Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands

November 16, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.

Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.

"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands. [Read about the subpoena issued as a result of Operation Fast and Furious.]

If the draft policy is finally approved, some public access to Bureau lands to hunters would also be limited, potentially reducing areas deer, elk, and bear hunters can use in the West.

Conservationists and hunting groups, however, are mounting a fight. One elite group of conservationists that advises Interior and Agriculture is already pushing BLM to junk the regulations, claiming that shooters are being held to a much higher safety standard than other users of public lands, such as ATV riders.

"They are just trying to make it so difficult for recreational shooters," said Gary Kania, vice president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. His group is one of several, including the National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council fighting the new rules. During a two-day meeting ending this afternoon, they are drafting their own changes to the BLM rules.

"What we probably are going to be looking forward to is a reversal," said Kania. Asked about how to handle people who freak out when they hear shots on public lands, Kania said, "I don't know how to quanitify 'freaking out,'" and noted that he's seen people panicing when fly fishing in float tubes but nobody wants to ban then from rivers.

BLM actually invited the fight, seeking the council's comments. But officials suggested to Whispers that no changes are being planned to the draft regulations.

Over five pages, the draft BLM regulations raise concerns about how shooting can cause a "public disturbance." They also raise worries about how shooting and shooters can hurt plants and litter public lands.

This is the key paragraph foes say could lead to shooters being kicked off public lands:

"When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting." [Check out new  Debate Club about  whether Congress needs to overhaul gun trafficking laws.]

Squeezing out shooters, says the draft policy, is needed because, "As the West has become more populated, recreational shooters now often find themselves in conflict with other public lands users, and the BLM is frequently called on to mediate these conflicts."

At yesterday's meeting at Interior, the council balked at the BLM draft regulations, adding that the Obama administration was not being fair to shooters on the issue of safety.

In a draft retort to BLM, the council said other users of public land aren't required to be as safe as shooters. They note that shooters have a much lower injury rate than others, like ATV users. "The policy fails to recognize that recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidences of death and injury compared to virtually any other outdoor recreational activity. The policy is prejudicial and discriminatory to target shooters as compared to other recreationists," said the council's draft response, expected to be finalized today.

What's more, the group charged that the BLM is acting in a contradictory fashion, encouraging the shooting sports while limiting shooting areas.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
gun control and gun rights

Reader Comments Read all comments (688)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

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

About this blog

About this blog

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington.

advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement