"Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands"

[LAGC]

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.

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.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands

I'm a little torn on this one... recreational target shooters and hunters have shared public lands with other users like ATV/dirt-bike riders, hikers, and campers for decades without much problem. Although it doesn't surprise me that this is being framed as an "urban vs. rural" issue... I'd be interested in hearing about where these supposed conflicts are arising in.

Here's the key paragraph from the offending draft BLM regulations:

"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."

From my own anecdotal experience, most of the recreational target shooters stick to their own little favorite areas, and the other recreational types stick to theirs. So I don't really see why these new regulations are necessary. Surely not just because some "urbanites" are complaining? Where are folks who live in urban areas supposed to go shoot? Not really fair to make them all have to pay to use a shooting range.

Public lands are supposed to be for ALL of us to enjoy and share, right?

[DrDan]

1. can't you enjoy these Public lands, or life in general, without shooting?

then everyone could enjoy them.

[LAGC]

2. You may as well ask: "can't you ATV-riders enjoy these public lands without riding?"

They are more of a nuisance making more noise and racket than the shooters are, and arguably more dangerous too.

[luckyleftyme2]

5. A HUNTERS RESPONSE

I feel that the majority of hunters(this includes target shooting) are far safer and have less accidents or deaths than say hikers(lump in mt.climbers) ,snowmobile,atv or skiers!
I know for a fact per capita statistics will prove this! so lets rescind this bill and create a new one for real safety ! we will close all national parks from hikers,snowmobiles,ATVs where ever a hiker has got lost,a mt. climber or rock climber has been injured or a skier has been lost,started a snow slide or avalanche and got injured!
you see per capita in each sport the hunter's safety record is far superior!
probably hikers have one of the worst! why because many of them have little or no experience!many have never been out side the city limits.

[iverglas]

7. my goodness!

Gracious me! But! do you know of a hiker! who has ever injured! someone else??

Now maybe no shooter has ever injured anyone else in any given location either. But hunting and hiking really are kind of oil and water, when practised in the same location.

It doesn't really seem appropriate for one person's use to preclude another's. And no, hikers' use would not be precluding hunters'. Hunters could still use the land, just not to hunt on.

I wonder about game population control, since hunting is sometimes ecologically sound (even if the reason culling is needed is habitat encroachment in the first place). Perhaps the urban encroachment is doing that job.

As for ATVs: they should have been banned before they were invented, for so very many reasons.

[Remmah2]

19. "Hunters could still use the land, just not to hunt on."

Then they wouldn't be hunters.

BTW, I don't hunt, nor tote when I hike (for the most part). I schedule my hiking around the hunting season so as to share with the hunters. Not a problem.

I've also know hikers to burn down forests, trash campgrounds and fall off cliffs. Other persons are certainly put at risk saving their sorry asses.

[Glassunion]

82. "do you know of a hiker! who has ever injured! someone else??"

Yes.

On the AT in PA where it crosses the Turnpike. A pair of hikers accidentally started a fire with their camp stove. There were 4 injuries, besides the hikers.

2 injuries were sustained during the fire response while they were fighting the fire. The other 2 were a pair of hikers who were caught upwind and suffered smoke inhalation.

Hikers, campers, ATV riders as well as hunters cause far more injuries and damage by accidentally starting fires than firearms do.

[iverglas]

89. "than firearms do"

:wtf:

Firearms don't do anything, do they?

Such disingenuousness.

The act of hiking is never, ever going to injure or kill someone else ... unless, I dunno, one hikes over someone's head.

The act of hunting, i.e. discharging firearms, does do that from time to time.

ATV users mostly injure/kill themselves/their passengers, I believe.

[DrDan]

14. I agree - ban'em from public lands - as well as the guns

[LAGC]

16. Well, at least you're consistent.

;)

[Starboard Tack]

98. I agree!

But it should be relatively easy to designate certain areas for various activities, especially in terms of keeping the polluters far away from horse and hiking trails.

[Callisto32]

113. HAHAHAAHAHAHA.

Base insults, and they aren't even relevant. All living things "pollute." You may as well have called us "breathers."
You're funny.

