Washington Changing Laws for Public Land Shooting

[2A2Dend]

Some of these "guide-lines" DO make sense.
Steel targets/Dry Season/Dip Schits is a bad mix for fires.

More "rules"
Can you feel the boot on your neck yet?

 

[JustWolf2A]

A few things that are defined and enhanced more than state rules:

Backstop definition, Steel Core restriction, Steel target time restriction, Target placement, Target stands and the expansion of the No Shooting near facilities & structures.

Backstop definition: I see the problem all the time and many shooters don't seem to get the idea of a backstop. They are requiring a minimum of 8 feet high with a sharp incline (in otherwords; not a long gradual slope). The top priority is to stop the bullet from leaving the range area and a long sloping grade could easily skip the bullet up and over an 8 foot mound of dirt. Even a flat surface can skip a bullet over a shorter backstop. So, defining the 8 foot height and slope is a good idea.

Steel Core restriction: Steel makes sparks, so, this restriction was inevitable. It's to further help prevent wildfires.

Steel target time restriction: Again, to prevent wildfires. The East side may become drier sooner than the West site but if you were to have a different start date for each side, it may add more confusion to the already involved set of rules we have to learn. How much longer would it be delayed for the West side? Probably only 1 month because starting July, the West side gets real dry and fires can & do happen in any part of the state. You can shoot steel targets from Oct 1 to May 31. Perhaps look at it as the glass is half full rather than half empty.

Target placement: Within 8 feet of the backstop and must be shooting at the lower half of the backstop. That's new and further defined. That is, however, the proper distance to be placing the target and the proper part of the backstop to be shooting at. Again, stop the skipping bullet in the backstop.

Target stands: Further defining what is not a target stand, such as, power poles, fence posts, car parts, ect...

No shooting near structures & facilities: Just more 'common sense' things to avoid shooting near.

Clays defined: Many people automatically think clays are biodegradable, so, they clarified that.

Consequences: They do point out that failure to remove trash constitutes 'littering'. They go further to to site WA RCW laws that are punishable if found to be in violation of this subsection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, how much can we argue with? It's all common sense and appropriate guidelines we already know (or should know) and it better clarifies specific areas that are commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I don't see a need for outrage and anger over these improvements. It's not like they are restricting or trying to restrict our rights. They are trying to provide public safety and fire prevention. It's stuff we should already be doing. If we are to share the land with each other, and with other recreation users, we must make safety and fire prevention our top priority.

Bill

Definitely no outrage or anything needed. Just a rare chance to be heard before they make the rules. Input from real shooters

 

[JustWolf2A]

Some of these "guide-lines" DO make sense.
Steel targets/Dry Season/Dip Schits is a bad mix for fires.

More "rules"
Can you feel the boot on your neck yet?

Some of these "guide-lines" DO make sense.
Steel targets/Dry Season/Dip Schits is a bad mix for fires.

More "rules"
Can you feel the boot on your neck yet?

Im for most of them...however i thought people should be aware of the opportunity to chime in

 

[2A2Dend]

I'm for being safe. I get that. I get that they want more "control". They'll likely get it.
The problem is, Public Land has been getting regulated more and more as time goes by.
Regulating is one thing, not providing places that are set-up for people to go out and enjoy themselves, that should also be in the equation.
More and more, areas for people to go, get eliminated. Whether by gate or signage.

So the solution currently, join a club, join a range
Eff the BS.

 

[Cogs]

I'm for being safe. I get that. I get that they want more "control". They'll likely get it.
The problem is, Public Land has been getting regulated more and more as time goes by.
Regulating is one thing, not providing places that are set-up for people to go out and enjoy themselves, that should also be in the equation.
More and more, areas for people to go, get eliminated. Whether by gate or signage.

So the solution currently, join a club, join a range
Eff the BS.

