Post by: bearpaw on July 24, 2015, 09:39:17 AM
A strong presence of shooters is needed at the meeting, if you can't attend the meeting to support shooting, send email to mschramm@fs.fed.us or call (425) 888-8751.
Washington: USFS Hosting Meeting August 4 to Discuss Recreational Shooting in Snoqualmie Ranger District
The U.S. Forest Service has scheduled a second meeting to discuss recreational shooting in the Snoqualmie Ranger District of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, specifically recreational shooting that takes place along the Highway 410 corridor. The intent of the meeting is to have a general discussion about what is happening with respect to recreational shooting along the corridor, particularly problems with unsafe shooting practices and pressures that the Forest is receiving to close the corridor.
The Forest Service is hoping that the upcoming meeting will encourage shooters to assist them in keeping the Snoqualmie Ranger District open to shooting through clean up events and the promotion of safe shooting practices.
The meeting details are as follows:
Tuesday August 4, 2015 from 6:30-7:30 pm
Department of Natural Resources Building
950 Farman Ave
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Only two individuals who support recreational shooting attended the meeting held May 21. During that meeting, the action items listed below were discussed and they will be on the table at the upcoming August 4 meeting.
• Calendar of quarterly/semi-regular pit cleanup events
• Notice of posted signs, and a regular check on them to make sure they are still standing
• Hard closures of unsafe shooting areas, such as the ridge areas overlooking CRR. Draw more attention to the main pits, with safe backstops.
• Implementation of safety awareness material to the general public (e.g. online videos, etc.)
• Implementation of a volunteer "eyes/ears on the ground" program to report dangerous activities. Maybe set up an email address to receive these, with some sort of a template form. Asking for data like, photos, license plate numbers, etc.
Meeting attendees can contact Martie Schramm, District Ranger, for more information either by email at mschramm@fs.fed.us or by phone (425) 888-8751.
Keeping the Snoqualmie Ranger District open to recreational shooting is dependent upon shooters engaging with the Forest Service to solve problems associated with recreational shooting. If you recreationally shoot in this District , the NRA strongly encourages you to attend the meeting and offer support in keeping the corridor open to safe shooting.
A strong presence of shooters is needed at the meeting, if you can't attend the meeting to support shooting, send email to mschramm@fs.fed.us or call (425) 888-8751.
Post by: bigtex on July 24, 2015, 10:57:49 AM
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/
Post by: bearpaw on July 24, 2015, 08:03:04 PM
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/
:dunno:
Where did it say the entire district, the title does not specify how much area!
What's important is that the forest is talking of closing more areas to shooting, every loss of area is another step in the wrong direction. People need to respond!
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 25, 2015, 07:25:24 PM
Post by: smittyJ on July 26, 2015, 06:57:20 AM
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.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!!
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 26, 2015, 07:52:06 AM
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.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 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.
Post by: lamrith on July 26, 2015, 08:17:40 AM
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.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.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 26, 2015, 08:32:10 AM
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.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.
Exactly what you said in the last sentence. We have to stop immediately giving an inch to all groups. It's biting us in the butt...rapidly.
Post by: bearpaw on July 26, 2015, 04:13:07 PM
Post by: Special T on July 26, 2015, 04:57:37 PM
I have said this before, but when I was in Arkansas there were MANY 100-200 yard ranges in each county. They were self service. Plain concrete shooting tables and large dirt berm backstops. Simple, Effective, and concentrated shooting in one area for safety's sake. Since closure of public lands to target shooting seems to be the norm, we must insist on an alternative like an old gravel pit. The state (I know not the USFS) takes funds from Concealed Carry Permits to go into the shooting range improvement fund. Public alternatives need to be provided.
Post by: SCRUBS on July 26, 2015, 05:01:15 PM
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.
:yeah:
Post by: trophyhunt on July 26, 2015, 05:16:27 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 26, 2015, 06:06:27 PM
Post by: smittyJ on July 27, 2015, 07:32:18 AM
Agree!!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.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 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.
Post by: smittyJ on July 27, 2015, 07:33:12 AM
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.Great idea!!
Post by: netcoyote on July 27, 2015, 08:50:59 AM
When my kids were young, I took them up to the Greenwater corridor to shoot. Used to be a lot of places to safely shoot and we rarely ran into anyone else up there. Back then there were far fewer people in the Puget Sound area, and far fewer cabins and houses up near FS land. Slowly, the population of the area increased and more and more roads were either decommissioned or left closed due to lack of maintenance. More people crammed into smaller spaces never bodes well for the outdoors. Combine that with the general lack of personal responsibility and land ethics in the general population, a government that prefers to spend money on "diversity" and other fluff programs rather than focus on it's land management charter and you have the dilemma we have today.
I became more apprehensive of using any of the popular shooting areas and now rarely use any public land for shooting and will pack my guns and leave if anyone else shows up and thinks they can just pull up and start blasting next to me. Too many irresponsible crazies out there. Had one guy actually ask me if I minded if he shot his AK over my truck where my son and I were shooting.
Since I don't really see any reduction in the population of the area and have to believe that it will be several generations before a more responsible outdoor ethic breaks out in the general population (good luck with that), I just don't see a safe, rational, low cost solution. FS funds have been gutted for other political agenda purposes, opening more shooting sites as some suggest would only open the FS and land managers to lawsuits when the inevitable "accidents" occur. If areas are shut down, since there is less funding for patrolling the areas, the irresponsible shooter are going to keep shooting anyway and only the responsible people will be adversely impacted. Since anti-gun sentiment is all the rage now, I could envision a time in the near future when shooting will be banned anywhere near large population centers. That would certainly include the I-90 and Greenwater areas.
