AnonymousSource: Los Padres National Forest
Los Padres National Forest officials announced that the Forest Order prohibiting recreational target shooting that went into effect July 7, 2018, has been extended until January 13, 2020.
In October 2018, Los Padres National Forest requested to reinitiate consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to address new or updated critical habitats and listed species, and to provide for incidental take anticipated with implementation of ongoing activities such as recreational target shooting in the Los Padres Land and Resource Management Plan.
This restriction ensures protection of federally listed wildlife species by preventing impacts caused by recreational target shooting during formal consultation with the USFWS that was initiated in October 2018.
Although allowing recreational target shooting during the consultation period is not anticipated to violate the ESA, out of an abundance of caution the Forest has decided to implement this Forest Order. Until the USFWS issues a revised biological opinion after the consultation period, this Forest Order will remain in place.
Under this Forest Order, discharging a firearm is prohibited except in the designated target ranges at the Winchester Canyon Gun Club and the Ojai Valley Gun Club. Persons hunting during the open hunting season as specified in the laws of the State of California and having a valid California hunting license are exempt from this Forest Order.
A violation of this prohibition is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.
Ban it permanently. Target shooting should be conducted in a controlled range environment, rather than being the random mayhem that currently occurs as people shoot at trash and old appliances, spray ricochets, leave a mess, and periodically injure or kill themselves and start fires. At least a rangemaster can cut down on some of the stupidity and negligence.
Does this apply to the glass factory? We saw people shooting there a few weeks ago.
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it should be banned. Cars and humans cause more “mayhem” then just about anything, should we ban them? Oops, I shouldn’t say that, aoc is probably reading this.
Except we train, test, regulate, and license drivers. You’ve obviously never witnessed the chaos and irresponsibility evident at a busy weekend afternoon at the Glass Factory. Either that, or you’re one of those people willfully blinded by the culture of firearms worship.
Nice whataboutism there.
While I’m for safety especially with shooting and firearms if you read deeper it wasn’t just the forest service doing a “study” rather a group who filed for the study to delay target shooting in the los padres national Forrest. I’m almost certain that the area of the glass factory has little to no environmental impact and no endangered animals or insects are going extinct. Pretty sad that local communities are brought to this by the left and right wing political groups.
Don’t own a gun or plan on it, grew up here so yea I’ve been to the GF. Just not a fan of banning things that other people like just because I dont. Pretty sad with all that can’t training, testing and licensing you brag about your still more likely to die by a vehicle than a firearm…..
Ever heard of lead contamination, and how mobile lead compounds are in watersheds?
Not really, if you look at the recent statistics of gun deaths. Car safety has improved markedly in the last few decades. Firearms deaths have been going the other way.
2017 stats from the NHTSA and the CDC. Car crash fatalities – 37133. Firearms deaths – 39,773.
I AM a member of the Winchester Canyon Gun Club, and have been so for many years. I used to go up to the FS range before that, but have not been there to shoot for a long time. However, I am opposed to special interest groups, left wing or right wing, (in this case the LPFW) lobbying to get their reactionary agendas passed with little or no comprehension of the actual situation – which subsequently infringe upon the rights of citizens.
So, impulsive easy suicide is acceptable to you to maintain the firearms addiction?
The handgun safety test is a joke, as anyone who’s taken it can attest. It is a simple written test that essentially determines whether you can read at a sixth-grade level and regurgitate it an hour later. There is no physical proficiency test of the ability to handle the handgun or use it safely. There are no periodic retests. No vision tests. It’s toothless. Long arms have no such requirement. And how many of the yoyos plinking at cans and TV sets purchase lead-free ammunition?
I disagree that guns are designed to kill. I would say that 95%+ of gun use is for target practice which is primarily for entertainment not killing. Many people own and use guns their whole lives and kill nothing and no one. However, in both mass killings in Isla Vista – cars were used to kill. David Attias killed 5 with his Volvo in 2001 and Elliot Rodger struck 3 and killed 1 with his BMW. Indeed, Eliott Rodger killed 3 people with a knife, 2 with a gun and 1 with his car. A huge outcry was made about the gun. Absolute silence about the car and knives. Why? Because anti-gun people want to control other people and not infringe on their own actions. They drive and use knives so they are absolutely silent on those killings.
How did an article about temporarily closing Los Padres Forest to undesignated shooting areas turn into an anti-gun screed ?……your bias shows up pretty quick
Concerned4calif – what are guns designed for? If not for killing animals and or humans, then what? And no, just because a gun is used for target shooting doesn’t mean that’s what it was designed for.
Unfortunately whoever you are that keeps posting these anti-gun comments indicates you are blinded by your anti-gun rage. Do you think a driving exam is anything but a “simple written test” as you refer to the handgun safety test? Give me a break – you think all the morons with IQ’s of less than 100 who pass the driving test and ridiculous “physical proficiency” exam, where the hardest thing to do is parallel park, should be driving? Perhaps they should give an IQ exam to those wishing to get a driver’s license first. We’d probably have about 50% less drivers on the road. To get a hunting license you must take a course and pass a test and the handgun certificate must be renewed with a new test every 5 years. Granted, I agree that there should be better and more rigorous tests and standards for issuing gun permits, but for you to imply the CA driver’s test and driving exam guarantees a safe driver then you are sadly mistaken. Do yourself a favor and read the Forbes article I shared a link with in an earlier post about the difference between gun fatalities and automobile fatalities.
