Yet more bad publicity...

T

Tom68

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/us/a-culture-clash-over-guns-infiltrates-the-backcountry.html?_r=0

The article is from the New York Times, and anyone who is familiar with this particular periodical is fully aware of their the anti-2nd Amendment stance. The story particularly focuses on problems with shooting on public land, especially in the Western states, but discusses incidents in other areas of the country as well. It predictably tells only one side of the story as one would expect.

However slanted the piece may be, the examples cited are yet another worthwhile call for self-policing of the shooting community. I know that I despise going to a range and finding shot up appliances, piles of trash, and idiots who avoid safety like the plague. In my case, I try my best to clean up after others, and when appropriate, gently remind others when I see unsafe or unwise practices.

Reading the comments is rather predictable--NYT readers generally do not share our enthusiasm for the shooting sports-- but it does provide an insight into just how anti-2A some can be, and I would bet the majority of them are registered voters.

Oh how I wish that we as a shooting community could stop providing ammo (pun intended) to those who wish to strip us of our constitutional rights!
 
And I don't share their love of Time Square, Broadway, highrise building, crowded streets, more immigrants (both legal and illegal) than you can shake a stick at, etc.....
I'm starting to think that the more one is removed from the rural life the more arrogant one becomes. It shows in the everybody should think and behave the way I do mentality that is comman in the big cities around the country... but this is a firearm related forum.
 
Shooting areas are bad, credit to the laziness of modern America.

It's hard to get someone who doesn't care to care.

Most people against something will vote. Most people content with there standing most likely won't.

Many post here and say "it will never happen" but yet it still does. One lead free bullet at a time.
 
Most of the country doesn't read the NYT. It's a local paper and the subscribers know what they are getting.

As far as an anti gun agenda, these articles will be written regardless of how well the "shooting public" polices itself. I'm well aware that it propagates an untruth - many shooters aren't trucking appliances and furniture out into the wilderness for targets. Those are dumped by others who can't or won't pay fees for their refuse. Shooters come across these on their traditional ranges because others put them there. Most shooters would rather staple a paper target to a stand than load, transport, and set up a washing machine for a target. And, what's the point? You still have to tape a target to it.

There's no reason to think the trash isn't being dumped by those who aren't pro gun. "I'll dump this on their range and make them look bad." Let's not forget that these dumping sites have to be reached by vehicles - which means anybody with a vehicle can get to them. And somebody's target range is a convenient spot to dump their junk.

What goes along with that is a class warfare argument, and it's based on the high cost of living city dweller coming out into the country and having to rub shoulders with the low cost of living rural dweller who understands that city services aren't available to them 50 miles from the nearest incorporated township. There is NO scheduled pickup when you live in the wild. City dwellers with a subsidized sense of "appropriate" conduct simply don't understand the economics of living in the country where the services don't exist.

It's pretentious and based on worship of "Mother Nature," as if it's unholy to use the property as you see fit. As mentioned - no comparison to the way cities operate or the complete destruction of what used to be virgin ecoclimate. Who are they to say how to use the land when they don't use it any better? And isn't their livelihood based on spreading the Great Consumer lifestyle? It's blatant hypocrisy.

Then we add that while using public lands they are subject to others using them, too. It's much less gunfire that hikers and cyclists have to contend with - try camping in the spring above the treeline at a popular spot after snow melt. The 'remains' of winter campers thaw from the melt and you get some odiferous "flowers" because the "pack it in, pack it out" crowd hasn't sold itself on their own recycled foodstuffs.

Much less the motorized operators running everybody off the trails even where prohibited. It's really their own neighbors causing the bulk of the issues, not just shooters alone.

Goes to the demand by some to close national parks completely as refuges of wilderness untouched by humans. We will still have the descendants of the pioneers on their tracts in the area. Aint going to happen. And as for blaming the locals, if it's so important, maybe the land would be better off in private ownership. Where are the trusts for citizens to see it "properly managed" as opposed to all those who ruin it? Nope. It's people wanting YOUR tax dollars to finance THEIR playground according to their rules.

Again, blatant hypocrisy. They prefer to spend their money living in a built up area rather than put it where their mouth is. Easier to lobby their Congressman to buy up more land and place it under protective ownership of the "Public" than live on it and police it themselves.

Good luck with that, Deputy Sheriffs have a full day of it, every day.
 
