James R. Zinck

Zinck works for the Department of Agriculture and lives in Hardy.

Congress established the National Park Service in 1916 to manage the nation's parks -- the special natural and historic places in this country that preserve the greatest assets of our land and document our history. The park units today number 390 and preserve forever the beauty of our land and our historical record as a nation.

The parks are refuges from the common, places for learning and experiencing individually and collectively our natural and historic heritage. They have become recognized as sanctuaries, sacred places where we can slip the burdens of our daily lives and find out where we have come from and who we are today. Parks offer vistas for us to see the splendor of our land and opportunities to understand the people who made our history.

Viewing the parks with reverence could quickly and drastically change if an amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to S2483, an omnibus bill from the Energy and National Resources Committee, is enacted.

Historically, firearms in national parks have been restricted by requiring that they not be used, no hunting, etc., and be kept unloaded and out of sight, stored in vehicle trunks or cargo boxes. The Coburn amendment would remove the federal restrictions on firearm use in national parks and national wildlife refuges and would allow carrying firearms in accordance with state law.

The Coburn amendment falsely claims that firearms cannot be taken into national parks, an attempted scare tactic that Second Amendment rights are being denied. It also would create confusion and legal conflict across our popular, beloved and underfunded national park system.

I retired from the National Park Service after 37 years of service as a ranger, project manager, assistant superintendent and superintendent. I know firsthand how the service strives to create and maintain a setting for visitor enjoyment and inspiration. At this time, when peaceful and quiet places are rare, should not the parks continue as sanctuaries?

There are many reasons the Coburn amendment is a bad idea. A few examples:

n It would make it harder to protect our nation's icons. At beloved icons -- such as Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Statue of Liberty and the St. Louis Arch -- it could be more difficult to protect visitors against terrorism.

n It would increase opportunities for vandalism. Fragile natural resources, such as cacti found in Saguaro National Park and cultural resources found in many of our Virginia Civil War battlefield parks, would more likely be vandalized through target practice.

n It would make poaching of park wildlife easier. Poachers could operate with impunity because rangers would lack the authority to question individuals about their loaded weapons.

The agency believes poaching is a significant factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks. For example, in Shenandoah National Park, black bears are illegally hunted for their gall bladders, which are used in traditional Asian medicines.

n It would create confusion in parks that straddle multiple states. Death Valley is in California and Nevada. Yellowstone is in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. Some of these states have very different firearms laws. Which state laws would apply? How would visitors or park rangers readily understand such a confusing system?

Virginia Sens. John Warner and Jim Webb are believed to be leaning toward supporting the ill-conceived amendment. If you are concerned about how you want to experience your national parks, call or write them and urge them to oppose the Coburn amendment.