out West, anything over a .357 is overkill. An "N" frame S&W in .44 mag becomes pretty heavy after several miles hiking in the mountains. I know of what I speak. Is a man carrying a high powered rifle with a scope in the backcountry of a National Park doing it for self protection or a poacher of opportunity? I expect this conundrum is the origin of the bullet ban.
I hunt and, from reading this chat line daily, am obviously pro-gun. But I do believe there needs to be areas that are protection zones for all species. Many of our species either exist only in such areas or owe their existence to such places. Buffalo, grizzlies, American crocodiles and countless others have been saved by good conservation management. If you don't believe in the role the NPS has played in saving our wildlife resources, then stop reading here 'cause we're just going to disagree.
National Parks are often confused with National Forests. Forests have always allowed harvesting of resources, including hunting. The ban would have no effect on federal lands other than those controlled by the NPS. The National Park Service does control some areas that permit hunting. Among these are the national preserves. I don't know how the bullet ban would effect these areas but suspect that A. they are exempted, or B. more likely, the proposer of the bullet ban doesn't understand the differences of management philosophies.
Our National Parks are heavily poached and armed poachers are often confronted by a single Ranger with backup miles and hours away. Once again, I know of what I speak. Statistically, wildlife enforcement is the most dangerous line of law enforcement. Give these guys some support. If this proposal is a bullet ban that helps cut down on poaching in wildlife sanctuaries and gives the Rangers another tool to protect our resources, then I'm for it. If the bill is an ill-written and duplicitously conceived effort of the anti-gun lobby, then I'm against it. From this column I just don't have the facts and suspect that many of those piling on the wagon don't either.
By the way, the Baucus bill (Democrat) was wildly opposed by many conservation organizations such as the Sierra Club who are obviously identified with the left. Many people fall into the trap of partisan politics and play it with the fervor of a team sport. My advice is to read slowly and think clearly. Personally, I don't trust either side.
