Proposed Interior Dept. rules would ban shooting on public land


PDA






daboone
September 24, 2011, 12:52 PM
President 0bama promised that he was going to implement efforts to erase your right to bear arms “under the radar.” Now, he’s brought the fight to Arizona.

Using the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the 0bama administration has proposed banning recreational shooting in the half-million acres of Sonoran Desert National Monument.


BLM has released proposed plans for the future management of nearly 1.4 million acres located southwest of Phoenix, in parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila and Yuma Counties. Of that total, over 486,000 acres are within the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The proposals can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/son_des.html .


Two of the possible alternatives (“D” and “E”) propose closing the area to recreational shooters. Presently, some 63 sites in the national monument are used by recreational shooters. The proposed plans also address other issues of importance to shooters and hunters, including the designation of roads and trails for motorized vehicles and areas that could be managed as wilderness.



If you ride, hike, hunt or shoot in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, you need to get involved in this planning process!

The public comment period is open through November 25.
Instructions for making comments can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/son_des.html .
Comments can be faxed or mailed to BLM, Phoenix District Office.

At the BLM website (http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/son_des.html) you will also find a series of public BLM meetings, being held in October, to discuss the proposal to ban recreational shooting in the Sonoran Desert National Monument. Meetings will be held in Phoenix, Mesa, Casa Grande, Buckeye, Gila Bend and Ajo. We urge you to attend as many of these meetings as possible.

This is not the first time that the BLM has attempted to close an entire national monument to shooters, making no attempt to provide places for and access to shooting sites. The Ironwood National Monument shooting ban was defeated because of the outcry from concerned citizens (you!).

Together, we can defeat the 0bama administration’s proposed Sonoran Desert National Monument shooting ban!

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization: http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html .

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposed Interior Dept. rules would ban shooting on public land" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nushif
September 24, 2011, 02:37 PM
While it technically is his administration I doubt the guy has anything to do with it. He has his hands full right now. 8)

As for BLM public land being barred for public shooting ... I call BS. what else is public land for? It is there for the public to use in a responsible manner, and nobody can tell me a well established shooting site that is publicly available has done any harm to anyone. Being an out of stater though I am unsure how much my voice would mean, how do you propose us outside of said publicity contribute? Because I am worried that other areas maypick up on that.

Walkalong
September 24, 2011, 03:52 PM
Do not underestimate this administrations ability and desire to undermine your freedoms any way they can, including gun rights.

If this is true, it needs to be challenged and defeated.

kozak6
September 24, 2011, 08:21 PM
I'm having some difficulty navigating the linked websites.

Can you provide a direct link to where it discusses Obama personally banning shooting in the Sonoran Desert National Monument?

mokin
September 24, 2011, 08:27 PM
I like what Walkalong said but it seems to me that BLM land has been getting closed to shooting, in small parcels, here in Colorado for a lot longer than he has been in office.

hso
September 24, 2011, 10:35 PM
Attributing this to the current administration is off target. If people would actually search the documents in question they'd see that the studies used for this were conducted during the previous administration and any recommendations that consider limiting shooting are based on misuse of the property by the shooting public. IOW, there is nothing indicating that the current administration has anything to do with this since the land use studies entered the pipeline before the Obama administration took office. Abuse of shooting areas are pointed out in the Appendix G and any recommendation to limit shooting on the property are based on the objective criteria of access, range safety, concentration of protected species and objects. Shooting without suitable bullet stops to protect other users of the land, shooting up the protected Saguaro and trashing up the areas used for shooting should be a problem we'd all be concerned about as responsible shooters.

Even with the most restrictive recommendation the study leaves some 19,000+ acres open to target shooting. 19,000 acres!

Download the PDFs and read them for yourselves before reacting blindly to this.

kozak6
September 24, 2011, 10:37 PM
Anyways, this sort of thread tends to bother me since it's intellectually dishonest.

There is no evidence that this is Obama's personal doing. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

None of the proposals appear to discuss banning shooting. Please link to one that does.

Alternative D is the maximum conservation/preservation option. It's not a viable option, and doesn't explicitly list banning shooting.

Alternative E doesn't explicitly list it either.

