Free: Contests & Raffles.
Well the title of this thread is definitely misleading. No the USFS is not proposing closing the entire Snoqualmie Ranger District to shooting. There has been a USFS No Shooting area (excluding hunting) along the I90 corridor for almost 10 years now. What the proposal is now is to enact a similar closure in the White River area.The fire behind this engine is the Crystal River Ranch group. To see what evidence they have and who are supporting them check out their website: http://crystalriverranch.org/
We, the public, own all Forest Service Lands in the entire country. What gives the Forest Service the right to close down, prevent OUR use, of OUR lands is my question ? Kinda like closing down some freeways because people litter more in one area and not the other. The FS needs to be cleaned up, since the taxpayers pay the wages of all in the FS.
Quote from: CAMPMEAT on July 25, 2015, 07:25:24 PMWe, the public, own all Forest Service Lands in the entire country. What gives the Forest Service the right to close down, prevent OUR use, of OUR lands is my question ? Kinda like closing down some freeways because people litter more in one area and not the other. The FS needs to be cleaned up, since the taxpayers pay the wages of all in the FS.If "we the public" didn't abuse the land there wouldn't be a problem in the first place but since "we the public" can't be trusted someone has to manage it. Granted it is just a minority that causes the abuse but the majority needs to get more active!!
I am really not against banning target shooting on public lands. Every place around me that it happens at looks like a garbage dump. Not to mention all the dead trees. Personally I feel target shooting belongs on private land.
Quote from: cboom on July 25, 2015, 06:30:39 PMI am really not against banning target shooting on public lands. Every place around me that it happens at looks like a garbage dump. Not to mention all the dead trees. Personally I feel target shooting belongs on private land.Yes some of the pits get to look like trash, it is disgusting and usually not those of us that hunt. Then we take groups out on a weekend and clean it up, no we should not have to, but we do what we must to keep the resource open.Once we lose public land shooting then we are all forced to various ranges some of which honestly really do not care about the patrons as much as they should, we are a $ source, nothing more. Many come up with really down right dumb club rules and have RSO's that should not ever be dealing with the public, let alone in a position of authority.Also many outdoor ranges (you know, the ones where we get to shoot at 100yrds+ so that we can be effective and ethical hunters) are getting attacked constantly and forced to close. It is happening gradually, one range at a time, then we have no place to shoot outdoors. We are getting to that point we have to stop giving an inch to the anti gun crowd as there are not many inches left to give.
My opinion is that public lands should remain open for shooting or for any other legal activity. If there are people littering and not cleaning up their mess then get law enforcement to do their job, that's what we pay them for. It's already against the law to litter, and people break the law, what good will it do to outlaw legal people from shooting? Better to enforce the existing laws to solve the problem! Hunters can help with this by reporting unlawful acts and helping clean up existing messes.
Quote from: smittyJ on July 26, 2015, 06:57:20 AMQuote from: CAMPMEAT on July 25, 2015, 07:25:24 PMWe, the public, own all Forest Service Lands in the entire country. What gives the Forest Service the right to close down, prevent OUR use, of OUR lands is my question ? Kinda like closing down some freeways because people litter more in one area and not the other. The FS needs to be cleaned up, since the taxpayers pay the wages of all in the FS.If "we the public" didn't abuse the land there wouldn't be a problem in the first place but since "we the public" can't be trusted someone has to manage it. Granted it is just a minority that causes the abuse but the majority needs to get more active!!Agree!!I know this. I just don't like an overstepping government who does crap after the fact. THEY never try and solve the problem. They create another worthless law to do whatever, when they can't enforce the first problem, is where I'm coming from. Also, the FS does a horrible job at anything if you ask me. Way to top heavy with enviro, anti everything. All they want is more untouched, inaccessible lands.
Have federal prisoners pick it up. We pay for them to lift weights, eat our food and watch TV all day. At least make 'em work.
Makes me wonder of MDA goes out there and dumps their trash.
Quote from: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 10:50:56 AMMakes me wonder of MDA goes out there and dumps their trash. Whats MDA?
It seems most of our reactions have been about the trashing of sites used for shooting. While I agree some/most of these sites have been trashed, I'm curious how many of those that commented spent any time to read the written concerns of the homeowners from the link in what I think was the OP's post.They're pushing for a ban of target shooting for what they describe as safety issues. In their site they list specific examples of bullet holes in homes among other safety concerns such as fires started by shooting at aerosol and propane canisters.I am definitely opposed to further land closures BUT if it was my house at risk of getting hit or burned I would feel differently.