[Starboard Tack]

119. All living things "pollute." Really?

Name me one that isn't human. I put guns in the same category as ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, powerboats and jet skis. All are useful tools, especially in emergencies. All are fun toys. All pollute. I try to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible.

[ileus]

4. Kind of hard hunting with a spear...

[DrDan]

13. might make things a tad more even

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Ever been hunting?

Ever? I got skunked by the deer this year. They have survival-specific tools as well.

You can also hunt a predator, like wild boar. That's exciting. Yes, you can be killed doing it.

[DrDan]

25. yes - as a child (8-9 years-old) with my Father and one ofhis friends

[SteveM]

34. Wow! Macho "eveness" meets crippled animals, but what the hey....nt

[Remmah2]

45. Haven't you noticed the cave man mentality? nt

nt

[DrDan]

51. yes - it is quite rampant in this forum

[SteveM]

83. I think you broached the subject of hunting with spears, no?

So, what do you want? A cleanly-killed animal via a deer rifle, or a deer wounded, escaped and dying un-recovered, via a spear? Just what do you call "even" with regards hunting? How many buffalo do you think Native Americans lost due to cliff stampeding and shooting with low-powered arrows?

It's strange how folks who are so against hunting want to invoke the "macho rule" -- something which contributes to more suffering and un-recovered meat animals.

[DrDan]

85. nope - no spear references from me

[SteveM]

88. I stand corrected on that, my apologies. nt

[DrDan]

91. no problem. nt

[beevul]

6. Except those that seek enjoyment in shooting.

That your definition of "everyone" does not include those that seek enjoyment in shooting is noted.


And telling.

[DrDan]

11. I just asked if there are other avenues of enjoyment . . and your response is telling

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. Whether there are or not...

...shouldn't matter. You want others to stop doing something you don't like.

[beevul]

24. We have a winner. N/T

[DrDan]

26. never said that, now did I. Just don't support it on public land - as does the current

administration.

Take it appropriately elsewhere.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

55. And why should it be taken elsewhere?

It is just as legitimate an activity on public land as other activities. It IS public land after all - unless you're suggesting that someone has no right to use public space if it involves firearms?

What the current administration wants or supports means NOTHING when it comes to rights.

[DrDan]

57. sure sounds like it means SOMETHING to the adminsitration

and I will support it in any way I can

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. I don't give a damn what the administration wants

when it comes to my rights. Blindly supporting any politician regardless of his goals is pretty stupid. Just because the current president is a Democrat doesn't mean he's always right.

[DrDan]

61. just happens to be right in this instance

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. Based upon what?

How do you believe it is right? What legal authority do you believe supports it?

[DrDan]

66. BLM policies come from the Interior Dept

[We_Have_A_Problem]

68. Doesn't answer the question.NT

[DrDan]

70. the Dept of Interior regulates BLM lands - what is hard to understand about that

[Callisto32]

114. Of course there are.

But that doesn't matter.

Bland foods can meet my nutritional requirements, but I still have entire shelves full of spices.

You tell those of us who enjoy hunting and shooting we have a caveman mentality, but then deny the propriety of tool use! It's utterly preposterous.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Currently everyone DOES enjoy them.

Some outdoor activities are incompatible. Like the first stage of a triathlon, and jet skis.

The problem is not that hunters exist, or that they hunt, the problem is only in keeping the hunters and other activities safely separate.

Fortunately, for the most part, they already are.

[SteveM]

33. Public lands have been used for shooting and hunting for generations...

The number of hunters is rather stagnant, and there is no indication that there is a big upswing in the number of recreational shooters (in fact, if there is such an upswing, then more facilities should be made available for this).

This is "safety theater." No data was provided as to the number of accidents, conflicts or a history of this. There is no reason the BLM cannot provide a map, hand-out, info on-line which shows shooting areas.

I will point out a case of urban "passive-aggressiveness:" In Texas, where there is rather small public-access acreage for hunting, people who are anti-hunting, anti-guns, walk right past signs indicating the few days deer hunters can use over-browsed state parks, walking their dogs, and yelling at anyone who tells them they are VIOLATING THE LAW by entering land which for a few days is shut down for these necessary hunts, usually walking their shit-spewing dogs the whole time.

