shooting

[owl]

Jean, I think you understand, my point is, it is beyond the time that we, as citizens, need to start standing up for our rights. The government will always be able to point to the actions of a few to take our rights and call them privileges. This country does not belong to the government.

 

[jeanontheroad]

Owl, we as citizens ARE the government. Those of us who vote put our representatives into office. Those who don't vote do, too, by default. We boaters lost the use of most of Shell Key because most citizens (including us) want places like the bird sanctuary to exist. A few thought they had a right to do destructive things, but they were outnumbered by others who did not want those things done to the key. When land is owned in common, as public land is, each owner only has the rights to it that the other owners give him.

 

[user 423]

Anti-government types should stop and think what the alternative might be. If the federal government hadn't set aside national parks, national forests and other public lands, it all would be in private hands! That might not be good at all for those wanting to enjoy all the natural beauty out there, such as OUR COMMUNITY.

$100 to drive thru Yosemite,please. No public beaches...pay $75/day to surf. Industrial pig farming at Glacier NP. Gated communities all through the Shenandoah,etc,etc. Then, since it's private property, the owners can deny you access simply because they don't like your looks.

My father grew up on a reservation in MN where all the prime lakefront property along the huge and beautiful Lake Winnibigoshish was stolen by the state that was willing to help wealthy investors wanting to cash in on the tourism potential. It's a beautiful area and has excellent fishing.

They were able to confiscate the land because of unpaid taxes; taxes that never should have been levied in the first place. The feds finally determined that those confiscations were illegal. They also ruled that even though the land grabs were illegal, the present owners are 'grandfathered in' and can't be removed. Even though the tribal ownership base is now only about 1/10 of what it was, it might well be zero if not for the feds. There's more than a little irony in all that, considering the history of the area.

The gov't is a two-edged sword. Some only see it as being oppressive but (most) others realize that it can be very beneficial.

 

[akrvbob]

First thank you all for being kind and thoughtful. You've presented your arguments reasonably.

Jeanontheroad, I think you saying "tired argument" is not kind so I'm going to ask you to not use that and stick to your many valid points.

I've lived on public land continuously for the last 6 years and I've seen a lot of damage done. But shooters do the least of it by far, mainly because there are not many places that work for shooters.

By far the biggest pigs are weekend campers out for long Holiday weekends. They are city people with no respect for the land and I have seen some unbelievable messes left by them every time there is a long Holiday weekend.

The second most damage is done by ATVers, Jeeps, motorcycles and 4x4s. They find a muddy spot and do everything in their power to destroy it. They leave behind huge messes and their trash. They will ride right through other peoples camps with their radios blasting and throwing dust everywhere and they take off their mufflers so you hear them coming from miles away.

By comparison, the damage done by shooters is non-existent because it is confined to a few users in very small areas. Granted, I've seen some really bad shooting spots, but the total still pales in comparison to weekenders and ATVs.

So if we are going to ban all users who damage public lands there won't be anybody allowed on it!! Period!! And the last group banned would be shooters!
Bob

 

[jeanontheroad]

Bob, the "tired argument" was a phrase used by owl in post 16 to refer to view that all could loose privileges because of the behavior of a few. I used that in both my posts to make it clear that I was referring specifically to the point he was making when he used it .

There a lot of issues wrapped up in public land use. It is all to easy to get one muddled up with another. For instance, recreational shooting and hunting. They sound like related issues, but they are really functionally different.

 

[Van-Tramp]

I don't know about other places, but here the shooters get together multiple times each year and go pickup the "targets" and trash that others leave behind. It is a community effort, not mandated or regulated by any government. (A government and/or law is not *needed* to make something positive happen).

Personally I pickup everything that I haul out, including every shell/casing, and what else that I can stuff into the boxes or bags that I have with me. I always walk out with more than I went in with. My son, who started shooting with me at age 10, has been taught the same philosophy and will teach his own children the same later in life.

 

[user 423]

CA and FL are two of the most populous states plus they have more than their share of added tourists. That makes for a lot more opportunity to see problems. I wonder what the result would be if there were no closures?

 

[jeanontheroad]

Vantramp: community effort

Me: We used to do the same thing at Shell Key. I think the biggest problem were the people who brought their dogs and let them run wild in the nesting area. Come on! How stupid was that!?! Now even leashed dogs are banned.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

I think the mess, if that is an issue, would not be the main reason to ban shooting on public land. I think the noise of gunfire is disturbing to a lot of people, it certainly is to me, also the possible stray bullets would be more of a concern then a little garbage. People are not very responsible with their garbage no matter what they are doing, I doubt shooters are any worse then anyone else. We stopped feeding people to lions for sport, a lot of places outlaw, coq fighting, dog fighting, bull fighting, perhaps as a culture we are beginning to rethink, things like horse racing, dog racing, hound hunting, shooting along with heavy contact blood sports like football, ice hockey, rugby, boxing and if not, perhaps it is time to rethink them they are pretty disturbing to watch :huh:

 

[jeanontheroad]

Kurbmaster: mess not the issue with shooting,noise and safety issues

Me: That's why I think hunting and recreational shooting are two separate issues even tho they seem to be related. Hunters tend to go where the game is. Shooters tend to be where the people are. Hunters seldom get more than one good shot. Shooters go thru many rounds. There is an in-your-face awareness of shooters that one does not have of a hunter.

 

[owl]

Km, what would you have everyone do rather than the things you list?

 

[flying kurbmaster]

Km, what would you have everyone do rather than the things you list?

we could play tiddlywings, or crochet......

Seriously though, all I am saying is that maybe we should rethink sports like ice hockey when a talented team like team Canada resorts to breaking a top Russians star's bones in order to win a game is pretty sad. Watching none contact ice hockey is like art in motion, this smash and crash that we feed off is a bit morbid if you ask me. Our children's sports heroes assauling each other, or walking off fields covered in blood, what are we teaching them. Have you ever watched that cage fighting or Thai kick boxing:s..,,this is civilized behavior?

 

[owl]

K, seriously, you list what we shouldn't do, list what you think we shoud be doing.

slow, no one is saying no government. What we are saying is smaller gvt. What I eat, how much I eat, who I marry, how I educate my child, where I work, play, camp, travel, who I talk to, what I read, who I call, what I think, my health, these are not the governments business.

 

[akrvbob]

jeaneontheroad wrote:
Bob, the "tired argument" was a phrase used by owl in post 16 to refer to view that all could loose privileges because of the behavior of a few. I used that in both my posts to make it clear that I was referring specifically to the point he was making when he used it .

My answers in red: Sorry about that, I missed he said it first. I should pay closer attention

There a lot of issues wrapped up in public land use. It is all to easy to get one muddled up with another. For instance, recreational shooting and hunting. They sound like related issues, but they are really functionally different.

Agreed 100% these are difficult issues with no good or easy answers. I'm just 100% convinced for myself that calling for total bans because of the ever-present bad few is going to end very badly for ALL of us. And In my expereince its the city camper who should be banned first and ATVs who should be banned second.

Be careful what you wish for because YOU might very well be banned in the wide net you want to cast (user groups with a minority who damage public land).
Bob

 

[akrvbob]

There is absolutely NO question in my mind that the government is totally entitled to regulate and control public land. I think it MUST do it for the good of us all. And probably even more than it is doing now.

However, I do NOT think more rules are the answer because all the rules are in place to protect the land and we can't enforce them. Making more rules will just mean more unenforced rules and no change except the law-abiding people will suffer and the law-breakers will keep breaking the law.

What does that accomplish?
Bob

 

[owl]

Interesting, we agree.

 

[jeanontheroad]

Bob: weekend campers, ATV's, more rules aren't the answer

Me: ATV's are already being increasingly restricted. There are already camping restrictions and permit requirements here in FL that were not there 20 years ago. I am not as optimistic as you about avoiding more rules for campers and other public land users. There are more Americans than ever before and we all want to get away from it all and relax in nature. My generation is starting to retire, so we have a lot of time to do it. There are going to more people than ever wanting to use public land, getting in each others way, making conflicting demands, putting more demands on the land. I think more regulations are inevitable and the squeakiest wheels will get the most attention.

That's why I suggested in the beginning that various areas be allocated as shooting ranges and be maintained and overseen by the shooters, the same way grazing land is allocated to ranchers. Shooting is one activity that really can't safely share space with other activities. Officially providing sites for shooting prevents it from being squeezed out by increasing numbers of other users.

 

[Zil]

Here the "gunning clubs" maintain firing ranges and hold weekend events as fund raisers. Most hunters are respectful, but i have had some that considered it their right to run through next to my house with loaded weapons. One tried to set up deer stands next to my children's play areas.
I love the sport of target shooting. It is a great skill to develop. I feel safe on a range, However when I find myself in camping areas with other people shooting, I consider myself to be in danger. How about the one you know is armed but drinking at the party? There definitely has to be some control, and the rangers are the ones to take care of idiots.
But we have to police our own and our friends activities to maintain comfort for all in our community.

 

[highdesertranger]

well I could get in allot of trouble with this thread. so for tonight I will keep my mouth shut and think about what to reply. being I am a shooter, hunter, prospector, and atv user. highdesertranger