Good points. At least they are talking about more shooting areas and it's probably because of the increase in shooting activity and the fact that many of us are calling for it. I think they are dragging their feet about it and afraid to try improving despersed shooting places. At least Oregon State is trying it (and they are still a little slow to put in more, but they are a good example to other agencies and not afraid to test the waters).

 

[Geardo]

Good points. At least they are talking about more shooting areas and it's probably because of the increase in shooting activity and the fact that many of us are calling for it. I think they are dragging their feet about it and afraid to try improving despersed shooting places. At least Oregon State is trying it (and they are still a little slow to put in more, but they are a good example to other agencies and not afraid to test the waters).

Bill I still can't tell of these rules apply to all state land or just WDFW land? That will really change my opinions on it.

The steel target thing is just bonkers. It totally depends on the spot you are shooting at. Plenty of the pits at Latch MTN are totally full of rock and dirt. Nothing to light on fire. Same logic can be applied to "steel core" which is not well defined by the way.

I also have an issue with placing targets within 8' of a backstop.... What good does that do? Maybe in a rare instance a bullet might skip off the top of a steel target, but it can still clear an 8' backstop if it does that.

If I am running drills with targets at different ranges then I am hosed.

 

[Member 34319]

Just to paint a picture.

Here in Oregon, we already have these laws on the books.

Care to guess how well they are enforced?

Also, for every 1 good person here on NFWA there are roughly 20-100 that are not on NWFA that suck and should be fined or ticketed for being idiots.

It's easy to sit back from a computer and kick and scream at these officials.

Trust me folks like myself and @Cogs who have walked a mile in the shoes of these officials have a fuller understanding of the bigger picture here.

I ask any of you who think this is truly BS and are jumping up and down in their living room pissed off beyond reasoning, to join Bill at the next clean up in Washington.

 

[awshoot]

...
Got it, no steel cans, just aluminum! not sure if that's a joke or not?
...

I wasn't joking. I think steel and aluminum don't make sparks.

 

[Member 34319]

I'll add.

Imagine your not a shooter.

You didn't grow up shooting tin cans with your dad.

Your limited knowledge of recreational shooting is of a shooting range. Or walking through a Sportsmans warehouse full of commercial targets.

At your job in forest services you see non stop cans being left behind riddled with bullet holes, and other garbage that isn't commercially manufactured targets.

All you can think is, "Why do people shoot trash?"

 

[Cogs]

Bill I still can't tell of these rules apply to all state land or just WDFW land? That will really change my opinions on it.

The steel target thing is just bonkers. It totally depends on the spot you are shooting at. Plenty of the pits at Latch MTN are totally full of rock and dirt. Nothing to light on fire. Same logic can be applied to "steel core" which is not well defined by the way.

I also have an issue with placing targets within 8' of a backstop.... What good does that do? Maybe in a rare instance a bullet might skip off the top of a steel target, but it can still clear an 8' backstop if it does that.

If I am running drills with targets at different ranges then I am hosed.

These rules are only applicable to Fish and Wildlife managed lands. So, no changes to other State land rules... (yet).

I hear what you're saying about pits and other non-combustion areas to shoot and that part could have been defined better to leave it a judgement call on the shooters part.

About the 8 ft high backstop and 8 feet in front,... I suppose it's better than a 10 or 12 ft requirement but the 8 feet in front could have been longer.

Running drills with targets at varying distances should be okay if you have a backstop higher than the 8 foot rule. That's a good question for clarification.

 

[User 1234]

I commented that in addition to the steel targets not being a fire risk on the western slope even in summer, the "along or at" a road part is vague. With the shooter's back to the road, firing away from the road towards an earth backstop is the safest direction. Is a shooter with his back twenty feet from a road in violation? Even though the road is perpendicular to the line of fire?

 

[2A2Dend]

Done Deal

 

[Cogs]

I commented that in addition to the steel targets not being a fire risk on the western slope even in summer, the "along or at" a road part is vague. With the shooter's back to the road, firing away from the road towards an earth backstop is the safest direction. Is a shooter with his back twenty feet from a road in violation? Even though the road is perpendicular to the line of fire?

