Posted on 08/02/2004 7:32:27 PM PDT by JOAT
ANGELUS OAKS, Calif. -- When Kevin Nolden stopped at a store in the San Bernardino National Forest to ask where he and a friend could go for target practice, the woman behind the counter had a quick answer: nowhere.
"You guys know that one of last year's fires was started by a bullet?" asked Patti Dickerson, whose family owns the store a few miles from mountain areas where 160,000 acres burned last year.
It's the kind of exchange that's becoming more common in the San Bernardino forest, where open fires have been banned, shooting is forbidden in all but three designated ranges and tens of thousands of acres in the foothills have been closed because of the intense fire danger created by drought and heat.
Some complain the new rules and other forest restrictions across the Southwest are blocking their right to enjoy the outdoors.
On her way to swim in a creek with her kids and their friends, Shelley Borynack said the San Bernardino closures seemed especially unfair because her family doesn't set fires to cook when they camp, instead eating jerky and trail mix.
"My husband and my sons hunt, and it's kind of hard because the year before last, we paid for all the hunting gear, all the tags, the licenses. We paid for everything and then right before the season started, they closed down," Borynack said.
Forest officials said the latest restrictions are essential to prevent a repeat of last fall's devastating wildfires across Southern California that blackened more than 750,000 acres, destroyed 3,650 homes and killed 24 people.
Their fears were heightened by fires earlier this month that burned about 50,000 acres and destroyed nine homes in the region -- unprecedented this early in the fire season.
"It's a week-to-week thing -- we'll do what we have to do," said Forest Service spokesman Dave Reider.
"We're sorry about the inconvenience, but a little inconvenience is not much compared to a 50,000-acre fire," he added. "You have to balance the risk."
Officials said areas of other national forests also could be closed as fire season drags on. But they are particularly concerned about the sprawling San Bernardino forest, east of Los Angeles, where hundreds of thousands of trees killed or weakened by drought and insects are clustered outside cities like Lake Arrowhead and Idyllwild.
While it's fairly common for national forests to restrict open fires, it is unusual for all or part of any forest to be shut down completely. The decision is up to officials at each forest, said Rose Davis, a spokeswoman for the National Interagency Fire Center.
San Bernardino is currently the only national forest to be partly closed, though campfires were banned in some Arizona and New Mexico forests in May and June.
There are no plans to shut down any national parks, but officials are closely watching the situation, said Sue Husari, fire management officer for the National Park Service's Pacific West Region.
Many of the closed areas in the San Bernardino forest are places hikers and campers wouldn't likely use anyway because of the summer heat, said John Monsen, regional organizer of Sierra Club's Southern California campaign to protect forests.
"I think the Forest Service is being very smart in doing this," he said.
Still, some businesses are worried about losing customers, and a number of visitors said they should be trusted to be responsible on forest land.
Nolden, the 20-year-old target shooter, said he's careful to protect the forest, making sure he doesn't leave hot shells in the brush.
"As soon as we fire off a round and expel it, we pick it up," he said. "That's all there is to it."
Forest officials said they have received more questions than complaints about the policies, and most reaction from campers and hikers has been positive.
"They're a little concerned it's happened so early in the year," San Bernardino forest spokeswoman Ruth Wenstrom said. "Not because of what it means for them, but because they're just concerned about what might happen for the remainder of the fire season."
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page AA1
I think that fire must have been started by a tracer round, if a firearm was indeed involved. It's hard to imagine an ejected round being hot enought to start a fire, even if the shooter was going full-auto.
California is just nuts, and this seems to be another way for the watermelon greens to control ordinary people.
Did the forest service knew they were gonna close off the 'public land' (and I use the term loosely) BEFORE the the licenses were sold?
We won't ever know.
I thought the same thing. Sounds like Babs Streisand to me.
" Some complain the new rules and other forest restrictions across the Southwest are blocking their right to enjoy the outdoors"
I don't have a problem with people engaging in activities that could cause massive damage as long as they post a bond 10 times the amount necessary to clean up the damage. There are ranges they could go to, there's even a range in the San Gabriels outside Irwindale.
Wasn't one of the fires down there started by a hunter who was lost and fired a signal flare? Not to mention the USFS employee who burned her "Dear John" letter starting that other huge fire.
I don't suppose they are allowing anyone to cut these diseased trees for firewood. No, that would make too much sense.
The fire was probably started by a couple of enviromentals smoking a joint, and running their generator so they could watch Queer Eye.
I know you're going to find this hard to believe, but last night, shooting my son's Daisy BB gun just at dusk, I saw the BB strike a spark off an aluminum Coke can!
I can well imagine the kind of spark a jacketed .308 could strike off a rock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.