SB 5099 Would Require DNR to Establish Target Shooting Areas on DNR Lands

[Special T]

I live in Skagit county and I'll guess that the requirement has something to do with the Pitt off Muddy Creek  that is an unofficial shooting range that has had issues. There are funds available for shooting ranges from the 3$ from each conceild carry license. 



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Oh Mah]

There’s a bunch of DNR land by me, none of which is open to shooting mostly because slobs with guns couldn’t clean up after themselves. If this means more land would be open to shooting, where do I sign?

Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.

I am right here,I did read it.Like i said at a glance(i read the whole thing)It's not clear what it all means.2nd i'm not sure it really matters what the public votes on this yes or no the DNR has authority to regulate this with or without our vote.Meaning if they want it closed they can,If they want to build it but don't want to pay for it they wont unless funding from somewhere comes into play to pay.
IF THIS MEANS?What if it means more than just that?Did you read it?where is the clarification that some of us are not seeing?Including you.Or was that a mistake to post "IF IT MEANS"?

"IF and PROBABLY" are not words to show that you read and understand what is being proposed.

Lets all vote yes and see whats in it after it passes.   

[Jake Dogfish]

I have never agreed with oh mah before, but it is easy to skeptical of this bill.
It seems ripe to be followed with a bill that says no target shooting on dnr land in non designated areas.

[bearpaw]

Tough issue, on one hand slobs are trashing the state and ruining opportunity for good citizens, the slobs are causing trouble in all corners of the state, on the other hand I understand people not trusting government regarding shooting opportunities in WA. Perhaps if there was stronger language assuring shooting opportunities?


(3) The department must work with interested stakeholders to evaluate and designate additional recreational target shooting areas on department-managed lands in any county where state lands have been closed to recreational shooting.

[bigtex]

There’s a bunch of DNR land by me, none of which is open to shooting mostly because slobs with guns couldn’t clean up after themselves. If this means more land would be open to shooting, where do I sign?

Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.

I am right here,I did read it.Like i said at a glance(i read the whole thing)It's not clear what it all means.2nd i'm not sure it really matters what the public votes on this yes or no the DNR has authority to regulate this with or without our vote.Meaning if they want it closed they can,If they want to build it but don't want to pay for it they wont unless funding from somewhere comes into play to pay.
IF THIS MEANS?What if it means more than just that?Did you read it?where is the clarification that some of us are not seeing?Including you.Or was that a mistake to post "IF IT MEANS"?

"IF and PROBABLY" are not words to show that you read and understand what is being proposed.

Lets all vote yes and see whats in it after it passes.   

I'm not seeing where it's not simple. It's about as simple as it can get.

1- DNR must designate target shooting areas
2- Of those areas designated at least one area must be in Skagit Couny and one must be on the Tahuya State Forest.


This is actually protecting our ability to target shoot on DNR lands. As the law currently stands DNR could wake up tomorrow and impose a statewide ban on target shooting on DNR lands.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bobcat]

It seems ripe to be followed with a bill that says no target shooting on dnr land in non designated areas.

I agree. I could definitely see that happening. And I don't want to shoot in a designated area. I like to find spots in remote areas where I can shoot all by myself.

[bigtex]

It seems ripe to be followed with a bill that says no target shooting on dnr land in non designated areas.

I agree. I could definitely see that happening. And I don't want to shoot in a designated area. I like to find spots in remote areas where I can shoot all by myself.

DNR could also close off the entire state right now to target shooting. There is no law that says DNR must allow target shooting. This bill is a step towards that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

It seems ripe to be followed with a bill that says no target shooting on dnr land in non designated areas.

I agree. I could definitely see that happening. And I don't want to shoot in a designated area. I like to find spots in remote areas where I can shoot all by myself.

All the DNR land near me is closed to shooting because of slobs now as it is. If they want to close it, they just close it. I can go to national forest and shoot, but that’s a long ways away compared to DNR.