[gejohnston]

35. remind me not to move to Texas

at least East Texas anyway.

[Oneka]

47. Texas needs one of these

http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/outdoors/hunting/harassment/minnesota-hunter-harassment-law.html

[SteveM]

84. We have similar laws, but we also have Rick Perry & his cutbacks. nt

[Euromutt]

49. Is that even meant to be a serious question?

I live a bit south of Seattle, in the Puget Sound area. What established outdoor shooting ranges there are are rapidly getting squeezed out by new developments; some fucking developer puts up a subdivision next to a range, and next thing you know, the new residents are complaining about the noise, or the occasional bullet that goes over the backstop (which almost invariably turns out to be from a member of a local law enforcement agency using the range for target practice, but why let that fact get in the way?) and there's pressure to close down the range. Well, if you live in the Puget Sound area, pretty soon your only option for shooting rifles at more than 25 yards is going to be public lands like National and State Forests, e.g. in the Cascades, because there's nowhere else that isn't inhabited that you can drive to and back in one day.

And the overwhelming majority of shooters do try to be considerate while shooting on public lands: they find a site with a good backstop, they check there's nobody camping in the treeline, they scout the area and inform anyone they find nearby that they intend to be shooting in such and such location, etc. In other words, they do their damndest to ensure that their own enjoyment of public lands for shooting doesn't infringe upon anyone else's enjoyment and (more importantly) safety. But if people "freak out" at the mere sound of shooting, how the fuck are you supposed to accommodate that? Not least because sound suppressors were illegal to use in Washington state until this year, plus sound suppressors require ATF paperwork and a $200 federal tax (constituting a more than 20% markup) to own, and let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the "urbanites" who "freak out" at the sound of gunfire aren't the exact same who would oppose tooth and nail any attempt to make suppressors more available and less expensive.

Note, moreover, that we're not talking National and State Parks here; we're talking about National and State Forests, and lands administered by the federal BLM or state Departments of Natural Resources, in which logging and quarrying takes place. The very fact that you seem unaware of this distinction indicates you personally don't use these lands for recreation yourself, so where the fuck do you get off telling other people that they aren't entitled to use them for their chosen form of recreation?

Edited to fix code.

[DrDan]

50. not me telling them not to use the land, the current administration

but you knew that - you just wanted the opportunity to express some profanity

[We_Have_A_Problem]

56. So what?

Do you mistakenly think the President rules by edict?

[DrDan]

58. works for me - in this case

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. Oh, so as long as you agree with it...

...you're fine with the President ignoring the law. Got it.

[DrDan]

62. just establishing the BLM rules . . . . something I would think you would support

oh yeah - no rules when it comes to guns . . . forgot there for a moment

[We_Have_A_Problem]

64. Why would you think I would support...

...any regulation from any agency which restricts my rights?

[DrDan]

65. do you believe in any rules, regulations, or restrictions when it comes to guns?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

67. Truthfully?

No, I don't believe any should exist. Like any right, it may be restricted by due process, but unless and until someone commits a crime, government has no authority to restrict his actions.

[DrDan]

69. so a third grader should be able to carry his/her gun into the classroom daily

gotcha

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. If said third grader's parents....

...deem him responsible enough to have one, yes. Wasn't uncommon not that long ago.

Any other stupid scenarios you'd like to present? A minor is just that - a minor. Allowing him to have one at all should be up to his parents, and the parents are responsible for him.

[DrDan]

72. and obviously inebriated partiers should be able to brandish their weapons at will where ever they

wish . . . sporting events, theatres, political events, the White House, in a bar while enjoying another . . . where ever, and regardless of how much they have had to drink

[We_Have_A_Problem]

73. Well that didnt take long...

I did ask if you had any other stupid scenarios to present - and there we are.

Brandishing is a crime as it should be. Brandishing a weapon is a threat.

[DrDan]

86. ah - so you do support some restrictions

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. No, sorry I dont.

I support punishment for misuse. There is a dramatic difference.

