BuzzH
Well-known member
Its not just about littering...in case you haven't been following along.
National Forest Recreational Shooting Ban
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Its not just about littering...in case you haven't been following along.
BuzzH
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
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.
BuzzH
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
The problem can be solved without banning recreational shooting.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Easy Buzz, he was so intent on thinking up his clever questions that he missed that.
Not the Government.
RobG
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Oh for $@%#'s sake, shut up Odin.
If you don't like what I say then just ignore it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
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.
RobG
Well-known member
Oak - Other than just saying no, are there any alternatives on the table? 1/2 mile from roads? Keeping certain areas open?
I don't, and I'm not sure how accurate that statement is.
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.
Similar threads
