Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 08:27:17 PM
There is no requirement in the bill as to how many areas need to be designated other than at least one site needs to be on the Tahuya State Forest in Mason County and one site in Skagit County.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5099.pdf
Post by: hughjorgan on January 18, 2019, 08:37:14 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on January 18, 2019, 08:44:52 PM
Is this another way to limit shooters of this state from being able to target shoot?A way to fallow Oregon on their 20 rounds per month idea.
For instance they make target shooting areas the only areas that you are allowed to target shoot,Then they limit the number of shooters allowed to shoot at a given time,Wait in line for shooters that have no time limit for shooting.
I WISH FOR EVERYONE TO VOTE N ON ANY NEW GUN RULES AT ALL.It's only a wish and i am nobody but that would be nice in my point of view.No more limits on the outdoors men. :twocents:
Post by: slavenoid on January 18, 2019, 08:48:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 08:51:57 PM
I read it but I'm still not tracking? Is it saying you can only shoot where they tell you to shoot? Or is it just saying they will set up areas specifically for shooting like they do with campgrounds and horse parks?They will setup areas specifically for shooting.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 08:54:14 PM
At a glance i say no.It's completely opposite of what your saying. There's pressure in many areas for DNR to close target shooting on DNR lands. This would require DNR to set up areas where people can shoot. The reason the bill requires two areas to be in Mason and Skagit County is because there is pressure in those areas to close target shooting on DNR lands all together.
Is this another way to limit shooters of this state from being able to target shoot?A way to fallow Oregon on their 20 rounds per month idea.
For instance they make target shooting areas the only areas that you are allowed to target shoot,Then they limit the number of shooters allowed to shoot at a given time,Wait in line for shooters that have no time limit for shooting.
I WISH FOR EVERYONE TO VOTE N ON ANY NEW GUN RULES AT ALL.It's only a wish and i am nobody but that would be nice in my point of view.No more limits on the outdoors men. :twocents:
Post by: Oh Mah on January 18, 2019, 09:04:52 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 18, 2019, 09:28:49 PM
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 09:40:53 PM
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?:yeah:
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 18, 2019, 09:48:59 PM
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?spot on. I get shut down in April anymore and have to drive almost an hour for a good spot on NF. Although if it's an unmanaged/unstaffed range in Yakima then I think I'll pass. There's a reason I havent shot out sheep company in 16 years lol
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 18, 2019, 09:50:39 PM
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?:yeah:
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Seems like a good idea to me.
PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUNDS
In 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act , also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, authorized that excise tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammunition products be apportioned to State Fish and Game Agencies on a variety of projects related to wildlife, conservation efforts and shooting programs. Since the program’s inception, over $10.1 billion has been collected and awarded to states.
The distribution of funds includes a requirement that $8,000,000 per year must be used for Enhanced Hunter Education programs, including the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges. States can use these funds to pay up to 75% of the costs with the other 25% derived from other sources, but not from other Federal grant programs.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 09:55:19 PM
Only issue is PR goes to state fish & wildlife agencies. DNR is not a state fish and wildlife agency. WDFW gets the PR money in WA.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?:yeah:
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Seems like a good idea to me.
PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUNDS
In 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act , also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, authorized that excise tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammunition products be apportioned to State Fish and Game Agencies on a variety of projects related to wildlife, conservation efforts and shooting programs. Since the program’s inception, over $10.1 billion has been collected and awarded to states.
The distribution of funds includes a requirement that $8,000,000 per year must be used for Enhanced Hunter Education programs, including the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges. States can use these funds to pay up to 75% of the costs with the other 25% derived from other sources, but not from other Federal grant programs.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 18, 2019, 10:12:25 PM
Only issue is PR goes to state fish & wildlife agencies. DNR is not a state fish and wildlife agency. WDFW gets the PR money in WA.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?:yeah:
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Seems like a good idea to me.
PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUNDS
In 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act , also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, authorized that excise tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammunition products be apportioned to State Fish and Game Agencies on a variety of projects related to wildlife, conservation efforts and shooting programs. Since the program’s inception, over $10.1 billion has been collected and awarded to states.
The distribution of funds includes a requirement that $8,000,000 per year must be used for Enhanced Hunter Education programs, including the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges. States can use these funds to pay up to 75% of the costs with the other 25% derived from other sources, but not from other Federal grant programs.
Collaborate between the two state agencies?
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 10:17:17 PM
Would have to be in the law. My guess is there's also something in the federal law prohibiting state agencies from giving the money to another state agency.Collaborate between the two state agencies?Only issue is PR goes to state fish & wildlife agencies. DNR is not a state fish and wildlife agency. WDFW gets the PR money in WA.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?:yeah:
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
Seems like a good idea to me.
PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUNDS
In 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act , also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, authorized that excise tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammunition products be apportioned to State Fish and Game Agencies on a variety of projects related to wildlife, conservation efforts and shooting programs. Since the program’s inception, over $10.1 billion has been collected and awarded to states.
The distribution of funds includes a requirement that $8,000,000 per year must be used for Enhanced Hunter Education programs, including the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges. States can use these funds to pay up to 75% of the costs with the other 25% derived from other sources, but not from other Federal grant programs.
Post by: jackelope on January 18, 2019, 10:39:17 PM
Probably should add to bigtex’s comments that they are more than likely setting up areas to shoot that are not currently open at all to shoot.I read it but I'm still not tracking? Is it saying you can only shoot where they tell you to shoot? Or is it just saying they will set up areas specifically for shooting like they do with campgrounds and horse parks?They will setup areas specifically for shooting.
Where’d Oh Mah go?
Post by: Special T on January 18, 2019, 10:48:40 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Oh Mah on January 18, 2019, 11:01:11 PM
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?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.
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
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. :chuckle:
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 19, 2019, 12:51:18 AM
It seems ripe to be followed with a bill that says no target shooting on dnr land in non designated areas.
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2019, 02:17:14 AM
(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.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2019, 06:50:00 AM
I'm not seeing where it's not simple. It's about as simple as it can get.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?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.
Side note. I think some people just jump to this being bad. Not sure that’s the case here. Slow down and read.
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. :chuckle:
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
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2019, 07:34:10 AM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2019, 07:41:15 AM
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.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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on January 19, 2019, 06:15:09 PM
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.
Post by: Cougartail on January 19, 2019, 06:37:40 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: slavenoid on January 19, 2019, 10:25:07 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2019, 11:23:54 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Cougartail on January 20, 2019, 11:59:59 AM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 20, 2019, 12:23:35 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on January 20, 2019, 12:34:12 PM
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.