[DrDan]

90. good try - but you said "Brandishing is a crime as it should be"

you can own a gun - but cannot wave it about - obviously putting a restriction on the owner.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

92. No, it is applying a penalty for threatening behavior.

Brandishing is a threat. No different than if i walk up to you with a clenched fist and make it clear I'm going to take a swing at you, or approach you with a baseball bat in an aggressive manner. Once the person carrying the weapon makes an unjustified threatening move, that person has violated the rights of another. I have NEVER said, and neither has anyone else on the pro-gun side, that the right to carry means you can wave a gun around.

Punishing someone for causing harm (or for making an overt and obvious threat) is nowhere near the same thing as a restriction on firearms ownership or carry.

If you want to call punishing criminals for criminal behavior a restriction on a right, you go right ahead if it makes you feel superior. The rest of us will simply laugh at you and realize you're just one more of those lost causes who will pervert and twist anything to justify restricting the law abiding.

[DrDan]

93. a restriction on the use of the gun - qed

[We_Have_A_Problem]

94. No....

It is a restriction on the behavior.

You must accept that your rights end where another's begin. By brandishing a weapon you are threatening another person, and therefore violating his rights.

Are you really this obtuse?

[DrDan]

97. of course it is a restriction - not unlike the one you want to impose

on the 8 year old. Parental permission restricting his rights as a gun owner.

At what age do you think this restriction can be lifted?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

103. Apparently you are...

...this obtuse...

A minor has no rights. Period. He is in the care of his parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, things change. This is pretty basic shit DrDan. Been the standard for oh...most of human history?

[DrDan]

112. interesting - just reread this. So you feel minors have no rights?

Lets say a minor is detained by the police. That minor does not have the right to remain silent? That minor does not have the right to have an attorney present for questioning? The police can DEMAND that minor answer their questions - because the minor has no rights?

You sure about that??????

[DrDan]

115. here - take a look - a recent (2009) opinion from a U of Cal Professor of Law

"Constitutional rights are not universally possessed.. . . While minors are not
deprived of constitutional rights, their ability to assert them is limited
and, in some instances, may be subservient to the right of parents to
control some circumstances of their upbringing."

In other words - MINORS DO HAVE RIGHTS - but they may be limited (in other words - RESTRICTED).

http://www.uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/Massey_60-HLJ-1431.pdf

[DrDan]

100. look - even you admit there should be restrictions based on age

You don't give a child a gun as a gift and be done with it. You think the parent is then responsible for further training etc. I don't think that is adequate. I don't believe all parents are responsible or knowledgeable enough to take on that responsibility. Nor are all parents capable of judging whether their child is stable enough to be trusted alone with a weapon.

There HAVE to be some restrictions - such as those based on age.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

104. No, i did not say that.

I said the PARENT makes the choice. That is completely different than GOVERNMENT making the choice.

Yes, some parents are not the best judge of character. So what? Others, in fact, most judge their kids pretty well. Why should they suffer because 10% cant seem to think their way out of a paper bag?

[DrDan]

107. exactly - if the parent makes the choice - that parent is restricting the right of the individual -

the child.

I KNOW it is different - but the rights of the minor are being restricted. That is my point - sorry it is a tad too complex.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. I guess the idea of a parent making a choice for a child...

is a bit different than the state forcing the choice on the parent is a bit too complex for you to comprehend.

For example - if I tell my kid she can't eat at McDonald's more often than once a week, it is VERY different than the state saying the same thing, is it not?

Regardless, within the parent/child relationship, the child really has no rights - only the privileges the parent allows. Its been that way since the dawn of the family and pretty much remains so today.

[DrDan]

110. so let me see if I understand you now

Should the parent allow it, a child could walk into a gun shop and purchase a gun, put that gun in his/her backpack and head off to school.

The "privilege" to purchase a gun comes from the parent - and should not be based on any restrictions from the state. The "privilege" to carry into the school comes from the parent - not restricted by school policy.

Have I fairly captured your thoughts?

Oh yeah - one more question - at what age can the gun shop sell to an individual/child/minor without express permission from the parent? And how is this to be monitored?

