Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Imagine sitting down to dinner and hearing shotgun blasts and rifle shots from seven in the morning until midnight. The dogs bark and we're afraid to let the grandkids go outside. We live 14.5 miles out of town in a rural area on private property surrounded by BLM land and Roseburg Lumber Company and a scenic byway road bisect our property. However this does not deter the recreational, reregulated shooting range near our property and the public road.
Many complaints to the sheriff and public officials has done nothing. Douglas County Oregon

Jan Nelson of OR 12:40PM May 28, 2012

O.K. Shooters (and I am one also, as well as a hunter and single-track-trail motorcyclist). I get all the same rhetoric that you are getting now. Too noisy, tearing up the land, Public Lands are only for "quite recreation", your type of recreation should be banned on Public Lands, etc., etc. Public Lands are provided for multiple-use. It is for all of us to use, share and appreciate. No matter what type of recreation we individually choose. Why must we continue charging that any one type of recreation has priority or validity over another? Why must each user group condem another? It is pure childish and selfish behavior. There are irresponsible and distructive users across the spectrum. Just take a look at some of the drivers on the street and the criminals stealing from your friend and neighbors who won't clean up their yards. Those same folks use Public Lands. They have a right to but the rest of us have to deal with them and what they leave behind. Because I love Nature and the environment but choose to ride my trail motorcycle to my special area I am BAD and shouldn't be allowed to do so. If I shoot in a special area I like, away from others, it still makes too much noise. It goes on and on. Then the anti-access mentality group contends that there is a "user conflict" and the government gets involved. Now Congress never intended the Agencies to resolve "user" conflicts. They were only charged with managing "use" conflicts. So the anti-access folks go out and see your brass and/or empty shells and now we have a "use" conflict that other "users" can complain about so that it can give the Agency authority to act. Ladies and Gentlemen, when you start walking in other user groups shoes you start to see a different picture. We all deserve an opportunity to use Public Lands in a responsible non-destructive way. Will there always be wear and tear on the land? Yes, and that is expected, just like the rifle or shotgun we fire gets worn or time and must be repaired, cleaned and maintained. Should we yell and scream because we see some else recreating another way and we don't like it because it is foreign to us? No, because when we do that The Agencies begin to take action to start banning the use by not one but multiple user groups. If it is not yours today. It will be soon. The anti-access group wants to ensure that Public Lands are only used for totally "quiet and undisturbed recreation" and they will work strategically to get that mission accomplished. So....taking a new attitude about other users and banning together to fight discrimination of your particular type of recreation on Public Lands makes way more sense if we are to keep the Feds from closing it all to us. Respectfully to all Public Lands Users

Allen Christy of NM 6:50AM March 29, 2012

are you kidding me? this president has got to go! i lived in Washington state were there are huge tracks of national and state forest and never did i hear about concerns from hikers about people shooting, like say in a sand or gravel pit for recreational shooting. this attempted ban is a back door way to limit people's rights for the 2nd amendment.i will gladly take mitt Romney of Obama any day of the week. and this is one way we can still have freedom in this nation. hey barrack you are not the sheriff of nottingham. there was a reason the English settled this nation and then everybody else followed. FREEDOM its a very simple concept.

tommy fuller of MA 9:56AM March 24, 2012

Amazing that you removed my earlier comment, ostensibly because it conveniently did not mesh with your beliefs. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Sad Jimmy of NM 5:31PM March 19, 2012

This is a subject close to my heart, as can be seen by the following:
At the height of my career with Penguin, between Past Imperfect and Ascension Day, I wrote a novel called 'The Second Amendment.' Too American a theme, said Penguin; too controversial, said US publishers. However, to my agent and numerous readers since, in terms of a hard-edged, no compromises, adrenalin-rush thrill ride, it was my best book.
Too controversial? We should recall that pre-911, the Oklahoma bombing was the biggest terrorist attacks to take place on US soil; and the NRA continues to be one of the most powerful lobby groups.
In the ten years since first writing The Second Amendment, there have been over 200,000 gun deaths in the USA, from simple domestic or street arguments to drive-by shootings or Columbine-style school massacres. It remains an enigma of US society that there isn't as strong a voice for them as for the groups keen to preserve guns; which is no doubt why, still ten years on, gun control remains one of the hottest debates in US society and beyond.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-1-ebook/dp/B007A53RX0/ref=sr_1_16?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1329469044&sr=1-16
http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-2-ebook/dp/B007A53W7G/ref=sr_1_17?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1329469077&sr=1-17

John Matthews of CA 7:33PM February 25, 2012

Recreational shooters as a group are very environmentally aware, and not litterbugs. They got into this sport because they love wilderness and nature, and are very good stewards of the land. Plus, taxes on guns and ammo go directly to support conservation and wildlife. That's to say nothing of the billions of dollars they pump into the economy, by their spending on their somewhat pricey hobby.
This administration has displayed its strong bias against sportsmen and it callous indifference to their rights.

littlemike of CT 1:13PM February 08, 2012

I think anyone who is allowed to hunt or shoot on public land should have a permit to do so. They should have to pass a gun safety course. At least this would set some minimum standards and accountability. Of course, there'll always be idiots that don't have a clue where their bullet goes after its left the muzzle.

John Forrester of GA 6:09PM January 12, 2012

This is ridiculous! Just another example of the land of the free becoming the land of the controlled! It's our tax dollars that pay for this land and their salaries here in America. It's high time people like this realize that they work for the people and that the people don't work for them. With decision making like this they can be on borrowed time and we can replace them come election time. I've been shooting on a public shooting range for 26 years thats on a state park and to my knowledge nobody or no thing has ever been harmed. An officer is always there and that area is designated solely for recreation and target shooting and thats how it should be here in America. The citizens with firearms that were'nt afraid to bear them is what won us this country so I think there ought to be plenty of public land in this country provided for those type of U.S. citizens to shoot on. Maybe we all need to go back and take a real history lesson and see what happened when Britain tried to control those type of citizens. Correct me if I'm wrong or if you can but I think thats when this country was won and formed! God,guts, and guns made this country not little men behind desk and computers getting paid to much for doing way to little and making up little rules to try to control otherwise law abiding citizens just to make themselves feel big and powerful.

William Camby of SC 11:04AM January 04, 2012

Ridiculous. ATV riders and four-wheelers are ten times more destructive and disturbing to the land as shooters. Horseback riding is more destructive to vegetation than shooting. Shooting has minimal impact on the land or the animals.
Littering laws should be strictly enforced with ALL users. This is blatent discrimination against the very user group that pays for the purchase and maintanence of public lands. No other group pays anything like the 11% tax on fire arms and ammunition that shooters do, a tax that is dedicated solely for the purchase of thes lands.

pribbe of FL 8:41PM January 01, 2012

He's not trying to do this anymore, it was stopped by Ken Salazar. And it wasn't all public lands, it was shooting areas near residential areas. It makes sense for areas with shooting ranges that aren't near residential areas, one of the ranges near me has a house right on the other side of the fence. You get some crazy yahoo out there and someone could possibly be killed. On the other hand, all of the shooting ranges near me are near residential areas. If Sen. Salazar had pushed for this to be passed, we would have nowhere to practice. So while I can see both sides, I agree with the bill not being pushed. However, people don't need to be criticizing the President over this. He had good intentions, and was looking out for the welfare of the people. He was doing his job.

Mateo of CO 4:05PM December 31, 2011