No more public land shooting.

[Bitter Clinger]

I?m having trouble pasting the text, but here you go.

https://www.gunpowdermagazine.com/po...e-in-colorado/

[.455_Hunter]

Yup- some of us have been involved from the beginning and it been like pissing in the wind.

[Irving]

I believe there is currently a bill being worked on that will give states more flexibility with how they use the resources from the Pittman-Robinson Act. If you're unfamiliar with this act, please educate yourself since you've likely been paying an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition for your entire life and might not have ever known it. Most of the funds go toward wildlife restoration and hunters love to brag about how hunting is the biggest player in conservation (which is certainly true). However, with respect to these funds, that mostly go toward conservation, over 80% of the funds are generated by people who are partaking in recreational shooting that is not hunting. That said, I believe the bill to allow more flexibility is trying to give the states more options for funds usage with the specific eye toward building more ranges. What's the point of charging EVERY person who buys guns or ammo an additional tax, then using so little of it for building public ranges?

Here is the Wiki on the Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittma...estoration_Act

As per this article, in my eyes, between the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which is built public access in every single county in the united states) and the Pittman-Robertson Act, there should be plenty of money already available to spend on more public shooting ranges to accomplish what this article is talking about, but without banning public shooting.

On another, but related note, as many people have mentioned on here in the past hikers, mountain bikers, climbers, etc could pitch in to these public funds as well so we can stop doing dumb things like stealing money from Colorado wildlife and giving it to the parks. People say, "Well you can't just start taxing people for recreation!" but that's exactly what happened with guns, ammo, archery, and even angling equipment and everyone just got used to it and went on with their hobbies. It would be especially grievous, in my opinion, to continue to take extra tax money from recreational shooters to spend on public lands, then kick those shooters off the land. That should be the angle to defeat any dumb bills that come out of this.

Finally, the most recent MeatEater pod cast with Steven Rinella addresses these issues (and even talks a lot about suppressors!) if you'd like to hear more. Here is the podcast https://www.themeateater.com/listen/...er/ep-155-guns with Larry Keane and Mark Olivia from the National Shooting Sports Foundations.

[Hummer]

I believe there is currently a bill being worked on that will give states more flexibility with how they use the resources from the Pittman-Robinson Act. If you're unfamiliar with this act, please educate yourself since you've likely been paying an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition for your entire life and might not have ever known it. Most of the funds go toward wildlife restoration and hunters love to brag about how hunting is the biggest player in conservation (which is certainly true). However, with respect to these funds, that mostly go toward conservation, over 80% of the funds are generated by people who are partaking in recreational shooting that is not hunting. That said, I believe the bill to allow more flexibility is trying to give the states more options for funds usage with the specific eye toward building more ranges. What's the point of charging EVERY person who buys guns or ammo an additional tax, then using so little of it for building public ranges?

Here is the Wiki on the Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittma...estoration_Act

As per this article, in my eyes, between the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which is built public access in every single county in the united states) and the Pittman-Robertson Act, there should be plenty of money already available to spend on more public shooting ranges to accomplish what this article is talking about, but without banning public shooting.

On another, but related note, as many people have mentioned on here in the past hikers, mountain bikers, climbers, etc could pitch in to these public funds as well so we can stop doing dumb things like stealing money from Colorado wildlife and giving it to the parks. People say, "Well you can't just start taxing people for recreation!" but that's exactly what happened with guns, ammo, archery, and even angling equipment and everyone just got used to it and went on with their hobbies. It would be especially grievous, in my opinion, to continue to take extra tax money from recreational shooters to spend on public lands, then kick those shooters off the land. That should be the angle to defeat any dumb bills that come out of this.

Finally, the most recent MeatEater pod cast with Steven Rinella addresses these issues (and even talks a lot about suppressors!) if you'd like to hear more. Here is the podcast https://www.themeateater.com/listen/...er/ep-155-guns with Larry Keane and Mark Olivia from the National Shooting Sports Foundations.

