National Forest Recreational Shooting Ban

[BuzzH]

There are already laws against littering.

Its not just about littering...in case you haven't been following along.

 

[BuzzH]

Recreational shooting is already banned in campgrounds.

Why do you suppose that is?

Why the need?

What happened to personal accountability?

 

[Odin]

I should be able to hike up a mountain in a National Forest and fire a weapon at a target on my Public lands. If I should somebody, I will go to jail if I am negligent.

 

[TheJason]

There are already laws against littering.

No kidding Einstein. Where did I say there wasn't a law against littering?

Again, why don't you provide something meaningful instead of this same tired old one question system you have of "arguing" your point.

You don't provoke thought or insightful discussion, you are merely a pain in the ass.

 

[Odin]

Its not just about littering...in case you haven't been following along.

I have followed along.

Why should I not be able to fire at a target on My public lands?

 

[Odin]

No kidding Einstein. Where did I say there wasn't a law against littering?

Again, why don't you provide something meaningful instead of this same tired old one question system you have of "arguing" your point.

You don't provoke thought or insightful discussion, you are merely a pain in the ass.

It's not rocket science.

You build ranges for the recreational shooters.

You increase the fines for littering and shooting in banned areas.

You will pay dearly if you negligently kill a person.

 

[BuzzH]

I have followed along.

Why should I not be able to fire at a target on My public lands?

Look, this is no different than hunting not being allowed in certain areas of MY public land. No different than areas of MY public lands being off limits to motorcylces and ATV's.

Your use of MY public lands hinges on the actions of everyone, including the lowest common denominator. If you want to continue to play ostrich and not accept the reality that with privilege comes responsibility, then continue with your failed logic.

Just don't be surprised when your lack of being proactive results in more and more restrictions...and your inability to "fire at a target on public lands" is the outcome of your own stupidity.

That simple.

The user groups that retain their right to utilize public lands are those that are pro-active, impose limitations on themselves, and come up with responsible ways to continue their activity without infringing on others.

Ignore that, and other Users will see to it that your activity is limited FOR you.

Again, its that simple.

 

[BuzzH]

It's not rocket science.

You build ranges for the recreational shooters.

Oh, really?

Wow, who would have thought that?

It would also make sense to perhaps have designated shooting areas/ranges near population centers.

 

[Odin]

Look, this is no different than hunting not being allowed in certain areas of MY public land. No different than areas of MY public lands being off limits to motorcylces and ATV's.

Your use of MY public lands hinges on the actions of everyone, including the lowest common denominator. If you want to continue to play ostrich and not accept the reality that with privilege comes responsibility, then continue with your failed logic.

Just don't be surprised when your lack of being proactive results in more and more restrictions...and your inability to "fire at a target on public lands" is the outcome of your own stupidity.

That simple.

The user groups that retain their right to utilize public lands are those that are pro-active, impose limitations on themselves, and come up with responsible ways to continue their activity without infringing on others.

Ignore that, and other Users will see to it that your activity is limited FOR you.

Again, its that simple.

The problem can be solved without banning recreational shooting.

 

[TheJason]

Easy Buzz, he was so intent on thinking up his clever questions that he missed that.

 

[Odin]

Oh, really?

Wow, who would have thought that?

Not the Government.

 

[RobG]

You bet, lets abandon personal responsibility and rationalize non performance with ideological scapegoating.


..if only obviously.

That is an unrealistic solution. For example, the Denver area has around 3 million people. If 99.9% are responsible that leaves 3000 idiots sawing trees in half with their guns. Similarly law enforcement can't do much about it. It is like stopping the littering on the highway, except with less personnel.

I don't know Colorado, but south of Bozeman it's disgusting and we only have maybe 50,000 people in the area. They closed the area 1/2 mile from the main road but it still sounds like a war zone up there. If you drive on the side roads where it is legal to shoot the area is littered with clay pigeons, and spent shells, and damaged trees. I expect only the latter is illegal so what is law enforcement supposed to do? It comes down to marginally legal behavior that is offensive enough that significant numbers of people complain and the FS has to do something. When you consistently offend a majority of the people it is unrealistic to expect them to remain silent.

My wife (a lifelong hunter) has tried to cross country ski up there but often there is some idiot shooting away not realizing they are shooting towards the trail. That they are pretending to be Rambo scattering bullets a dozen at a time with some scary looking semi-auto gun isn't helping their public image either. People are sick of it and are pushing the FS to do something.

