Proposed Interior Dept. rules would ban shooting on public land

[daboone]

Obama plans for BLM Land

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 .

 

[Nushif]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=625750 More under the Radar

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

 

[Dave Workman]

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]

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: [email protected]. 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]

Just wrote to the WH

 

[LawScholar]

This is half my state. I have no shooting range in my town. My range is BLM. To hell with this.

 

[popper]

Try this http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands

 

[RobNDenver]

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]

BLA pushing shooters off of public lands

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...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]

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.