2010: a year when the national parks backcountry will be forever changed.
Ken Burns' mini-series will put the spotlight on scenic vistas like the Snake River in Yellowstone National Park, encouraging more visitors to the area. Will the fallout be good or bad for horsemen?
In the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, a Coca-Cola bottle dropped from a passing airplane lands in a remote African village, irrevocably changing the tribesmen’s worldview. In just a few months, the U.S. National Park Service will drop three of its own Coke bottles (of sorts): concealed weapons, mountain bikes and Ken Burns’ movie camera. What will the ramifications be for horsemen?
Concealed Weapons. A Department of the Interior amendment will allow loaded or concealed weapons in some national parks. Firearms were perviously prohibited in parks (except during hunting season), but the amendment requires only that a park’s gun rules align with the laws of its host state. For example, Rocky Mountain National Park will fall in line with Colorado gun laws.
This is good news for stockmen concerned about backcountry crime or self-defense against predators. Also, stockmen ill no longer be forced to use grizzly tools (read: hatchet or ax) when faced with the grim task of euthanizing a critically injured pack- or saddle-animal.
But, the amendment will mean increases in vandalism, poaching and the potential unease that could come with more guns in parks. The thought of a concealed weapon at Old Faithful seems off-kilter. As one source pointed out in a New York Times article, “It’d be like carrying around a bowling ball – you could do it, but why would you?”
Mountain Bikes. National Park superintendents are now empowered to determine if, when and where backcountry trails should be open for mountain biking. Currently, 31 National Park Service locations, such as parks, monuments and recreation areas, allow bikes on dirt roads or trails, mostly in the front country.
This is a positive step for local governance. Policymakers in Washington, D.C., shouldn’t decide backcountry trail designations. In addition, mountain bikers are mostly responsible, assiduous backcountry users. Horsemen’s groups should join forces with the potent International Mountain Bicycling Association to accomplish some serious backcountry advocacy. United, we can stand strong.
However, this change could lead to more rider-biker conflicts. A horse-versus-bike crash isn’t a pretty sight, and increased altercations could ensue. (My solution: baseball cards fixed in the bike’s spokes that will warn of an approaching pedaler.) Another potential negative: mountain bikes are classified as “mechanized” modes of transportation, as are motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. We’re on a slippery slope.
Filmmaker Ken Burns. When Burns turns his lens on a subject, millions of Americans watch. His documentaries have brought tidal waves of interest to topics such as the Civil War, jazz and baseball. His mini-series, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea, which began this fall on PBS, will undoubtedly make a huge impact.
This should mean increased commerce in and around parks. More Americans will vacation at national parks next summer, outfitters will see increased bookings, and local communities will enjoy an economic boon.
But, Burns’ series will have a side effect. Popular trails will have increased traffic, and park-related issues, such as the two mentioned previously, will gain the national spotlight. Prepare for opinions at the trailhead, informed and otherwise.
Western Horseman, November 2009
In your Nov.09 article, you’ve implied that because I and many others might choose to protect our lives, limbs and property, (a RIGHT afforded to us by the Second Amendment) that we will be inclined to vandalize and poach. Why would you be so careless to write such a thing? It is precisely that liberal kind of thinking that is being put into print or spewed over our airways that is slowly robbing us of our God given freedoms!
Scott,
Thanks for writing. I’m also a gun owner, so I appreciate your point of view. The goal of journalism is to present both sides of an issue, and I believe “Change of Scene” accomplishes that goal. Debate is healthy, hence the “comments” section of this website. Above all, thanks for reading Western Horseman and my column.
– Ryan
Mr Bell, thanks for insulting all us lawful gun owning subscribers with your “Change of Scene” article in the November 2009 issue of Western Horseman. There are more of us than you realize, and thanks for painting us all as potential criminals to the non gun owning subscribers of this magazine. This article is just the kind of factless garbage I would expect to read in the New York Times, and the last thing I want to read in Western Horseman is a quote from the New York Times. They know as much about guns and natural rights as they do about the differences between a decker and a sawbuck. And yes I said natural rights, the second amendment in the US Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms, it is an affirmation of the natural right to defense of one’s life and the lives of others.
You also need to get your facts straight about guns in the national parks. Guns have never been outright banned in national parks, but you were required to keep them unloaded and cased or disassembled. The criminals that choose to commit vandalism, poaching and other criminal activity were never deterred by these rules before and it will not change now. You just simply reguritated the untruthful garbage that the anit-gun media and lobbyists were using to oppose this rule change without citing where that information came from. The way it is written, the statements about vandalism, poaching and guns at Old Faithful appear to be comments from you, not the anti-gun people that originated these lies.
Guns in national parks is just as much a local (state) issue as mountain bikes in national parks as you alluded to later in the article. The funny thing about the guns in national parks issue is that rule change simply aligns gun rules with the laws of the state where the national park is located. In other words it only extends the freedoms of law abiding citizens that already exist outside park boundary. The key issue that anti-gun people choose to ignore (and actually try to hide) is that if there not any problems with guns on the state, federal, and private land outside a national park boundary, it will not be any different inside the national park.
Every time another state changes their concealed weapons laws for the benefit of lawful citizens the anti-gun crowd spews lies about shoot outs in the streets, but none of this ever happens. Lets talk about Yellowstone National Park for a minute. This park is located in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. All three states allow open carry without a permit, and right to carry (shall issue) permits for concealed carry. Do we have shootouts and rampant gun crime in these states? No we don’t and that is not going to change when concealed weapons are allowed in Yellowstone. What is the difference between a person with a concealed weapon on them at Old Faithful or at Yellowstone Gateway Sports in Livingston, just outside the park boundary. Mr. Bell, you and Western Horseman need to stick with the things you know about, which is horses, ranches and western culture to name a few.
Thanks for your time.
John Heintzelman
Blackfoot, Idaho