The original post implies that the sole purpose of the meetings is to discuss banning shooting while there is a wide variety of topics for discussion, including:

* Designating roads & trails within the Sonoran Desert National Monument;
* Addressing recreational target shooting within the Sonoran Desert National Monument:
* Analyzing the effects of livestock grazing within the Sonoran Desert National Monument through a grazing compatibility analysis;
* Identifying special recreation management areas, including one that focuses on family-oriented motorized recreation uses;
* Proposing lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics;
* Proposing new areas of critical environmental concern;
* Defining wildlife habitat areas;
* Defining special cultural resource management areas
* Defining multi-use utility corridors;
* Identifying lands suitable for disposal;
* Identifying utility-scale renewable energy development conflict areas; and
* Identifying areas available for mineral development.


Those anti-gun fiends!

Another thing to consider is that just maybe shooting should be banned. A lot of shooters absolutely trash the desert and leave it looking more like a junkyard than a desert.

ants
September 25, 2011, 03:24 AM
Unless I'm out of date...

National Monument land may be managed by any one of four or five federal agencies, including
National Park Service, United States Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or Bureau of Land Management.
The managing agency sets policy in each Monument area.


Thus, the open discussion forum for the monument area in the Original Post appears to be part of the BLM process for establishing management policy. If you wish to have input, this is the time (and usually the ONLY time) for public input.



The value of public input is essential in the management of all public lands.

Any citizen can provide input. Don't have to be a local resident.
It would be great for THR members to leave some input on every public matter.


[There appears to be some controversy over Obama's direct involvement,
I hope that doesn't deter us from being involved citizens.
Let's find a good link and leave our opinions.]

kozak6
September 25, 2011, 05:04 AM
It is good for members of the public to give input on public matters.

However, it is far better to give informed input as opposed to vague and paranoid ramblings about issues that may or may not actually be relevant.

hso
September 25, 2011, 08:47 AM
kozak6,

Having read the documents associated with this, the draft management plan and EIS present alternative land use recommendations to change the current "shoot anywhere" status to shooting allowed on over 931,000 acres that don't call for protection of the monuments and protected saguaro and other species AND where the other recreational land users are protected by suitable natural or established back stops and where vehicle access is possible (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/planning/son_des/drmp/chapt2maps.Par.99582.File.dat/2-13c.pdf).

Currently, the whole of the LSDNM is open for shooting, BUT the areas actually used are far smaller than the 931,000+ acres proposed as being designated as usable for target shooting. What is proposed to being restricted are some of the convenient sites that are easily accessed by vehicle that are actually bad sites for target shooting. Those sites lack good backstops for safety for recreational users and the public and have had a lot of damage to the environment due to reckless heavy use. This is similar to a property owner closing a commonly used informal "range" because folks shoot in an unsafe direction, shoot up the property, denude vegetation and other use has encroached on the boundary making it unsafe for people off the property. Instead of simply closing the whole property to target shooting the study recommends only closing those sensitive areas and areas that aren't safe to shoot on anymore.

whalerman
September 25, 2011, 09:33 AM
There is no current evidence that Obama had anything personally to do with Fast and Furious. So I submit that we shouldn't worry about that situation either. And out of 1.4 million acres, as long as 19,000 are still open to shoot in, what's the problem.

?

I don't really care which bureaucrat started the study, as much land as possible should be kept open for the shooting sports. Closing vast areas to firearms use isn't in our interests, is it? Maybe I'm missing something.

Yo Mama
September 25, 2011, 10:22 AM
Having lived in AZ my whole life, this has come and gone before. I shutter at the trashed habitat that some shooters leave. Table Mesa used to be a great place to shoot, now it's where all the stolen cars get ditched and shot up. If we don't clean up our mess, this is the result.

Walkalong
September 25, 2011, 11:50 AM
The sad fact is that many shooters trash good free shooting areas. This is a travesty. We do not need to give anyone in government any more reason to close more land to shooting. This administration has many individuals in it, including obama, who are very anti gun. We do not need to give them excuses to close lands to shooting. Heck, the bush administration wasn't particularly gun owner friendly, so what could we expect from these guys. Don't give them an excuse.

Please don't trash shooting areas, and please be on guard for real back door anti gun activity, no matter which folks are in office.

whalerman
September 25, 2011, 03:35 PM
Let's not get fixated on a Bush vs Obama thing. Closing vast areas to shooting isn't good. Pretending the current Prez has nothing to do with it serves no interest. Trashing areas of parkland is in no one's interest. That issue should be addressed and should not be used or accepted as a justification to close parks to shooting. Closing parkland to shooting is real is a real, not imaginary situation.

