Keep an eye on this developing news:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washing...ff-public-lands
40gt
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washing...ff-public-lands
40gt
Hunting & Fishing Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
- Thread starter tickled pink
- Start date
Re: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
The worst part of this is that the decision is already made.
All the "Pubic hearings" and "Public input" are just a sham. Witness the restrictions on ATVs, and off road uses, as well as wholesale, draconian road closures. When asked at these hearings how much effect the input of the public had on the decision, the response was "none". They aren't even ashamed of it.
The Forest Service, BLM and National Park Service are stuffed FULL of leftist conservationists, whose primary goal is keeping citizens OFF Public lands.
The worst part of this is that the decision is already made.
All the "Pubic hearings" and "Public input" are just a sham. Witness the restrictions on ATVs, and off road uses, as well as wholesale, draconian road closures. When asked at these hearings how much effect the input of the public had on the decision, the response was "none". They aren't even ashamed of it.
The Forest Service, BLM and National Park Service are stuffed FULL of leftist conservationists, whose primary goal is keeping citizens OFF Public lands.
Re: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
I like my 17,000,000 acre Play Ground.
I like my 17,000,000 acre Play Ground.
Re: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
what is their definition of recreational shooting? and if they are shooting as recreation, shouldn't the shooters have enough sense to be at an approved range in the first place?
you also have to look at it from non shooters side
1. they go for a stroll, they don't want to end up shot, or at least have the risk of being shot.
2. there's no gauarrantee that the guy pulling the trigger is a safe, responsible target shooter using a proper backstop, using paper targets (and not washing machines, milk jugs, bottles, cans, then leaving the debris when done). when i'm camping, hiking, or hunting and come across the same scenario, i get alittle concerned too as there are entirely too many jerkoffs out there that don't consider the safety aspect of what they are doing with their firearms.
3. yeah ok, looking through a tree hugger's eye's, gunfire sort of ruins the whole "outdoor, feels like i'm out here myself" effect. sort of the same thing as going to the park with the kids and then julio pulls up with his loud muffler and mega watt woofer belching out some hip hop song.
4. "When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting."
at face value, that sounds reasonable. if people are trashing the area and it is shooting realated, then they should get bounced. of course you can read into it "what is unacceptable defacement".
in the end, shooters are behind the eight ball, and a few bad apples will ruin it for the rest. especially those that carry on in an area that be construed by both shooters and non shooters as close to other recreational areas.
only solution is, if the non shooters really want to curb random shooting activity, is to lobby that a dedicated range is built to reduce the amount of random shooting. contain the shooting to one area, contain the tree hugging in another. unfortunately that probably will not happen due to expense. perhaps a land user fee / permit for shooters, atv users, etc. to help curb the costs incurred and damages done by ALL of the types of users. and no that is not what they are paying taxes for.
this sunday i'll be shooting short range on a utility pole line on a side of a mountain. however, if i see that there are some cars parked about, i'll move on to an approved range, where i should be in the first place. no need for me to encroach on what those other folks are doing. but if no one is there, i'll be darn sure to pick up my brass, targets, and whatever else.
we have to police ourselves, it's a different world than what it used to be where our sport is heavily scrutinized more than ever. acting in a proper manner could only help. some consideration goes a long way in the politically correct arena.
what is their definition of recreational shooting? and if they are shooting as recreation, shouldn't the shooters have enough sense to be at an approved range in the first place?
you also have to look at it from non shooters side
1. they go for a stroll, they don't want to end up shot, or at least have the risk of being shot.
2. there's no gauarrantee that the guy pulling the trigger is a safe, responsible target shooter using a proper backstop, using paper targets (and not washing machines, milk jugs, bottles, cans, then leaving the debris when done). when i'm camping, hiking, or hunting and come across the same scenario, i get alittle concerned too as there are entirely too many jerkoffs out there that don't consider the safety aspect of what they are doing with their firearms.
3. yeah ok, looking through a tree hugger's eye's, gunfire sort of ruins the whole "outdoor, feels like i'm out here myself" effect. sort of the same thing as going to the park with the kids and then julio pulls up with his loud muffler and mega watt woofer belching out some hip hop song.
4. "When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting."
at face value, that sounds reasonable. if people are trashing the area and it is shooting realated, then they should get bounced. of course you can read into it "what is unacceptable defacement".
in the end, shooters are behind the eight ball, and a few bad apples will ruin it for the rest. especially those that carry on in an area that be construed by both shooters and non shooters as close to other recreational areas.
only solution is, if the non shooters really want to curb random shooting activity, is to lobby that a dedicated range is built to reduce the amount of random shooting. contain the shooting to one area, contain the tree hugging in another. unfortunately that probably will not happen due to expense. perhaps a land user fee / permit for shooters, atv users, etc. to help curb the costs incurred and damages done by ALL of the types of users. and no that is not what they are paying taxes for.
this sunday i'll be shooting short range on a utility pole line on a side of a mountain. however, if i see that there are some cars parked about, i'll move on to an approved range, where i should be in the first place. no need for me to encroach on what those other folks are doing. but if no one is there, i'll be darn sure to pick up my brass, targets, and whatever else.
we have to police ourselves, it's a different world than what it used to be where our sport is heavily scrutinized more than ever. acting in a proper manner could only help. some consideration goes a long way in the politically correct arena.
Re: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
It's public land. Everyone gets to use it. Why is my use bad and their's not? I guarantee you more damage is done by inconsiderate and ignorant campers, hikers, atv, horses, 4x4's, etc than by shooters.
It's public land. Everyone gets to use it. Why is my use bad and their's not? I guarantee you more damage is done by inconsiderate and ignorant campers, hikers, atv, horses, 4x4's, etc than by shooters.
Re: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
I agree hole hartedly to the last post, couldnt have put it better myself.
I agree hole hartedly to the last post, couldnt have put it better myself.
Re: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hankpac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Forest Service, BLM and National Park Service are stuffed FULL of leftist conservationists . . .
</div></div>
There's no such thing as a leftist conservationist. Those are environmentalists. The main difference being a conservationist aims to protect land FOR use by humans (this and later generations), environmentalists aim to protect land FROM humans.
The latter is one of the most vile creatures on earth.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hankpac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Forest Service, BLM and National Park Service are stuffed FULL of leftist conservationists . . .
</div></div>
There's no such thing as a leftist conservationist. Those are environmentalists. The main difference being a conservationist aims to protect land FOR use by humans (this and later generations), environmentalists aim to protect land FROM humans.
The latter is one of the most vile creatures on earth.