Well, as Fabio said, based on what he’s seen in Europe and other foreign countries, when guns are taken away or made impossible to get then criminals will start using homemade bombs and other devices ( such as moving vehicles) that will cause far more physical harm to kill people. Indeed, look at Europe where the preferred method of killing now seems to be driving moving vehicles into crowds or using explosives since many European nations have made it difficult or basically made it impossible to own or get a gun. Guess we can also infer that old phrase “When the gun is outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” But it’s the “New California” so I’m sure we can expect more and more gun controls that will do absolutely nothing to reduce crime.
Anti-gun nuts just don’t get it.
I think he/she was simply asking a question. Answering it instead of jumping to conclusions would be nice.
So no one can refute that guns are designed to kill? Crickets….
This order is directly a result of legal pressure from the Los Padres Forest Watch and they make a compelling case about lead (and other heavy metal) contamination to soil at these target shooting sites.
https://lpfw.org/forest-in-the-crosshairs/
HOWEVER, I suspect that this ban is going to “backfire” by compelling “target shooters” to trek deeper into the forest to avoid penalty. This will result in more dispersed target shooting sites in locations that will be harder for fire/forest personnel to access for cleanup and emergency response. AT least the Glass Factory can be easily accessed for brush clearing, trash/debris/soil cleanup, and emergency response. I think its a mistake closing it down and this order will likely exacerbate the situation LPFW is trying to prevent. I hope the USFS collects data during this ban to evaluate its overall impact to the forest.
The whole tangent about automobiles is just whataboutism – it has no bearing on the gun worship topic, and even then the gun lovers can’t get the argument right about the relative number of deaths. Homemade bombs, knives, and using cars as weapons come nowhere near our toll for firearms, and are again just whataboutism. Our country has a severe problem with firearms compared to the civilized world, and the culture of gun worship is so entrenched that it will take a huge effort to root it out, but it can be done.
722 – “… more likely to die by a vehicle than a firearm …” You’re wrong. Especially when you consider how many cars travel daily and the total daily drive time vs guns used daily.
“The total gun death rate surpassed the car crash death rate of 11.9 per 100,000 people (https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D77/D48F372) , as the rate of car crash deaths has steadily decreased while the gun death rate has increased over the years.”
Funny thing, cars need registered and drivers need to be tested and licensed. Guns and gun owners don’t.
You seem to be misguided here and obviously seem an “anti-gun” individual. If you read several independent and unbiased reports, it appears several of those claiming more gun deaths versus automobile deaths have reported inaccurate information. I have looked at various sources of this data and actually quite a few of them do show more vehicle related deaths than firearm related deaths. Also, every report I’ve seen indicates that suicide involving a firearm comprises the vast percentage of deaths, not criminal action or accidental deaths. And I am sure people very rarely use cars to kill other people. Deaths from vehicle accidents usually come from impaired driving, road rage, incompetence, and ( I hate to say this for fear of being politically incorrect) basically being stupid or with a low IQ to begin with. I quote this from a Forbes article: “Unlike the issue of guns, whose sole purpose is to kill, vehicles’ main function is to transport humans as well as the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the goods we use. It’s the incompetence of drivers largely causing the colossal number of deaths, injuries and billions of dollars’ worth of damage on our highways, as opposed to the maliciousness associated with gun massacres. ” I urge all of the people here reading this to read the full article in 2017 Forbes titled “Comparing Gun Carnage with Auto Deaths Is A Flawed Argument”. It is neither a pro or anti gun article, just an attempt to show why we need to separate the two. You can find it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshmax/2017/10/10/comparing-gun-carnage-with-auto-deaths-is-a-flawed-argument/#6a6ac8f0483e. Yes, as you state cars need to be licensed and drivers need to be tested and licensed but you are wrong when you state “guns and gun owner’s don’t”. If you purchase a handgun in California you need to pass a firearms safety test, you and your gun are registered in a government data base just like a driver and/or vehicle owner. I am sure some gun owners, including handguns , rifles, longarms, and shotguns, do not take the time to properly train themselves; but virtually all the gun owners I know are very competent and safety conscious. Unfortunately, in the case of drivers, the moving/actual driving test is usually only given once in your lifetime and judging by the incompetent drivers out there, that is a mistake. Again, read the Forbes article, which makes some sound observations of this disturbing policy. Back to the main point, I object to this Forest Service ban as it is yet another example of taking away law abiding citizen’s rights. As for the use of lead ammo, there is plenty of non-lead bullet ammo available (tin, plastic, alloy, etc.) and the Forest Service should require that type should be used if they are afraid of contamination but keep the range open.
USFS got this one right – not a frequent occurrence for a multiple abuse agency.