Well stated, Irving, I fully agree. The blanket ban of shooting on public lands is an affront and an assault on all firearms owners. The problems we all see due to destructive slob shooters is real and significant, and there must be an equally significant effort to educate shooters and prosecute the people who destroy public lands by irresponsible shooting activities that destroy public property, trees, and trashing the land. The money is there but it takes responsible land managers to get people out of offices and into the field.

[DDT951]

Well stated, Irving, I fully agree. The blanket ban of shooting on public lands is an affront and an assault on all firearms owners. The problems we all see due to destructive slob shooters is real and significant, and there must be an equally significant effort to educate shooters and prosecute the people who destroy public lands by irresponsible shooting activities that destroy public property, trees, and trashing the land. The money is there but it takes responsible land managers to get people out of offices and into the field.

What about the damage caused by single tracks?

[DDT951]

I believe there is currently a bill being worked on that will give states more flexibility with how they use the resources from the Pittman-Robinson Act. If you're unfamiliar with this act, please educate yourself since you've likely been paying an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition for your entire life and might not have ever known it. Most of the funds go toward wildlife restoration and hunters love to brag about how hunting is the biggest player in conservation (which is certainly true). However, with respect to these funds, that mostly go toward conservation, over 80% of the funds are generated by people who are partaking in recreational shooting that is not hunting. That said, I believe the bill to allow more flexibility is trying to give the states more options for funds usage with the specific eye toward building more ranges. What's the point of charging EVERY person who buys guns or ammo an additional tax, then using so little of it for building public ranges?

Here is the Wiki on the Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittma...estoration_Act

As per this article, in my eyes, between the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which is built public access in every single county in the united states) and the Pittman-Robertson Act, there should be plenty of money already available to spend on more public shooting ranges to accomplish what this article is talking about, but without banning public shooting.

On another, but related note, as many people have mentioned on here in the past hikers, mountain bikers, climbers, etc could pitch in to these public funds as well so we can stop doing dumb things like stealing money from Colorado wildlife and giving it to the parks. People say, "Well you can't just start taxing people for recreation!" but that's exactly what happened with guns, ammo, archery, and even angling equipment and everyone just got used to it and went on with their hobbies. It would be especially grievous, in my opinion, to continue to take extra tax money from recreational shooters to spend on public lands, then kick those shooters off the land. That should be the angle to defeat any dumb bills that come out of this.

Finally, the most recent MeatEater pod cast with Steven Rinella addresses these issues (and even talks a lot about suppressors!) if you'd like to hear more. Here is the podcast https://www.themeateater.com/listen/...er/ep-155-guns with Larry Keane and Mark Olivia from the National Shooting Sports Foundations.

I would like to see Mtn Bikes have to pay on OHV-like tax stamp if they want to use the forests.

Maybe an excise tax on Tents like firearms have?

Why not make a "hiker/biker license" (much like a fishing license) required for hiking? It could even be part of the current Fishing / Small Game license scheme. The infrastructure is already there. Enforce like a fishing/hunting license with spot checks. We could even go to the logical safety conclusion that maybe some sort of "hiker safety course" is required so that people hiking in the woods have some basic training on how not to be too stupid. Maybe a course would teach people things like "going hiking on Longs Peak in the winterwith an approaching blizzard is something not smart and we can not rescue you" or "be below treeline before afternoon thunderstorms roll in"

I think people should pay for what they use instead of everyone just paying a general tax.



Now to the shooting. Small game hunting is still allowed. I am a poor shot on those damn squirrels. Yes, I was hunting squirrels. Here is my small game license.....

[CS1983]

So what you’re saying, Irving, is that the government lied about the direction a tax would be take and be used?

[Irving]

No, in that case the tax has been applied exactly as it was intended. The point is that today, there are far more recreational shooters than there are hunters, and they generate a lot more more money than hunters, so it's not unreasonable to adjust how the tax money is spent.

ETA: Also, most people have no idea that tax even exists, and to completely ignore it in the reporting of that kind of article is par for the course for lazy, bias reporting.

[CS1983]

Don’t you dare take away my anti authoritarian moment with facts.

[Irving]

You can still shit on every other person who enjoys the public lands (besides shooters, archers, and fisherman) that don't pay any extra tax.