I used to have similar views but they've changed over time.  My specific concern is with the use and manufacture of methamphetamine.  I have dealt with numerous persons involved in meth and they are simply "scary."  Meth tends to turn people into sociopaths, especially when they are binging.  In addition to use, the manufacture of meth is a hazardous enterprise and one that is frequently done on public lands, leaving the area as a hazardous waste site.  

I would also argue that the parks existence as a "gateway" is directly related to how they are managed.  If management makes a conscious decision to NOT be a gateway and to devote significant resources to enforcement, they can close the area to these undesirable activities.


I believe I said that Rangers are more concerned with long guns as they are more commonly used in poaching, the reason the law was originally passed.  My point was that you are far more likely to be cited for a firearms violation if the firearm is a slug loaded shotgun sitting on your front seat next to a spotlight.  

As I've noted previously, poaching has been a problem since the creation of National Parks and the restrictions on loaded firearms were viewed as a way to fight that problem.  It is not just in National Parks that restrictions on loaded long guns exist.  Other states have similar laws.  You can argue that these laws are wrong but I can assure you that the reason for the law isn't to leave you defenseless so that you can't resist government oppression but to prevent poaching.

My explanation of how to carry a pistol was meant to provide the best way to keep the weapons immediately accessible while complying with the law.  I'll be the first to admit that it limits the speed with which the weapon can be used, therefore diminishing its defensive value, but until the law is changed, it is the best option.

I must also remind you that I am bound by agency ethics policies (which are taken very seriously) to uphold the law and never advocate its disregard.  No matter what my personal feelings may be, I cannot, in a public forum, suggest that anyone not comply with the laws within a NPS area - or any other area for that matter.

I am not familiar with the complexities of the federal budget.  I do know that you can measure the number of FTE's (Full Time Equivalencies or one person working 40hr/wk) an agency has.  The actual number of field rangers has been cut by ~1/3 over the last ten years.  This fact has been documented extensively by our FOP lodge.  There are a variety of reasons for this, many of them related to budget.  I know that many parks may have an FTE available but the park does not have the money to actually fill the position.

I also know that you can measure the base budget for a park and adjust it for inflation.  It should be remembered that personnel costs will generally rise every year.  This happens as personnel gain more seniority and receive raises for inflation and cost of living adjustments.  As the government has been freezing and cutting budgets, the base budget for a parks have been slightly cut or kept the same.  If the budget isn't increase to adjust for increased personnel costs, the net result is that parks cannot afford to fill positions.

I would also remind you that operations such as the National Park Service constitute only a small percentage of the Federal budget.  The entire portion of the budget, designated for "law enforcement and general government" (of which NPS would only be small part) makes up only 2% of federal expenditures.  By my calculations (2000 data), Congress spent a whole $6.53 per person to fund the National Park System.

Finally to those who commented about the use of the 223 cartridge let me offer the following.  First, the 223 is used for LE operations, not wildlife management.  For this application, the 223 is just about perfect as it provides excellent hit potential, excellent terminal performance, and a minimal danger to bystanders.  For wildlife issues, rifles in 308 or 30'06 are authorized and shotguns with slugs are also commonly used.  The 308, 30'06 offer way too much penetration for most LE scenarios.

I think I should be able to have an M-16, so what's wrong with the park wardens having them too?

trickshot,

I saw the same show, and I was planning on posting about it, but you beat me to it.

While watching the show, I had two very different reactions:

Reaction 1) [b]"What a cool job, I wish I was doing that".[/b] This is my snotnose punk reaction; spying, sneaking around in the woods, using cool hardware, playing cat and mouse with drug smugglers--all great fun.

Reaction 2) [b]"Why the hell are they wasting the taxpayers money on this crap".[/b] My adult reaction.

I, too, liked the Jeep Cherokee (dayhiker?) stakeout. First, the ranger sees the Jeep parked on the side of the road with no one around. He looks in, decides it doesn't contain enough gear, and later in the day he stakes it out. All dressed up like a jungle ninja turtle armed with an M-4. He's too impatient to wait, so he goes down the trail a ways, and when he comes back the Jeep is gone. Probably a couple of innocent day hikers who just lucked out (at least, they didn't get shot).

Frankly, if I can't carry an M-4 in the Park, the rangers should do without as well. If they find going around unarmed (like any other subject) is too dangerous, they can always find another line of work.

If meth was legal, the manufacture wouldn't take place in National Parks.

I grew up in Southern California, in an area that has lots of meth labs. I agree, some meth manufacturers are 'scary', but I suspect they would be scary even if they were doing something else.

Considerable resources are already devoted to interdicting drugs. It doesn't work very well. In fact, the mob was pretty much a creation of efforts to interdict alcohol (back in the 20s), and the inner city gangs flurished due to the drug war (in the early 90s).

Actually, Teddy [i]was[/i] a left wing nut case.

He pushed through laws that increased the power of the federal governmnet. He chafed at Constitutional restrictions on federal power. His Bull Moose Party's platform was similar to FDR's New Deal. Teddy was a big central government man. He sure wasn't a classical liberal or a conservative--he was much more of a socialist or fascist.

I just spent a month training up Ft. Lewis, WA and was briefed extensivly about meth labs, and meth lab dumps on military and adjacent gov't land in and around Ft. Lewis. If those screwed up people hanging around in state and national forests doesn't justify forest rangers carrying that type of equipment, then I'm not sure what would. Not to mention those "mushroom hunters". There are people that run around up in the Pacific northwest that look for types of mushrooms that sell for hundreds of dollars. These people will kill to protect the areas they hunt in. So there you have it, only two of the many reasons that forest rangers should be well armed. I won't even get started on the regular types of sick folks that frequent our parks system.

I wondered about the park ranger at Harper Ferry who rode the tour bus from the parking lot down to the village. You know the "on the left you will see the ....." type of tour bus.

She had a pistol on her side. I guess they are expecting another raid anyday now? Will the ghost of John Brown come back? Will slave revolt?

M-16's for everyone!!