CoRoMo
November 16, 2011, 12:07 PM
I can't imagine safety being an issue... ...I've never heard of anyone being accidentally shot...
They are not taking that approach nor using that argument because they don't have any data to back it up. Just as you pasted in your post, "It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue,". That is the straw that they are grasping for on this one.
...urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands."
This of course, can't be proven. What they are in fact saying is, "Urbanite SHOULD "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands"; they want that to be taking place, and they are telling the public how to behave so that they can enact their new restriction. But it begs the question, do urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on private lands? Does the ownership status of the land really matter to these irritable urbanites? It is the same legislation through feelings and emotion. What about the shooters who "freak out" when they see dog walkers? Who empathizes with them?

Rail Driver
November 16, 2011, 12:16 PM
They are not taking that approach nor using that argument because they don't have any data to back it up. Just as you pasted in your post, "It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue,". That is the straw that they are grasping for on this one.

This of course, can't be proven. What they are in fact saying is, "Urbanite SHOULD "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands"; they want that to be taking place, and they are telling the public how to behave so that they can enact their new restriction. But it begs the question, do urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on private lands? Does the ownership status of the land really matter to these irritable urbanites? It is the same legislation through feelings and emotion. What about the shooters who "freak out" when they see dog walkers? Who empathizes with them?
Perhaps we as gun owners should get a couple pet politicians and convince them to introduce hundreds of anti-dog bills, and anti-brady campaign sign bills (those signs freak ME out no matter WHERE I see them).

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why not sneak pro-gun amendments into unrelated legislation? How about creating a completely pointless bit of legislation for the sole purpose of adding a pro-gun amendment later?

Why do we, as gun owners, let the anti-gun population do these "dishonorable and sneaky things" but we won't use those same tactics against them?

Sky
November 16, 2011, 12:29 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=625750 More under the Radar

I started a similar thread; sorry did not see yours.

Dave Workman
November 16, 2011, 12:44 PM
Oh, brother.
I've been writing about this issue for about 5 years in Gun Week and elsewhere. Soldier of Fortune even published a piece I did a few years ago.

public land belongs to ALL of the public...even legally armed citizens.

:banghead:

Thanks for the heads up.

medalguy
November 16, 2011, 12:50 PM
I totally agree. I live in New Mexico and just a few miles from my place are several hundred thousand acres of public land. I shoot there frequently as do many others. There are bikers and hikers all over the place but BLM will not designate any land as hiking or shooting areas as it is not permissable under the law for them to do so.

I met a BLM ranger out there recently and he advised me to watch for the public comment period on this issue, and to encourage all my friends to let them know our thoughts or we may lose our right to shoot there. This is really kinda funny since there is so much land out there that I could shoot a 155mm easily and not hit anything more than a cactus.

But seriously, we need to let them know our thoughts. As I understand it, this first ban applies only to parts of Arizona and Colorado, but how easy is it for them to expand something once it gets started. Let's see, the first income tax was only 1% or something like that, and it was guaranteed to never be increased, remember?

The public comment period is open through November 25. Comments can be faxed to 623-580-5580 or mailed to BLM, Phoenix District Office, ATTN: LS-SDNM RMP, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix 85027. The draft plan can be found at: www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/son_des.html

If you wish to receive news about the planning process, you may email BLM at: blm_az_ls_sdnm_plan@blm.gov. For more information, you may call the BLM office at 623-580-5500, or leave a message on the Lower Sonoran Planning voice mail at 623-580-5526.

cyclopsshooter
November 16, 2011, 02:58 PM
Just wrote to the WH

LawScholar
November 16, 2011, 03:43 PM
This is half my state. I have no shooting range in my town. My range is BLM. To hell with this.

popper
November 16, 2011, 03:59 PM
Try this http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands

RobNDenver
November 16, 2011, 04:21 PM
Well, OK, but it's not MILLIONS of acres. It is part of the Sonoran Desert National Monument and it really differentiates between areas where shooting is safe and where it isn't. Here in CO we have the Pawnee National Grasslands. Same thing can be said for that. I am so sick of asshats coming out and dumping their computer monitors and washing machines then shooting them up and leaving them I could barf.

Very few of the "sportsmen" clean up after themselves, pick a line with a decent backstop and they often poke holes in road and directional signs by shooting them for fun.

