I was at the Longmont meeting, and those of us who shoot in the forest have a problem.

I had heard rumors -- from "the meetings are really about logging and roads, we don't need to go" to "the Boulder district ranger has an attitude" -- and when I saw the notice I decided to check it out. My wife went also.

There were people with cameras and recorders there who clearly unsettled the ranger with their presence. I have no idea who they were, but thank you! Public servants with no sense of accountability are little dictators.

Wow, does the Boulder district ranger have an attitude.

She will be making the decision as to what to do, but

-- doesn't feel the need to answer any questions in public forums (like in front of the whole group that was assembled) but only in one-to-one conversations

-- refuses to gather ANY data about the "problems" NOT EVEN LOGGING PHONE CALLS because she "doesn't have the funds." (Want to guess how many USFS and Wildlife folks were there, on the clock, at this one meeting, and what that cost, but she can't scribble down a name, phone number, and summary when a complaint comes in, to support a MAJOR policy change?)

So, with nothing but anecdotal opinions, she has had this series of meetings, carefully splitting apart discussions on what constitutes a problem from the discussions of solutions of those "problems." My group had a guy clearly totally freaked by firearms, who wanted to talk about gunmen with automatic weapons in subways.

It really looked to me -- and I have seen this kind of bureaucratic maneuvering bullshit before -- like she knows what she wants to do, based on personal prejudice, and (1) is bent on ramming ths ban on shooting through, and (2) thinks she has enough independence/authority to get away with it.

So, no, this meeting wasn't about logging but intensely focused on the "problems" with recreational shooting in the national forest. In my group, and in my wife's, there were as many antis as there were gunners, and most of the antis were uninformed and there because of generalized concerns. I don't think we were well represented, nowhere near the numbers required to make an impression on the ranger that her views were misguided and unsupported by fact or her approach inappropriate. And without the collection of data, THE LOUDEST VOICES have the advantage.