Quote from: bracer40 on July 27, 2015, 12:05:26 PMIt seems most of our reactions have been about the trashing of sites used for shooting. While I agree some/most of these sites have been trashed, I'm curious how many of those that commented spent any time to read the written concerns of the homeowners from the link in what I think was the OP's post.They're pushing for a ban of target shooting for what they describe as safety issues. In their site they list specific examples of bullet holes in homes among other safety concerns such as fires started by shooting at aerosol and propane canisters.I am definitely opposed to further land closures BUT if it was my house at risk of getting hit or burned I would feel differently.What link?
Quote from: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 12:23:27 PMQuote from: bracer40 on July 27, 2015, 12:05:26 PMIt seems most of our reactions have been about the trashing of sites used for shooting. While I agree some/most of these sites have been trashed, I'm curious how many of those that commented spent any time to read the written concerns of the homeowners from the link in what I think was the OP's post.They're pushing for a ban of target shooting for what they describe as safety issues. In their site they list specific examples of bullet holes in homes among other safety concerns such as fires started by shooting at aerosol and propane canisters.I am definitely opposed to further land closures BUT if it was my house at risk of getting hit or burned I would feel differently.What link?See bigtex's post
It’s not just weather that could burn recreational shooters While the Seattle Times is talking about the continuing heat wave this weekend, there’s a storm brewing on the horizon for recreational shooters at a popular southeast King County shooting spot, and slobs with guns are a big part of the problem.http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-it-s-not-just-weather-that-could-burn-recreational-shooters
Bigtex, I hope you know I support Leo 99% of the time, BUT, good riddance to that POS sheriff that used to patrol in green water area! He was a complete azz, I have 2 stories of that jerk messing with me and my family camping at buck creek. I hope he's flipping burgers somewhere, I'm sure he patrols else where.
If disposal cost is incorporated as an excise tax on the cost of goods and disposal service becomes free statewide, trash in the woods should be less common. Forest agents should close that area to shooting until the stuff is picked up. Open it when the stuff isn't there anymore.
Quote from: Little Dave on August 12, 2015, 03:51:05 AMIf disposal cost is incorporated as an excise tax on the cost of goods and disposal service becomes free statewide, trash in the woods should be less common. Forest agents should close that area to shooting until the stuff is picked up. Open it when the stuff isn't there anymore.That is as fair and reasonable proposal that I have heard and would be a good approach to many areas with shooting trash problems.
Quote from: bearpaw on August 12, 2015, 07:44:24 PMQuote from: Little Dave on August 12, 2015, 03:51:05 AMIf disposal cost is incorporated as an excise tax on the cost of goods and disposal service becomes free statewide, trash in the woods should be less common. Forest agents should close that area to shooting until the stuff is picked up. Open it when the stuff isn't there anymore.That is as fair and reasonable proposal that I have heard and would be a good approach to many areas with shooting trash problems. brilliant idea for real!!! That makes total sense, Talk about putting the responsibility directly into the users hands. If you could pass that idea on to the right people I wonder if they would consider it??
Discussed this today. The concept is not ruled out, it could work, but there are some significant challenges. This particular model would be a difficult sell to the agency administrators. Generally the concept is challenged for fear that such a program might seem arbitrary and capricious, meaning that it would be a program established without sensible reasoning or accountability for consequences. Although we might be confident that something like this would work, the agency would have to be very confident that such a program will certainly work. We would need a significant amount of discussion on the matter and proof that it would work.There are other issues. Some target practice (and trash left behind) that takes place in this drainage is in sensitive winter elk range. They want to shut those areas down to improve the quality of the winter range habitat. A sensible approach might designate certain areas for shooting that do not interfere with wintering ranges.Apparently there were about a hundred people that attended the meeting regarding the proposed closures last week. Most were from shooting sports and Second Amendment rights-related associations.
Quote from: Little Dave on August 17, 2015, 07:53:54 PM.......Great insight!If a group of volunteers went and cleaned up that area as a show of good faith would that suffice as proof the plan could work? Are there any volunteers willing to go clean up that spot?
.......