I looked at that again and don't see a distance requirement. I read that to mean it's specifically prohibited to be shooting 'On' the road, 'From' the road (as in standing on the road... redundant), 'At' the road (same redundancy again), 'Along' the road would be standing right next to the road and shooting down the road), 'Across ' the road is already a rule, 'Down' a road is the same as 'Along' (more redundant words).

So, I would interpret that to say you can be near the road and shooting away from the road. Duh! But I guess some people don't think twice about shooting on, across or down a road.

But I agree, it's not written clearly and leaves room for misinterpretation.

I'm collecting a lot of good points to bring up in my response letter! Good input folks!

 

[Member 34319]

So the solution currently, join a club, join a range
Eff the BS.

I ultimately went this route.

A time ago I thought I could change the way people were.

I studied Psychology in college, you'd think I'd know better!

Its like automobile laws. People are incredibly difficult to change, so you usually have to change the product instead. Hence cars having seatbelt lights and or noises these days, now in rear seats too. Annoying, but even with laws on the books and fairly decent enforcement for not wearing a seat belt, people STILL DONT!

Even if I changed 1 persons viewpoint on public lands recreational shooting, 10 more were added that day in new gun sales.

Without mandated education and whatnot, tricky thing to do with the 2nd Amendment, there really isn't a way to regulate gun owners on being responsible recreational shooters. The only way to regulate is through regulating usage on the lands shooters recreate on.

I used to be heavily against any regulations and added restrictions.

Now, the only way I see a future for free recreational shooting on public lands is through more regulation. If not, they will eventually call it quits and just close it to recreational shooting.

I still have high hopes for the longevity of recreational shooting on public lands, but I've met so many absolutely stupid gun owners in my years trying to help, I'm jaded now.

Those who still use public lands and hold them more close to their heart, or do not or can not afford a club membership, I say this, GET INVOLVED! If you simply just write in your peace, fair enough, showing up at the forest services door, requesting time, getting involved, speaks much much louder than an input letter on a web page.

 

[User 1234]

Why not simply enforce the littering and negligent discharge laws already on the books? Why add another layer of nanny state regulations that don't serve any specific purpose? That is the lack of discipline too often found in government.

 

[2A2Dend]

I like to think there are better people out there. Seems not so.
As mentioned earlier on, in the thread, for every ONE person who gives to the land in a positive, 20 TAKE and/or destroys.
Unless they are member to a range or club that is heavily regulated.
Those who do not care, you do not see at/in a regulated area.

 

[User 1234]

If the existing laws aren't being followed, an agency can try education, warnings, and incentives to support the existing littering and negligent discharge laws. Adding another layer of regulations doesn't solve anything.

 

[Member 34319]

Why not simply enforce the littering and negligent discharge laws already on the books? Why add another layer of nanny state regulations that don't serve any specific purpose? That is the lack of discipline too often found in government.View attachment 700356

Because people are stupid. Both citizens and politicians.

 

[Member 34319]

If the existing laws aren't being followed, an agency can try education, warnings, and incentives to support the existing littering and negligent discharge laws. Adding another layer of regulations doesn't solve anything.

It's usually the step in the direction of closure or illegality.

First you let them do it at will, then you implement some regulations, then heavier regulations, then outlaw it.

It's this way for anything.

Folks on any gun sight get clouded by the fact it's gun related, yet have zero issues when these things take place for other things.

 

[User 1234]

Oh I feel this way about many non-2A issues too. If the existing laws aren't enforced against the knuckleheads who trash public lands, what specifically does another layer of bureaucracy accomplish? Nothing. Then we end up with the tax to implement the new regulations and the bans to help improve the regulations, and before you know it we are nanny state California where nobody will ship stickers and BB guns because of Prop 65's carcinogen restrictions.