In the mean time, I'll just continue to work on trails and clean up garbage as I've done since I retired and hope that my work will make some positive impact on someone in some small way. At least it keeps me out in the woods.
Post by: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 10:50:56 AM
What is with the low life thugs that leave a mess? Makes me wonder of MDA goes out there and dumps their trash.
But have no doubt the next phase will be "no hunting on public land". Isn't like that hasn't already been pushed.
Almost have to agree no shooting on public land might be better than a-holes leaving shot up water heaters.
Craig
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 27, 2015, 11:40:51 AM
Makes me wonder of MDA goes out there and dumps their trash.
Whats MDA?
Post by: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 11:42:02 AM
Makes me wonder of MDA goes out there and dumps their trash.
Whats MDA?
Moms Demand Action.
Post by: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 11:43:28 AM
Post by: bracer40 on July 27, 2015, 12:05:26 PM
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.
Post by: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 12:23:27 PM
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.
What link?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 27, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
See bigtex's postIt 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?
Post by: trophyhunt on July 27, 2015, 01:01:58 PM
and after you open bigtex post, look on the right hand side of the page. You will see a incident topic.See bigtex's postIt 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?
Post by: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 02:32:13 PM
Post by: Poke-a-Lung on July 27, 2015, 04:04:27 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 27, 2015, 06:28:10 PM
Post by: Special T on July 27, 2015, 09:22:58 PM
Post by: cowboycraig on July 27, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on July 30, 2015, 08:23:14 AM
One issue I have with this group is they always cite a state regulation (WAC 332-52-145) which says you must shoot in an area with an earthen backstop and say that people on the USFS lands always violate the regulation. One problem, WAC 332-52-145 is a DNR regulation that only applies to DNR lands, not USFS lands. This group has actually posted signs in the area saying you must follow WAC 332-52-145, when in fact WAC 332-52-145 does not apply on lands not managed by DNR.
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.Who is to do the enforcement? USFS has lost funding for approximately 300 LEOs nationwide over the past 5 years. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF is the second most visited NF in the US and has seen it's LE staff dwindle from 6 about 5 years ago to three now. About 15 years ago the North Bend and Enumclaw Ranger Districts merged to create the Snoqualmie District, the former Enumclaw District could easily have 2 LEOs but only has 1 position and that is currently unfunded and the area is covered occasionally from the North Bend LEO who also has to cover the Skykomish area (also vacant) as well. About 7 years ago the Pierce County Sheriff's Office removed it's Resident Deputy position from the Greenwater area (because of $). So who do you want sitting at the shooting areas watching for litterers? WDFW? WSP?
Post by: logger on July 30, 2015, 02:05:59 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on July 31, 2015, 01:13:25 PM
:bash:
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
Post by: bigtex on July 31, 2015, 01:14:35 PM
It’s not just weather that could burn recreational shootersThe large majority (almost all) of the area is actually in Pierce County...
:bash:
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
Post by: trophyhunt on July 31, 2015, 01:54:34 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 31, 2015, 01:55:57 PM
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.He has since retired. However, they never have brought back the resident deputy position in the Greenwater area.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 31, 2015, 01:56:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dave Workman on July 31, 2015, 04:03:20 PM
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.
Let's stick to the subject at hand, shall we?
Your problem with a local deputy should have nothing to do with what the slobs are up to. THEY'RE the problem.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 31, 2015, 04:05:49 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Little Dave on August 12, 2015, 03:51:05 AM
Forest agents should close that area to shooting until the stuff is picked up. Open it when the stuff isn't there anymore.
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2015, 07:44:24 PM
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.
That is as fair and reasonable proposal that I have heard and would be a good approach to many areas with shooting trash problems. :tup:
Post by: trophyhunt on August 12, 2015, 07:47:56 PM
:yeah: 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??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.
That is as fair and reasonable proposal that I have heard and would be a good approach to many areas with shooting trash problems. :tup:
Post by: Little Dave on August 13, 2015, 11:04:55 PM
Post by: Jonnyjammer on August 13, 2015, 11:43:25 PM
I think that excise tax on all products to pay for disposal is the best Idea i have ever heard.Charge by the product IE recyclables less than non,more for products that take longer to degrade or are stronger pollutants.I think they add a charge to tires now when you buy and when you dump.
Post by: netcoyote on August 14, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
:yeah: 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??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.
That is as fair and reasonable proposal that I have heard and would be a good approach to many areas with shooting trash problems. :tup:
One small problem....How are the areas going to get cleaned up if access is denied? Sounds like a Catch-22.
Nobody is going to walk miles up a gated road to a trash site, spend hours picking up trash and then carry bags for miles going out. If the proposal is to only clase a small shooting area...how would that work? People would just walk around a barricade.
The only workable plan might be to request specific "cleanup access" which would require FS staff participation and monitoring for opening and closing gates. Since they are already limited in their staffing, I just can't see that happening.
On the surface, this seems like a good idea, but it needs more thought.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 14, 2015, 08:00:03 AM
Post by: Little Dave on August 17, 2015, 07:53:54 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on August 19, 2015, 04:34:12 AM
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.
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?
Post by: netcoyote on August 19, 2015, 08:39:10 AM
.......
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?
Assuming we are still talking about the Greenwater SR 410 area (FS 70 etc.) I'd be willing to be a part of a cleanup effort. It would probably be good to have either FS or LEO cover while this work is being done. Don't want to drive up there and then get into a hassle with yahoos.
Post by: cowboycraig on August 25, 2015, 04:25:12 PM
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk