Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands

[landusepbb]

The liberal agenda comes at us from every angle.

November 16, 2011

Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.

Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.

"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands. [Read about the subpoena issued as a result of Operation Fast and Furious.]

If the draft policy is finally approved, some public access to Bureau lands to hunters would also be limited, potentially reducing areas deer, elk, and bear hunters can use in the West.

Conservationists and hunting groups, however, are mounting a fight. One elite group of conservationists that advises Interior and Agriculture is already pushing BLM to junk the regulations, claiming that shooters are being held to a much higher safety standard than other users of public lands, such as ATV riders.

"They are just trying to make it so difficult for recreational shooters," said Gary Kania, vice president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. His group is one of several, including the National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council fighting the new rules. During a two-day meeting ending this afternoon, they are drafting their own changes to the BLM rules.

"What we probably are going to be looking forward to is a reversal," said Kania. Asked about how to handle people who freak out when they hear shots on public lands, Kania said, "I don't know how to quanitify 'freaking out,'" and noted that he's seen people panicing when fly fishing in float tubes but nobody wants to ban then from rivers.

BLM actually invited the fight, seeking the council's comments. But officials suggested to Whispers that no changes are being planned to the draft regulations.

Over five pages, the draft BLM regulations raise concerns about how shooting can cause a "public disturbance." They also raise worries about how shooting and shooters can hurt plants and litter public lands.

This is the key paragraph foes say could lead to shooters being kicked off public lands:

"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." [Check out new Debate Club about whether Congress needs to overhaul gun trafficking laws.]

Squeezing out shooters, says the draft policy, is needed because, "As the West has become more populated, recreational shooters now often find themselves in conflict with other public lands users, and the BLM is frequently called on to mediate these conflicts."

At yesterday's meeting at Interior, the council balked at the BLM draft regulations, adding that the Obama administration was not being fair to shooters on the issue of safety.

In a draft retort to BLM, the council said other users of public land aren't required to be as safe as shooters. They note that shooters have a much lower injury rate than others, like ATV users. "The policy fails to recognize that recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidences of death and injury compared to virtually any other outdoor recreational activity. The policy is prejudicial and discriminatory to target shooters as compared to other recreationists," said the council's draft response, expected to be finalized today.

What's more, the group charged that the BLM is acting in a contradictory fashion, encouraging the shooting sports while limiting shooting areas.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...f-public-lands

[Chain Drive]

The BLM is overstepping it's authority in this proposed regulation. The FLPMA does not give BLM authority over disputes between lawful individuals. That is a matter for the county to deal with. Public safety is a illegitimate issue for BLM to address. Target shooting on public lands has a very good safety record.

[BEAR]

Way too much .gov.
Total BS......

[LYIN' KING]

What??? . . . “urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting”

I’d wager that more shooting is heard in an average “urbanites” neighborhood than on BLM land.

Since when did “elite groups of conservationists” start supporting gun ownership and use???

This article sure goes out of its way to highlight the difference in safety standards between OHV folks and shooters.

“One elite group of conservationists that advises Interior and Agriculture is already pushing BLM to junk the regulations, claiming that shooters are being held to a much higher safety standard than other users of public lands, such as ATV riders.”

When was the last time a stray ATV traveled over a mile though the air and happened to hit someone . . . or a bullet for that matter (at least in America)?

If it isn’t some microscopic critter, dust or some other damn issue . . . they always manage to drag OHV recreation into the equation.

[pete4wd]

["They are just trying to make it so difficult for recreational shooters," said Gary Kania, vice president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. His group is one of several, including the National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council fighting the new rules. During a two-day meeting ending this afternoon, they are drafting their own changes to the BLM rules.]

Kind of ironic to see many of those groups on the end of legislation to limit their recreation! Should OHV remind them that efforts to restrict us, have simply made it easy for the 'environmental lobby' to then pick off another recreation... theirs!

[landusepbb]

Looks like the people have been heard!

Shooters Heard: Interior Will Not Ban Target Practice
November 17, 2011

Under fire from gun owners concerned about draft guidelines that could limit areas for target practice on western public lands, the Interior Department today said it would make sure shooters still have access to lands long available for firearms recreation.

"Our goal is to leave lands open to shooting," said an Interior official for the Bureau of Land Management, which is drafting guidelines to deal with the growing clash between skittish urbanites moving to western wilderness areas and America's tradition of letting gun owners shoot targets on public lands. [Read: Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands.]

"We don't want to have to close any areas," said an official as BLM provided Washington Whispers with a statement clarifying the developing guidelines.

"We are in no way interested in banning recreational target shooting, hunting, or fishing—on the contrary, our goal is to develop guidance that will help land managers maximize and preserve opportunities for recreational shooting," said the BLM statement.[Read about the subpoena issued as a result of Operation Fast and Furious.]

However, the official said it is possible that areas previously used for target practice that are too close to houses or areas of urban growth could be put off limits. The new plan would be to provide shooters with a map or guide on where they can go for target practice nearby, said the official.

"It's the difference of driving two minutes [to shoot] or 15 minutes," said the official.

Whispers reported on the controversy yesterday. A committee of conservationists and outdoors groups advising BLM has expressed outrage over the developing guidelines, charging that BLM is making it hard for shooters to practice on public lands, which has a long tradition in the West. The Interior official said that the committee's concerns will be addressed in a "redraft" of the guidelines.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...arget-practice

[Bebe]

I don't trust them - they have already closed areas here in NorCal.

[cruzila]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

When was the last time a stray ATV traveled over a mile though the air and happened to hit someone . . . or a bullet for that matter (at least in America)?

Actually there was a real estate agent here locally that was inspecting a property and was hit in the butt. She then drove the opposite direction from the Fire house to the hardware store several miles further away. By the time the SWAT team showed up, even if the shooter was right there, he would have been looong gone by then.

Weird story but true. No, not an ATV flying through the air, just a stray bullet.

[LYIN' KING]

I’m with Bebe, I don’t trust the BLM either!

That said, where I live it is legal to shoot 150 yards from another residence, yours excluded. It is a common past time around here.

If a deaf Real Estate person happens to erroneously trespass upon my property while I’m out exercising my law abiding right, utilizing commonly accepted shooting safety practices and takes one in the butt . . . shame on them!

Of course there is no way in hell that would happen given the area I have designated for this legal past time, given the “No Trespassing” signs posted every 100 yards and other safeguards, butt I suppose it is possible in other circumstances.

They live amongst us! Idiot shooters and Realtors who often disrespect private property are part of life!!!

[1966Scout800]

I have lost all faith in my local BLM, the Mother Lode Field Office. Recently they banned the use of firearms on a recently aquired parcel. The reason was concerned homeowners again. The laws are already in place for gun safety. Its just a power grab by the BLM. Like I said, I have zero faith in the BLM managing OUR public lands! When will the BLM or other land use agencies get reformed? They need a system of checks and balances too!

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by 1966Scout800

I have lost all faith in my local BLM, the Mother Lode Field Office. Recently they banned the use of firearms on a recently aquired parcel. The reason was concerned homeowners again. The laws are already in place for gun safety. Its just a power grab by the BLM. Like I said, I have zero faith in the BLM managing OUR public lands! When will the BLM or other land use agencies get reformed? They need a system of checks and balances too!

Mother lode Field office is the least trustworthy. Especially When the Rec Officer refuses to apply for OHMVR Grants because he considers them Blood Money What a tool.

[LYIN' KING]

We need look no further for the trustworthiness of BLM field offices than their boss.

He said he’d back off S.O. 3310 and he did.

Now he continues to pursue his plan in another way by personally visiting State Governors and other politicians in an effort to promote “Wilderness” for areas in their States and then greases up the Senators to propose them to Congress for protection . . . SSDD.




Update on The Wilderness Society's new lobbying efforts...

Salazar Highlights 18 Backcountry Areas Deserving Congressional Protection as Conservation Lands or Wilderness
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/new...1_10_2011.html


Secretary Salazar’s cover letter for the recommendations:
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressrelease...;pageid=267219


Secretary Salazar’s backcountry recommendations:
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressrelease...;pageid=267130


Wyoming absent from Salazar's list of landscapes worthy of protection
http://billingsgazette.com/news/stat...377-9053-58a2-


Battle brewing over expanding wilderness protections in the West
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nati...ort-to-expand-


Interior secretary seeks to protect BLM land near Helena, in other states
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and...tect-blm-land-


Wilderness: 18 BLM parcels ripe for bipartisan support
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/11...tisan-support/


The report issued by Secretary Salazar includes a preliminary list of areas managed primarily by Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) where there is significant local support for Congressional protection, and that Secretary Salazar believes can be at the foundation of a bipartisan public lands bill that should pass under this Congress.



Administration urges new wilderness protections
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/art...tration-urges-


Polis, DeGette pleased to see Interior include Colorado areas in new wilderness report
http://coloradoindependent.com/10572...lude-colorado-


Congress Urged to Protect 134,000 Public Acres In and Near the Pass
http://banning-beaumont.patch.com/ar...c-acres-in-and


WILDERNESS: Obama proposes protection for desert, mountains
http://www.pe.com/local-news/politic...obama-proposes


Wilderness plan zeroes in on 3 southeastern canyons
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...ounty.html.csp


Desolation Canyon could be considered wilderness
http://www.vernal.com/stories/Desola...erness,2064418



Even Utah Representative Matheson is asking questions about Secretary Salazar's Wilderness Lobbying efforts...


“I am deeply disappointed that Interior Secretary Salazar continues to be tone deaf about public lands issues in Utah,” Matheson said. “As our success in Washington County shows, wilderness proposals must be the result of a grassroots, stakeholder-driven process, rather than a top-down decree. This is not the way to make progress on public lands decisions and it only ensures that we won’t see a successful outcome on the ground here.”