Our senators have introduced legislation in the US Senate to fund the establishment of hundreds of new ranges on BLM and USFS land. Maybe we could afford it if we weren't spending so much in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read the report, scroll down to the bottom, where the pictures of vandalism ands dumping are, and then make your decision about whether or not shooting is a good idea there.

walking arsenal
November 16, 2011, 06:03 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands

The article describes how the BLA and the current president are trying to push shooters off of public lands. They are trying to ban people from target practicing on anything but approved ranges. They are doing this because "Gunfire scares the urbanites."

gennro
November 16, 2011, 06:08 PM
See this will only hurt the honest and responsible gun owner. It is sad it is only the .1% that affects the whole on all these issues. I hunt and shoot on BLM all the time but the way you could tell i was there was by my tire tracks and foot prints. Just really ticks me off by all the inconsiderate people that ruin it for all.

gdesloge
November 16, 2011, 06:11 PM
"19,000 acres!"

Out in the West, most land is controlled by government agencies.

19,000 acres is a minuscule amount of land for public use.

Live with the added restrictions and closures before reacting blindly to this.

gd

JustinJ
November 16, 2011, 06:26 PM
They are trying to ban people from target practicing on anything but approved ranges.

According to the article, opponents themselve actually say the change is that when conficts occur an authorized officer may prohibit shooting in an area after attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unnsuccessful. I'm not sure how that is unreasonable.

hso
November 16, 2011, 10:16 PM
This looks like something other than that use plan. It looks like a policy change that is far more insidious because it gives the "authorized officer" the power to make a decision on use without a use study or plan or public comment or any of the normal processes required previously.

Use plans don't worry me, this sort of arbitrary power to use a agency of the federal government without process to make decisions about what may and may not be done with our property is deeply disturbing. We need to find out where this proposed change is in regulation so we can work against it directly.

"When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting."

hso
November 17, 2011, 12:41 PM
And now it looks like the issue going public has rattled the BLM.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/17/shooters-heard-interior-will-not-ban-target-practice

Dave Workman
November 17, 2011, 03:27 PM
Well, not so fast, guys.

Your humble correspondent has taken a look at this, called BLM and found out there is more...and perhaps LESS...to the story. My alarm bell went off when I read the original piece in yesterday's Washington Whispers column and it did NOT contain a link to the original document that seems to have everybody in a twist. It is a DRAFT document, and is a far distance from becoming policy.

You be the judge.


Obama pushing shooters off public lands? Oh, really??

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands-oh-really

popper
November 18, 2011, 05:23 PM
My previous post here about LOCAL ant-gun nuts evidently has been deleted when this thread was moved. Yes, the Administration and it's friends want to eliminate gun rights. Fox4 in Dallas has brought up the issue of the Garland shooting range again (11/17/2011). I guess the victim's lawsuit is getting to court. They are pushing to close the range, even went to state gov. to find if there was a law to aid in shutting it down. Fact: Rowlett city zoned the land for residential, knowing it WAS in the possible line-of-fire. Developers built homes on that zoned land, builers and realators evidently didn't disclose that fact. The victim's wife is quoted as saying the shot probably didn't come from the range. It was a 22 rimfire slug. The victim is debt for ~$200k(hosp bill?), although his homeowner or medical insurance won't pay? Factoid, the GB turnpike is about finished there with a get-off next to the range. The GBT is out of line of fire. IMHO, this issue is now about commercially developing the adjacent land. The range owner has installed 'hoods' over the shooting benches to increase the safety of the range. I used to go fishing and in fact have taken my kids to that creek without concern(didn't even shoot there then). Will the range probably be closed? Yes, but because of $$, not safety. How does this relate to the BLM thread? $$$$$. I used to take the kids hiking on lands the BLM has completely closed down(back canyon behind Silverton), where there is NO safety concern.

Nico Testosteros
November 24, 2011, 04:33 PM
The government has dropped any plan to regulate shooting on public land.

RobNDenver
November 26, 2011, 01:52 PM
Once again, the President's administration has done shooters and gun owners a service. Oh well, we all know that his administration is going under the radar to eliminate our RKBA. . . You know, the way that Majority Leader Reid did when he obtained funding for the newest and nicest range in Nevada and my two Dem Senators in Colorado introduced legislation to fund public shooting ranges throughout the United States. . .

Not all Democrats are anti gun, nor are all Republicans pro 2nd Amendment. . . just my two cents.

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposed Interior Dept. rules would ban shooting on public land" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!