·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 12/04/2007 11:59:29 PM PST by neverdem
| Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Proposes Restrictions on Recreational Shooting |
| Tuesday, December 04, 2007 |
|
Your Comments are Crucial! The Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission will be considering a proposal on Friday, December 7, that would make it easier to prohibit recreational shooting on land controlled by the Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW). This Port Angeles public meeting will be the last of a series of hearings that have been held this summer and fall to consider many issues regarding public conduct on DFW land. Unless there is an outpouring of comments in opposition to the proposed rules in the next two days, the Commission is likely to rubberstamp the proposal that will be before them this Friday. The proposed rule, WAC 232-13-130 (1) (b), would authorize the DFW to prohibit the discharge of firearms on any or all portions of Department land at any time and for any (or no) reason. Without public input, DFW could shut down any of their land by merely posting signs. In the future, they MAY designate limited areas open for limited shooting under WAC 232-13-130 (2). Further, the proposal would create an arbitrary 1000-foot diameter no-shooting area around every designated campground. Under this proposed language, one individual could be “illegally” shooting one hundred feet away from a campground and be entirely safe while another could be “legally” shooting five hundred and one feet away and be unsafe and irresponsible. Specific local conditions such as topography and vegetation, variables such as campground usage and season, and the muzzle direction of the shooter, would be removed from the equation. If there are examples of safety concerns regarding specific campsite locations, those should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. A blanket prohibition to address nonexistent concerns is simply discrimination against the recreational shooters who have a proven record of being remarkably safe and responsible through the years. Finally, proposed WAC 232-13-130 (1) (c) would make it unlawful to fail to remove expended shell casings and other target shooting debris after shooting activities. NRA requests to add a “good faith effort” or “due diligence” standard to the clean-up language have been ignored. What that means is that a shooter who makes a legitimate attempt to clean up after his target practice session, but only finds 98 of the 100 shell casings he fired, is subject to sanctions for “littering.” Participation by hunters and recreational shooters at the meeting this Friday is crucial. Because this is the last in the series of hearings on this proposal, and public input may be limited, it would be even more helpful to submit comments to the Commission. Given the tight timeframe this must happen immediately! Comments may be sent in by email to commission@dfw.wa.gov or by fax to 360/902-2448. You may view the proposed rules by looking up the meeting agenda at http://wdfw.wa.gov/com/dec0807.htm and then clicking on the link under item number nine. The agenda will also have details regarding the Friday meeting to be held in Port Angeles. |
By hook or by crook, the hoplophobes keep on trying...
In the Presidential election season, I don’t hope for much more. They have been shooting themselves in the foot, religiously.
I live near a national wildlife refuge in Washington State. There is a section set aside for hunting and we sometimes hear shooting. As far as I know this area is controlled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not the state DFW.
Why would people be shooting for recreation in a wildlife refuge outside of hunting season?
“Why would people be shooting for recreation in a wildlife refuge outside of hunting season?”
In lots of places “hunting season” is 365 days a year, for things like hogs, coyotes, crows and so on. That said, plenty of folks like to target shoot...
This refers to DFW land, not a “wildlife refuge”.
Have you never gone target practicing?
Oh yeah, we also just had a "Storm of the Century" and many of the roads to the Peninsula are wiped out for the forseeable future. Attendance at this meeting will be nill.
Why would people be shooting for recreation in a wildlife refuge outside of hunting season?
Ping...
Well, I have to say I’m not all that surprised about the language in this. They ought to be able to control and enforce some reasonable rules about these ad hoc shooting ranges that develop out in the woods. The amount of litter at these places is REMARKABLE. The spent casings, empty ammo boxes, shot up targets and broken bottles is several inches deep. Last time we went out to our local one (this is DNR land) we remarked that it was only a matter of time before someone decided to end the free-for-all.
Hey!
WA State Dept of Nat Resources are trying it too!
They started in 2001 and have kept it up since.
Why not use a shooting range? You’re far less likely to accidentally shoot someone or their dog.
I am not anti-hunting. I own two gun dogs, good bird dogs, but I’m very saftey minded.
A controlled environment for practice shooting is safer. My car windshield was shot out while driving on a country road 35 years ago. It was a 14 year old boy with a 22, practice shooting over grandpa’s pond. Grandpa paid for the windshield.
“Why not use a shooting range?”
You don’t see many hogs, coyotes, crows and so on on shooting ranges. ;-)
Also many folks like to get away with just friends or family without a lot of other blasting going on nearby. Sometimes it’s also hard to find shooting ranges that have long range shooting (300+ yds.).
In wilderness areas it’s usually pretty easy to find safe shooting areas.
Focus on the primary objection and don’t litter your arguement with pettiness!
You lose public support by including whining like this:
Finally, proposed WAC 232-13-130 (1) (c) would make it unlawful to fail to remove expended shell casings and other target shooting debris after shooting activities. NRA requests to add a “good faith effort” or “due diligence” standard to the clean-up language have been ignored. What that means is that a shooter who makes a legitimate attempt to clean up after his target practice session, but only finds 98 of the 100 shell casings he fired, is subject to sanctions for “littering.”
I think the intention of the people who use this area I mentioned is to be hunting ducks and geese, not just shooting. It sounds strange to have hunting in a wildlife refuge, but it is only allowed in a small part of the refuge. The program has historical roots and is well managed. The only road nearby is the one that brings the hunters to the hunt area.
Why not use a shooting range? You’re far less likely to accidentally shoot someone or their dog.
And it’s not hard to judge whether a spot in the woods is perfectly free of people and dogs.
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.