[gejohnston]

109. somethings are so basic that people don't think about it

or obscure, they may support something without knowing it.
Gun age restrictions on the first, if they say "no restrictions" they may be thinking not really that literal. If you reply with "oh so third graders should go buy silenced M-60s without the parents", they may wonder what drugs you are on.

An example of the second would be if someone said "Our gun laws should be like Canada's" you can reply with "oh, you support lowering the age to buy handguns to 18 and 12 to buy ammo (the later with a minor permit)." To which, they would reply "say what?"

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/licences.htm

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/lic-per-eng.htm#b14

[DrDan]

111. I agree - I also think those that respond with "no restrictions" in the various polls

really do not mean "no restrictions". There are just some restrictions that are so basic, it seems odd to call them restrictions.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

95. Threat with a deadly weapon (like brandishing) can be done with a number of weapons...

It's not necessarily a restriction owning guns.
It's a restriction on social behaviour.
Just because one has a gun doesn't mean other laws prohibiting certain actions go away.

Q.E.D.

[DrDan]

96. a restriction none the less

not denying there are restrictions on other weapons

[We_Have_A_Problem]

105. One more time...

...for the truly obtuse and willfully ignorant...

a punishment for certain actions is not a restriction upon a right. All rights carry responsibilities. Misuse the right and violate the rights of others and you get punished. Simple as that.

Claiming a punishment for brandishing is a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is like saying a libel charge is a restriction on free speech.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Maybe because you don't give a damn about anyone else?

It's all about your rights, never the rights of others. Interesting. I'm sure you've heard that many times. Problems with authority, perhaps?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

106. If you actually read what I am saying...

...I support EVERYONE'S rights. It is not an infringement on your rights in any way for me to be armed, or to shoot safely on public land. However, it IS an infringement on my rights to prevent me from doing so.

Just because you don't like something or have some irrational fear does not mean that action is an infringement upon your rights.

[Callisto32]

116. You are either in over your head so far you stuck it up your ass looking for the way out...

or you are trolling.

Neither is cool.

[Euromutt]

120. I refer to your own posts #14 and #26, to name but two

ban <ATVs> from public lands - as well as the guns

<I> just don't support <shooting> on public land <...> Take it appropriately elsewhere.

Do you actually have a train of thought, or do you just have a broken up collection of carriages scattered across the marshaling yard?

[ileus]

3. My local shooting range is on National Forest....

[Remmah2]

46. Aren't most ranges at designated static locations?

A fixed range w/established berms?

[ileus]

53. but ti's still on public lands where the sound could scare people.

[beevul]

8. I wonder if those that support this also support nationwide CCW reciprocity.

Somehow, I doubt it.



LOL.

[Blacksheep214]

9. Does the President know about this?

Or are you assuming since it's his cabinet that he knows every little thing.

Not that he hasn't been busy with some other pretty important stuff.

Jobs be damned, I wanna go shootin!

:rant:

[SteveM]

36. "Jobs be damned, I wanna stop shooting'"...

See how that works?

Mr. Obama's Justice Department is still bent on using its regulatory powers to restrict/control sales from gun shops near the Mexican border; you know, those shops which the BATF was allowing large quantities to be purchased for smuggling into Mexico.

Maybe this is an example of his "below the radar" gun-control policies?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Disingeniuous to blame Obama.

This shit has been going back and forth for at least a decade. Under Bush, parts of King Co on the I-90 corridor were closed for years. Finally, we can target practice up near Tinkham Road, but of course, some drunken shitheads are going to ruin it for everyone again.

They do shit like haul in cars, or trailers, and shoot them up, and leave all the debris behind.

It's a tiny minority of shooters that are doing it, but it has a profound impact.

[LAGC]

12. True, that's why I put the headline in quotes.

I kind of doubt Obama had much of a hand in this at all, sounds more like long-time BLM bureaucratic rangling.

And I agree that the irresponsible shooters ruin it for everyone else.

[TheWraith]

18. +1,000.

Unfortunately, believing that Obama is a magical wizard who should have total telepathic control of every aspect of the federal government at all times is not something that is exclusive to the fringe of the left. Pity.