I've never heard a proposal from any gun group to go clean up the mess or to promote responsible shooting up there. If they have they sure aren't getting it done. The only thing I've heard from them is them promoting legislation to guarantee the areas can't be closed. That isn't a judgement of the NRA "right on cue," it is a statement of the flipp'n facts that gun owners need to start owning. Contrast the gun groups with the local water-based conservation groups around here who have "clean up days" to remove all the litter the inner tubers leave on the river banks and you can see where the respective group's heart lies. Hell, even the hiking groups are combating weeds in the backcountry.

The NRA could also do their part by opening up the local gun range to non-NRA members. (The public range has a wind problem.)

That is just what's happening around here and background of the problem. I can see the problem being worse in an area having a higher population. Briefly looking at the documentation there appears to be areas where RSS is allowed. I hope they are sufficient but from the scale of that map it is impossible to tell.

 

[RobG]

Oh for $@%#'s sake, shut up Odin.

 

[Odin]

Oh for F*cks sake, shut up Odin.

If you don't like what I say then just ignore it.

 

[Oak]

The following post was made on a Facebook group yesterday, and I thought it brought some good thoughts to the table. Apologies to the author for heisting it.

Hi folks, Please consider submitting a comment to the National Forest Service if you have an opinion on safe, responsible shooting on public land. There is a proposal on the table whose public comment period ends Sept 9th (next weds). This proposal, initially intended to *provide* opportunities for safe shooting to mitigate increasing conflict between recreational shooters and residents/other users of National Forest, has evolved into a probable outright ban on any recreational shooting in most of the accessible areas of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. 287,000 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND WILL BE CLOSED TO RECREATIONAL SHOOTING OF ANY KIND, and legal hunting is not far behind if what just happened in Nederland is any measure (an outright ban, even on archery hunts, under the rubric of safety from stray rounds). Submit comments by emailing to: [email protected].

A map of the proposed closures, available at http://goo.gl/NNGM7b, (interactive version at http://goo.gl/RzXdGv), shows the vast extent of the closures. Essentially ALL of the National Forest near the Northern Front Range, except the Wilderness Areas that are least accessible, is up for closure: from north of Hwy 34 all the way south beyond I-70. The only remaining areas would be on/west of the Divide or south of I-70.

BUT, the proposal deliberately misleads in that it claims there is a designated shooting area at the Allenspark Dump site "to make up for the closures". It's circled red on the map as a designated shooting area, but as we all know it is permanently closed and has been for years. If one zooms in on the interactive map, it is specifically colored in the legend for closure to shooting. I challenged the FS officials on this at the informational meetings, and they agreed that the site is effectively permanently closed with no timeline or plans to re-open or develop it. This means that for anyone to legally target shoot, they will have to drive to the either Baker's Draw (North and WAY East of Fort Collins, a 3+ hour round trip) or down to south of Idaho Springs to find a range (and likely wait hours, as all the shooters in our area of hundreds of thousand of residents will be funneled into just a few lanes of shooting opportunity at two tiny ranges). While it is technically possible that they can re-authorize the already-approved plan for Allenspark (even the environmental impact statement was completed and approved years ago), given the overwhelming response of people opposed to ay firearm use, the FS is going to enact the ban unless sportsmen and women make our voices heard.

I know a lot of us may have an opinion and wish to be part of this process. Please consider sharing with friends who will also submit comments and stay abreast of this issue. There are better ways to increase safety: an outright ban will make this issue MORE dangerous as shooters try to elude the law and shoot covertly in poorly-suited areas.

Ben Rodman

 

[BuzzH]

The problem can be solved without banning recreational shooting.

Good, then get off your butt and do something about it then.

The ounce of effort you put into solving the problem will be your first...knock it out of the park.

 

[Odin]

Good, then get off your butt and do something about it then.

The ounce of effort you put into solving the problem will be your first...knock it out of the park.

How do you know it will be my first?

 

[Odin]

The following post was made on a Facebook group yesterday, and I thought it brought some good thoughts to the table. Apologies to the author for heisting it.

Oak,

Do you know how it evolved into a ban?

 

[RobG]

Oak - Other than just saying no, are there any alternatives on the table? 1/2 mile from roads? Keeping certain areas open?

 

[Oak]

Oak,

Do you know how it evolved into a ban?

I don't, and I'm not sure how accurate that statement is.

Oak - Other than just saying no, are there any alternatives on the table? 1/2 mile from roads? Keeping certain areas open?

It does not seem that they are considering other alternatives, but they are in the process of preparing an EA. Now is the time to write comments and suggest alternatives. There is some information in the FAQ that discuss work being done to identify areas suitable for recreational shooting, although IMO that should be part of the Forest Plan Revision. It sounds like this is on a fast track. The Project Detail suggests that there will not be another comment period after the EA is written, only a decision and objection period (Next milestone: objection period, est. 12/01/2015).

The comment period has been extended today from 9/9 to 9/19 to allow for another public meeting in Granby.