[Cougartail]

Tough issue, on one hand slobs are trashing the state and ruining opportunity for good citizens, the slobs are causing trouble in all corners of the state, on the other hand I understand people not trusting government regarding shooting opportunities in WA. Perhaps if there was stronger language assuring shooting opportunities?


(3) The department must work with interested stakeholders to evaluate and designate additional recreational target shooting areas on department-managed lands in any county where state lands have been closed to recreational shooting.

A bill allowing shooting on all DNR Lands and establishing target shooting areas is what is needed. Slobs irritate me to no end but we all give them $35 for Discovery Passes. Maybe they can actually do something worthwhile with some of the money.. clean up. 

[slavenoid]

I'm sorry but every time I read the word "designate" it makes me think that the non designated spots will be shut down. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe im just skeptical because we are the ones who always have to give up freedoms.

[bearpaw]

Tough issue, on one hand slobs are trashing the state and ruining opportunity for good citizens, the slobs are causing trouble in all corners of the state, on the other hand I understand people not trusting government regarding shooting opportunities in WA. Perhaps if there was stronger language assuring shooting opportunities?


(3) The department must work with interested stakeholders to evaluate and designate additional recreational target shooting areas on department-managed lands in any county where state lands have been closed to recreational shooting.

A bill allowing shooting on all DNR Lands and establishing target shooting areas is what is needed. Slobs irritate me to no end but we all give them $35 for Discovery Passes. Maybe they can actually do something worthwhile with some of the money.. clean up. 

I can tell you this from participating on the Governors Parks & Recreation Task Force, I brought up cleaning state lands, nobody else on the Task Force seemed interested, the priority is putting the money towards funding State Parks.

[Cougartail]

Tough issue, on one hand slobs are trashing the state and ruining opportunity for good citizens, the slobs are causing trouble in all corners of the state, on the other hand I understand people not trusting government regarding shooting opportunities in WA. Perhaps if there was stronger language assuring shooting opportunities?


(3) The department must work with interested stakeholders to evaluate and designate additional recreational target shooting areas on department-managed lands in any county where state lands have been closed to recreational shooting.

A bill allowing shooting on all DNR Lands and establishing target shooting areas is what is needed. Slobs irritate me to no end but we all give them $35 for Discovery Passes. Maybe they can actually do something worthwhile with some of the money.. clean up. 

I can tell you this from participating on the Governors Parks & Recreation Task Force, I brought up cleaning state lands, nobody else on the Task Force seemed interested, the priority is putting the money towards funding State Parks.

Sadly it shows.. I pick up trash on public lands as part of my outings but it's a small dent in the problem.

[trophyhunt]

Interesting, not sure about this one.  I personally wouldn’t take my loved ones to a public range in the woods.  Just don’t feel safe at all, last time I went up to greenwater these gangsta looking guys were just emptying their 30 rd clips for fun, no targets at all.  After the second time of their shells hitting my cousins truck, we left.  In a perfect world, I’d vote yes 100%, but I’m not sure about voting to force DNR to have designated garbage pits in the woods?   

[dreamunelk]

What point is this if there is no one to enforce the rules?
Sure lets pass another law.  It always works.

Here is what I think should happen:
1. Fund more DNR enforcement officers.  Understaffed is an understatement for this branch of DNR. 
2. Request officer input on changes to RCW and WAC to control the unsafe firearm use and littering on DNR lands.  People can comment one way or the other on proposed changes. 

I think they would have to triple staffing to even make their presence known.  However,  after seeing the results of serious emphasis patrols by other agencies. Things change for the better.  Word travels quick.  Peoples behavior changes real quick.   

I spend a lot of time on private, federal, and state lands.  Sadly our public lands are almost lawless.  Most do not expect to see any enforcement officer from any agency in many areas.

I am not saying that the DNR officers are not doing their job.  Everyone I have met while recreating or through work has been top notch.  When there is only one officer for a vast area there is only so much they can do.