[Euromutt]

32. Great Ghu, yes; I get so damn depressed when I encounter detritus on public land

Shooters' detritus in particular, but not exclusively. The weekend before last, some friends and I went shooting in the hills near Skykomish, in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. We used pumpkins for targets (biodegradable, and stores were literally giving them away after Hallowe'en) and we took at least half an hour to clear up our spent cases after we were done. By contrast, when I was out hunting turkey last spring, I lost count of how many times I came across bottles and cans tossed alongside the forestry roads (even in wildlife areas), empty cans stuck on branches and riddled with bullet holes, road signs shot up, and in one case, I found an old car engine someone had dumped and taken pot shots at with a Mosin-Nagant (I know it was a Mosin-Nagant because I found 7.62x54mm cases a little way down the trail). And just about anywhere where there's a gravel pit, there's frigging cases on the ground at one end and shot up cardboard boxes at the other.

I grew up in places where you'd have to drive a whole day, and possibly cross a national border or two, to find wilderness like we have here, and I just don't get how anyone can be so thoughtless. But as you say, it only takes a small minority of those who visit the areas, but they have an effect out of proportion to their numbers.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Up by Reiter Pit?

Yeah, they just re-opened that area too. And it's considered sensitive wetlands, so, I expect it'll be closed to access in a year or so.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[ileus]

17. Our local recration area has safety zones marked.

The picnic, and hiking areas have safety zones marked where there are no shooting safety zones. It works pretty well I suppose...when was the last time anyone heard of a hiker or Mountain Biker getting shot by a hunter or target shooter on public lands? Sounds like a solution to a non-problem to me.

Mountain bike trails were / are being built in National Forest right behind my house, an area used by hunters from Sept-Dec every year.

The AT runs thru the national forest in front of my house.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. It does happen unfortunately.

Some shithead let his 14 year old kid hunt ahead on a NW trail, looking for bear. Shot and killed a hiker wearing a blue jacket. (wtf?!)

http://seattlest.com/2008/08/05/hunter_who_killed_hiker_was_14_year.php

But I would still characterize it as 'extremely rare'.

[ileus]

23. We were geocaching this weekend on NF and were really careful

Kinda like hiking in bear country we kept talking and stayed in a close group. LOL should have brought some orange along but didn't think of it until we were parking at the first cache. If we'd been in the jeep, not a problem it's full of orange vests and hats. :)

[Hoyt]

27. I support the proposed rules. They've closed some public lands to my mountain bikes, why not guns?

[gejohnston]

28. because the guns were there first

and mostly by rural people who live near there. ATVs on the other hand, I have to agree with iverglas. How much damage has mt bikers caused?

[Remmah2]

44. Mountain Bikes

I've attended several "no-impact" hiking-camping seminars by the school hiking club, Eastern Mountain Sports, the Boy Scouts, and Friends of Animals. Repeated hiking over the same trail wears it down making it prone to erosion. Hikers are supposed to not wear a trail to prevent this. I could see repetitive mountain bike use more prone to wearing a narrow trail. Hikers are more agile , where as bikers stay on a narrower path. Riding the mud w/a bike accelerates trail wear. (I love to mountain bike BTW).

I see no use for gas powered vehicles in the woods either. I can't see wandering into the woods and have to wear ear plugs to enjoy it.

I wonder if iverglas would be into jousting with honey dipping sticks?

[ileus]

29. I can Mt bike, hike and hunt all on the same trails.

Two weekends ago everyone at the trailheads were hunters. I've hung up my Mt. Bike and left the comfort bike out for the winter.

You don't have to close the area to anyone, just wear orange during hunting season. We'll return to the NF this weekend to hunt, then around mid day we'll geocache. Both instances we'll wear orange. It may even be required by law during hunting season I'm not sure.

[Hoyt]

30. Other than to avoid getting shot - why should we have to wear special colors to keep hunters from

screwing up and mistaking us for a squirrel, possum, deer, bear or moose?

[ileus]

31. ever notice how hard it is to see someone 300 yards in the background.

Or 200, 100 or even 50? It's not hard to be in the background and remain unseen in the woods.

That's why orange is a requirement in lot's of hunting, it's always been pretty popular to have blaze orange patches on hunting gear.

[Hoyt]

39. If you don't know what is in the background -- don't shoot. Better yet, use a bow.

[gejohnston]

41. I thought you and Ted had something in common

http://www.bowhunting.com/blog/post/Ted-Nugent-Elected-into-National-Bowhunters-Hall-of-Fame.aspx

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Doh!

[ileus]

52. I have two bows, to go along with my muzzleloader and deer rifles no reason

to limit myself to 35yd shots and closer.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. You know a bow can kill right?

Shit, there are times when it works better.

[Hoyt]

101. Not as likely to hit some poor kid playing in a sandbox 800 yards in the background as poster above

used as an excuse/rationale for why hikers, etc., need to wear orange to keep some irresponsible hunter from missing target and not being aware of background when reacting orgasmically to seeing a deer drinking water.

[Callisto32]

117. Right, because a silent arrow that gives an unseen person no idication of incoming fire is superior.

Also, that wooshing noise wasn't a shot from a bow, it was the point flying over your head.

Yes, we wear orange precisely so OTHER PEOPLE KNOW WHERE WE ARE. It is both safety and courtesy. Clearly you prefer force to voluntary interaction, though.

[SteveM]

38. Well, then wear camo. The Darwin Awards are looking for new entrants. nt

[Hoyt]

40. Believe it or not, public lands are not for the exclusive use of hunters.

[gejohnston]

42. who said it was?

It sounds like there are those who want to exclude hunters and keep those ATVs that:
trash habitat, line the pockets of oil companies, pollutes more than the SUV that hauled it there, just plain fucking noisy.
Now ask me what I think of drunks on wave runners. I detest both of them more than you do guns.

[SteveM]

43. Believe it or not, they are not for the exclusive use of ANY one group.

[Callisto32]

118. No, but they are apparently for the exclusion of hunters in your mind.

Commons, meet tragedy.

[jeepnstein]

76. Being fashionable isn't enough?

.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. During hunting season?

It's just a prudent thing to do. You don't have to. The hunter is responsible for identifying his or her target, and the consequences of shooting.

That said, wearing bright colours is just a good idea regardless, for reasons quite unrelated to hunting.

[SteveM]

37. Same in Sam Houston Nat'l Forest. nt

[Union Scribe]

48. That's 'cause they're tired of people strapping one or two bikes to themselves

every time they go outside. Lots of people can get around fine without being a rude peddler!

[spin]

74. Washington appears to be backtracking on this issue ...

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.

"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.

***snip***

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

[jeepnstein]

75. There they go being all reasonable and stuff again.

Darn. This administration sure is making it hard for the other side to keep portraying him with a pitchfork and bifurcated tail.

[spin]

80. Obama has been a far better friend of gun owners than McCain ever would have been.

McCain had a C rating from the NRA back in 2008 and many gun owners (including me) distrusted him. If McCain would have been elected, we might have another assault weapons ban or a least a ban on high capacity magazines after the Tucson, Arizona shooting.

John McCain on Civil Liberties Issues
His Platform for the 2008 Presidential Election

By Tom Head, About.com Guide

***snip***

John McCain on Gun Control and the Second Amendment
Although McCain currently holds a C rating from the NRA, his voting record on Second Amendment issues has been relatively strong; some speculate that his low rating may have something to do with his support for campaign finance reform laws, which has had an impact on gun rights advocacy groups. McCain has consistently opposed a federal ban on "assault weapons," but irritated many gun rights groups when he supported a bill increasing federal regulation of gun shows.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/John-McCain-Civil-Liberties.htm

[ileus]

81. Hell even bush said give me the bill I'll sign it...FWIW

[burf]

102. Committee Passes Legislation Protecting Sportsmen’s Access

The US Sportsmans Alliance had posted an article on "protect fishing, hunting and recreational shooting on federal lands."


H.R. 2834 passed the Committee with strong bipartisan support by a vote of 29-14.

This vital piece of legislation would require fishing, hunting and recreational shooting to be included in all federal land planning documents and would fix numerous inconsistencies in federal law that are being exploited by litigious environmental groups to reduce hunting opportunities on federal land.

http://www.ammoland.com/