Salazar's wilderness proposal met with criticism
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=18031733



Northern Rockies Protection Act introduced, details still pending
http://www.kpax.com/news/northern-ro...still-pending/



Source Provider: http://www.sharetrails.org/public-la...ews/2011/11/15

[desertroad]

I'm just getting too old and cranky, IMHO right after we kill all the lawyers, we need to take out all the real estate agents.

The shooting vs development debate is an interesting one. The issue of noise from shooting has been an ongoing theme with respect to the Northern Arizona Shooting Range, outside of Flagstaff. Many have claimed that the sound of gunfire negatively impacts visitor experience at nearby Walnut Canyon National Monument.

Of course, there's a big difference between the NAZSR and shooting on BLM land. My point is that trying to control sound produced by human outdoor recreational activity is sometimes not possible. In the case of the NAZSR, Walnut Canyon has been there a long time (since 1915!). I recall reading much of the debate about the location of this range. The NAZSR was established to give the residents of Flagstaff a modern, well-equipped venue for shooting sports. One point of the establishment of the NAZSR was to provide some relief for local public lands where informal shooting was perceived as a problem (resource damage, trash, and, of course, noise). The site of the range was supposed to balance safe distance from town with ease of access (not too long of a drive). You can't please everybody, so advocates of quiet at Walnut Canyon are unhappy. I really like Flagstaff, and have considered many of the issues the city faces as good benchmarks for judging increased population and development problems that are occuring throughout the west.

I haven't been to Walnut Canyon in years, so I have no idea how much one can hear any activity from the shooting range. It most likely wouldn't negatively impact my visitor experience, but that's just me. I also don't "freak out" when I hear gunfire, or ATVs/motorcycles when I'm out exploring the outdoors. Again, just me.

[Brewster2]

No surprise that The Wilderness Society is behind the wilderness push. Our old OHMVR Commissioner paul spitler ended up there.

http://wilderness.org/about-us/experts/paul-spitler

Ride on
Brewster

[LYIN' KING]

TWS is only behind wilderness pushes that benefit its “34 Governing Council Members” and their associates in some manner.

http://www.muckety.com/Wilderness-So...005764.muckety

Open the link above, expand that light blue box at the top and then just keep expanding boxes that contain an “X” until blue in the face!!!

Take note of Roosevelts and others of influence along the way.

[WLDWUN]

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/a...lic.html#hdng0


The Obama administration on Wednesday backed off a draft policy to restrict target shooting on federal land near residential areas. In a memo, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would direct his agency to "take no further action to develop or implement" the draft. U.S. News & World Report posted a copy of the memo on its website. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., last Friday sent Salazar a letter asking that the draft policy be canned, saying he worried it would be taken advantage of by anti-gun rights groups. "Any draft proposal regarding recreation on public lands must continue to guarantee hunting opportunities," he wrote. [1] The Obama administration says it will not restrict recreational shooting on public lands, reversing a draft policy that had caused an uproar among gun owners and hunters, especially in the West. In a memo sent Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would direct his agency to "take no further action to develop or implement" the draft policy, which would have restricted target shooting on some public lands near residential areas. Officials said they were trying to ensure public safety in rapidly growing areas of the West, where some residents have clashed with gun owners who use public lands for target practice. [2] Hunting season for deer and other game begins around Thanksgiving in many states. Officials said they were trying to ensure public safety in rapidly growing areas of the West, where some residents have clashed with gun owners who use public lands for target practice. In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department supports opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on federal land. "By facilitating access, multiple use and safe activities on public lands, the Bureau of Land Management helps ensure that the vast majority of the 245 million acres it oversees are open and remain open to recreational shooting," he wrote. [3]

[LYIN' KING]

"The Obama administration on Wednesday backed off a draft policy to restrict target shooting on federal land near residential areas."

This does nothing to resolve the remainder of their push, the issues in Arizona and Colorado being two examples.


http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...izona+shooting

[WLDWUN]

I think in general the BLM has been instructed not to change anything in regards to shooting on public lands per the letter from the secratary of the interior to the director of BLM

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/maste...ermemo_big.jpg

on a case by case basis I am sure they still can close or restrict areas if deemed for the safety of the public or resourses

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by WLDWUN

I think in general the BLM has been instructed not to change anything in regards to shooting on public lands per the letter from the secratary of the interior to the director of BLM

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/maste...ermemo_big.jpg

on a case by case basis I am sure they still can close or restrict areas if deemed for the safety of the public or resourses

I hope your assessment is correct!

It's likely my lack of trust regarding anything done by Salazar that makes me see nothing but "residential" verbiage in the included news release.

The last sentence of his memorandum is suspect given possible interpretations of it.

Although he could be tossed several feet, I don’t trust him even a few centimeters!