USFS Potential Recreational Shooting Closures

Millions of acres managed and yet they are proposing closing areas to recreational shooting. I do have to say those who use the USFS are not always good stewards. Some area up around Woodland Park could be better policed.

The U.S. Forest Service, a subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is considering a rule to permanently close over 226,000 National Forest Service (NFS) lands to recreational shooting opportunities. The affected areas will include three locations in Colorado: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. The national forests cumulatively comprise 1.4 million acres. Public comments closed on May 5th, 2023.

Under multiple-use management of public lands, recreational target shooting is allowed on National Forest Service lands. Efforts to increase access on public lands are underway as more Americans lawfully purchase firearms and desire to go outdoors to do some safe target shooting.

This rule, if implemented, would deprive visitors to these public lands of opportunities. This recommendation first originated from the 2019 Recreational Sport Shooting Management Decision and Forest Plan Amendment, which determined these areas are ?unsuitable? for shooting sports. The three reasons given include ?residential housing density,? ?high-use recreation areas on NFS and other government lands, and existing conflicts between recreational shooting? and ?other uses on NFS and other government lands.?

The rule, if enacted, seeks to do the following: ?When fully implemented, the 226,113 acres identified as unsuitable for shooting will be closed. The three geographic areas included in the current Dingell Act notice comprise 141,095 acres of that, including 94,900 acres when Devil?s Nose opens and 46,195 acres when the Clear Creek Shooting Sports Park opens.?

https://townhall.com/columnists/gabr...recip=26952950


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not surprising at all. They've been doing the same thing to multi use trails for decades.

They claim lack of money to maintain the trails, so everyone ends up in the same area which they then close down due to user density.

Closing a LOT of land to dispersed camping, closing trails, shooting............. Californicaton of CO more and more each day.

Silly me.

While I understand a certain level of management of public lands is necessary to ensure it remains undestroyed and available for the enjoyment of the public for perpetuity, but...

To close off entire areas of PUBLICLY owned nation forests for use and enjoyment (particularly hiking & camping) seems like a giant over reach of "authority" by the .gov. This is public recreation land, how the hell can they lawfully prohibit THE PEOPLE from enjoying it? Is it not OURS?

You Peasants keep off the kings land!!!!!!!

Dispersed.camping, hiking and shooting closures are easily defeated by getting a small game license and going "squirrel hunting".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Dispersed.camping, hiking and shooting closures are easily defeated by getting a small game license and going "squirrel hunting".

---

I've been told, once by a game warden (or whatever they're called in Colorado), and again by a lawyer, that if you carry a firearm on public land, a small game license is one of the best investments you can make.

Unless you a shooting a suppressed 22, you'll get the cops called if you are within earshot of hikers and it would be pretty easy for them to know you weren't squirrel hunting with a pile of centerfire brass next to you and targets set up. But would the small game license work for small game hunting? I haven't heard anything about closing off lands to hiking yet. That would be ridiculous.

There are plenty of places to drive or hike back in to that are safe and where you could shoot without hikers being around or aware. The problem is most people are too lazy and either go to the usual trouble spots or pull off the side of a popular trail and start blasting away.

This is all likely part of the UN push to remove land from the public. They have been doing it thru purchasing and outright theft as well. When our church in Louisville was sold the city had a rule in place that all sales of land transferred something like 10% of the land to the city automatically. In our case the city was the ones who bought the property so it didn't matter in the end....but the government doesn't want us to own land and likely doesn't want us to have access to public lands either.