Regardless of the opinions of the author/paper, I am very displeased with MOST of the shooting community around me. I feel very blessed that I have a "few" amazing area's to go shoot. I know that most people in this country are now confined to ranges, some lucky enough to have outdoor ranges available and some have to shoot indoors. I found an amzing place to shoot about three years ago, it's beautiful, far from any houses and easy to get to. We have worked hard to set up areas to shoot from 7 yards to 800 yards, safely. was lucky enough to find this place because we were shooting next to my friends parens house, it was an empty lot, a few acres from house on either side and nothing behind. the neighbors called police, we were doing nothing wrong so the police were nice, but suggested we go out to where I shoot now. other than some broken clays and shotgun shells, it was relatively clean. fast forward three years and it's hard to tell it's not a county dump. televisions, cardboard everyfreakingwhere, boxes, beer/soda cans, spraypaint and other (flammables) cans, dozens of propane tanks littered with buckshot, road signs everywhere and just plain old household trash. In this, it is not being dumped by any anti's, I doubt there is even any in those parts, this is just beer/food/boxes and things to shoot at.

it's getting ridiculous. me and my friend that frequent the spot pack a couple extra contractor bags everytime. I do what I can to clean up everyones mess, I even have a large firepit in the middle for boxes/targets/etc. I try to spend a good hour cleaning up each time I go, but there is only so much I can do, I don't own a truck so I cannot get all the appliances, tanks, TV's etc. it's just overwhelming. I know I am going to lose what could have been a lifelong place shoot, a place to enjoy with my friends and family, a place I had hoped to teach my son to shoot in a couple of years. I don't know exactly when, but it's days are numbered and I don't know what to do about it. I have never seen another shooter out there, so I have no clue where it comes from, and I am out there every week just about.

I am considering putting up some signs, polite ones, using a short quote of why it's important to take care of this place. but since everyone's deer stands get shot up with shotguns, I assume any signage I put out there would as well. I sometimes try to look back and remember if I was that much of an a-hole when I was 18-?, i'm pretty sure I wasn't.....oh well, what can we do? seriously, i'm asking......
 
Most of the country doesn't read the NYT. It's a local paper and the subscribers know what they are getting.
Click to expand...

It may be a "local paper" but the NYT story was on the MSNBC web page, and featured in their big story slideshow. This reaches just a few more people than a "local paper". Including myself.

Once again, we are all being tarred with the same broad brush. Slob hunters, shooters, campers, bikers, ORVers etc. have always been with us, and we always get the public blame for their actions. Just as we, responsible gun owners get the blame for all the criminal shootings, because we have guns, and so do the bad guys. Therefore, in the eyes of the press we MUST be exactly alike.

There is a certain kind of person who does not respect anything that they don't consider theirs. And at the same time, loudly and vocally demand that everyone else respect what they consider theirs.

I read the article, and one of the incidents mentioned was a woman camper who went to confront some "motorcyclists who had been shooting guns all night".

The author has no trouble equating these "sons of anarchy" types with the law abiding gun owning public.
 
I'm sure most of the members here aren't the ones doing this.

I also see more and more shot up road signs even in populated areas. There have always been road signs shot up. But not the level I notice now.

I frequent some of the sites that you speak of. It's free shooting and early mornings, no one is around. I pick up what I can as well. But can only fit so much in one truck.

Interestingly, one day a government looking type fellow came along and it appeared that he was surveying the types of shell casings left behind. Combing through them, making notes
 
Yes, I knew I was preaching to the choir when posting this story... but I felt it equally important to recognize the message that the anti-2A is preaching and the effects. I know this topic has been discussed exhaustively, but I keep hoping against hope that someone will have a new idea for helping us rein in those who's actions are damaging our credibility.

I do wish there was some way of discouraging idiots from shooting regardless what's behind their target, or from thinking that shooting up a perfectly good tree in a public area is a fun idea.

and yes, I also saw the comment about the biker gang that was shooting all night: that's about as useful as comparing vandals smashing cars with baseball bats with professional baseball players, and drawing the conclusion that anyone who uses a baseball bat is a problem to be solved.
 
Yup this article just popped up on msn, the default homepage for computers around the country.

Funny. They say that all they can hear is gunfire thundering through the Forests.

I shoot in the national forests in Washington; the sound does not travel far at all.

There are rules for shooting, are known. Most if not all the actions mentioned in the article are a violation.

National parks, as far as I know, there is no target shooting allowed.
National monuments, not allowed for sure. Any other protected area, no shooting is allowed.

National forests, are open for target shooting.
Make sure to follow NFS rules.

Honestly, where I go, I see very few (none) mountain bikes. A "sons of anarchy" type motorcycle would have a difficult time getting there.
If there's not a trail, you really ain't gonna see a hiker.
I've heard about many areas near Vancouver being closed down.
Although on the west side of Vancouver, I hear target shooting on any sunny day. I've been trying to figure out where it's happening, so that I could go too. Lol
 
I am pro shooting, but dead set against inconsiderate shooting.

I can understand that it is nice to shoot on public land but if someone can't leave a place like they found it and shoot at sensible targets they don't deserve to shoot on that land.
Sadly, those that do respect the area are almost always over-shadowed by those that don't. How to differentiate between the two?

Well, I can imagine there will come a point when the authorities won't bother trying to differentiate between the two and the permission to shoot on public land could well be revoked for all.
 
