.455_Hunter
07-22-2015, 15:59
I attended the SportsShootingPartners.org meeting last night in Boulder. The primary goal of these meetings is to inform the public about the process of selecting multiple “designated shooting” locations in Clear Creek, Gilpin, Boulder and Larimer counties. Most of the people there were NIMBY folks hoping the “other guy’s area” gets selected for a range and not theirs. The secondary goal, which was not highlighted until I brought to the attention of the crowd, was the plan to eliminate dispersed shooting in all the nearby National Forest locations. In Boulder County, for example, dispersed shooting would be banned essentially anywhere in National Forest below 11,000 feet. Similar restrictions would be in place for Clear Creek and Gilpin. Larimer, without the history of mountain mining development, has significantly less restrictions. The plan touts that only 20% of the forest property would be unsuitable for dispersed shooting . However, they neglect to mention that all of that restricted area is where it is actually convenient for people to go shooting- near town.
The “compromise”, like most gun regulation proposals is completely asinine. In no way, shape, or form, does the selection of a handful of overcrowded designated shooting sites compensate for the loss of thousands of acres of dispersed shooting. I understand that there are some National Forest locations, due to immediate proximately to homes, roads, or trails, that are unsafe, and should be shooting prohibited- that’s fine. However, the determination criteria are overly restrictive if it eliminates such vast region of forest that contains many reasonable areas to conduct safe sport shooting.
My preference would be to restrict shooting in a few limited areas where it is obviously highly inappropriate and unsafe, open a few designated ranges for public use, and preserve dispersed shooting in the other areas.
Please review the attached map/supporting document, and visit the SportsShootingPartners.org (http://SportsShootingPartners.org) and National Forest websites (www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46910 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46910)) for more information.
The pro-gun and shooting community needs to flood these comments about how unacceptable the plan is to restrict dispersed shooting in such a manner, and how the vast majority of shooter’s are responsible and will not have their valid usage of public property so extremely compromised.
Send comments to:
Garry Sanfacon, Project Coordinator, info@sportshootingpartners.org, 720-564-2642
Joshua Milligan, Forest Planner, jmilligan@fs.fed.us, 970-295-6761
Tammy Williams, Forest Planner, tjwilliams@fs.fed.us
(tjwilliams@fs.fed.us)
If you are a resident of one of these counties, please contact your county commissioners and voice your disproval to this plan. Since it is federal property we are discussing, I will also be contacting my Representative (Polis) and Senator Gardner. I suggest you do the same and spread the word.
As you all know, it’s was easier to stop a bad policy before it get implemented instead trying to get it rescinded later. If this sticks up north, don’t think that Pike won’t be next…
The “compromise”, like most gun regulation proposals is completely asinine. In no way, shape, or form, does the selection of a handful of overcrowded designated shooting sites compensate for the loss of thousands of acres of dispersed shooting. I understand that there are some National Forest locations, due to immediate proximately to homes, roads, or trails, that are unsafe, and should be shooting prohibited- that’s fine. However, the determination criteria are overly restrictive if it eliminates such vast region of forest that contains many reasonable areas to conduct safe sport shooting.
My preference would be to restrict shooting in a few limited areas where it is obviously highly inappropriate and unsafe, open a few designated ranges for public use, and preserve dispersed shooting in the other areas.
Please review the attached map/supporting document, and visit the SportsShootingPartners.org (http://SportsShootingPartners.org) and National Forest websites (www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46910 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46910)) for more information.
The pro-gun and shooting community needs to flood these comments about how unacceptable the plan is to restrict dispersed shooting in such a manner, and how the vast majority of shooter’s are responsible and will not have their valid usage of public property so extremely compromised.
Send comments to:
Garry Sanfacon, Project Coordinator, info@sportshootingpartners.org, 720-564-2642
Joshua Milligan, Forest Planner, jmilligan@fs.fed.us, 970-295-6761
Tammy Williams, Forest Planner, tjwilliams@fs.fed.us
(tjwilliams@fs.fed.us)
If you are a resident of one of these counties, please contact your county commissioners and voice your disproval to this plan. Since it is federal property we are discussing, I will also be contacting my Representative (Polis) and Senator Gardner. I suggest you do the same and spread the word.
As you all know, it’s was easier to stop a bad policy before it get implemented instead trying to get it rescinded later. If this sticks up north, don’t think that Pike won’t be next…