My experience with uncontrolled (no range officers) public shooting sites has been that once they become known to more than about 4 or 5 people it's only a matter of time before they turn into a dump and get closed down. I've been through the cycle in 5 or 6 places in the last 10 years or so.
 
I agree with the OP and 45_auto - we are our own worst enemy at times. I also have seldom seen "free" shooting areas that don't quickly become littered with shot-up washing machines, broken glass, trash laying around, etc.
 
Within that article is the story of a Colorado man killed by a stray round over this past 4th of July weekend.

I've seen some areas absolutely trashed by shooters in the Pike National Forest and now we have a death. When someone dies because of stupidity, we all suffer as a result.
 
Here in Tucson, I usually go to one of the outdoor public ranges, either the one run by the Tucson Rifle Club or the county range. There used to be a third but the Forest Service closed it because developers built right up to the range, complained about the gunfire then got it closed down.The range had been there for more years that I can recall. The worst part about it is the Forest Service REFUSES to let them do another range in another location. :mad:
Lots of people take a run up Rdington pass to shoot and there has been several major clean ups done and the trash keeps on keepin' on. I've seen Game & Fish officers stopping traffic on that road and asking people if they're going to shoot. They've done this off and on the week ends but I've run into then during mid week as well.
The range I usually go to is mobbed seven days a week. One bay is reserved for Border Patrol qualifications and is the most popular bay of the several at the range. Even on rare weekdays when they're not schedules all the benches have been taken within a few minutes of the range opening. Most are people out of work who have given up looking with some retired types such as myself. The usually leave by 10:30 as by then it's too hot to shoot. Even the Border Patrol is done by 11. I guess you really want to shoot if you go at the time everybody leaves. It's tickling 90 to 95 and sometimes 100 degrees by that time and you gun barrel never can properly cool down.
The only time I go out into the desert anymore is to try an pick off a stray cotton or two. Too many crazies at the several spots along Redington Road for my taste.
There are a few indoor ranges but I don't shoot handguns all that much.
Paul B.
 
The article is from the New York Times, and anyone who is familiar with this particular periodical is fully aware of their the anti-2nd Amendment stance. The story particularly focuses on problems with shooting on public land, especially in the Western states, but discusses incidents in other areas of the country as well. It predictably tells only one side of the story as one would expect.
Click to expand...

Don't blame the NYT for pointing out a problem. Blame the perps. Vandalism of our national treasures is a real shame. In fact, it is a crime in most or all of the places about which they were referring. Littering is a crime as well.

I am not sure what the other side of the story is for explaining why shooters have vandalized and polluted these places, but I doubt their justification would be anything we would be proud of.
 
tirod said:
Most of the country doesn't read the NYT. It's a local paper and the subscribers know what they are getting.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it would be possible for you to be more wrong.


To the topic: camping and hiking in national forests here from around now until hunting season ends can be interesting. You can hope that the people who are "zeroing in" their hunting rifles are careful and conscientious about having a backstop and knowing what's beyond it, and most of them are. But statistically half of the population is below average intelligence, and they shoot too.
 
Being retired from the Forest Service, I can tell you that recreational shooting on the Forests is a big national problem, from endangering employees and tourists, starting fires, resource damage, littering and vandalism, the list goes on. I've personally been shot at twice by inattentive shooters, and spent more than a few hours telling shooters about the work area right over there, would you mind finding another spot to shoot, or wait until we work on through?

The number of people who actually believe that a bullet cannot travel through a stand of timber more than fifty feet without being stopped by a 6" softwood bole is astounding. Some of them are posters on this forum. The fact is, there is far more space than trees in the forest. The only reliable backstop is a soil slope, hillside or pit wall.

There are enough regulations on the books already to address the issue : the big one is 'Shooting in an unsafe manner', which is the catch-all to address the problems not served by the other half-dozen or so regulations.

The problem is simply, the public has changed, and enforcement of the regulations is behind the eight-ball. There are not enough enforcement people in the field to meet and greet the public at each and every area they choose to shoot up.

The bottom line is going to be, in a few words, restriction as to time and place. Unless the public cleans up their act, which is not going to happen, or budgets allow for dozens of employees to work on the problem, which is also not going to happen, then the only answer is going to be designated shooting areas, generally exhausted gravel pits or designed ranges.
 
I am a University professor....

(One of the conservative ones).

The OP's comments along with some which follow support what I say in virtually every class I teach. The term we hear or read, "news media" describes an entity which does not exist. The thing we think of as the news media is better described as the "news entertainment media".

Here is a mission statement from a major "news" outlet:

Mission: The _____________'s core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.

Translation: We think you'll be better off after you read our B.S.

Note in the statement that there is nothing about truth, accuracy, or impartiality.

In 1896, when the NYT was launched the staff embraced the expression, "All the news that's fit to print." Trends in their "reporting" (?) since then have prompted a rewording of the original mission statement by casual observers as follows: "All the news that's fit to print....and then some."

Yellow journalism is alive and well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top