Bend over here it comes, BLM gonna screw the citizen
- Thread starter knockonit
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
Fun times, nobody paid attention when we tried to push back, out of all these "members" (FUDDS) we had 17 folks involved. Now fees that include fee escalation authority.
I can't wait, with government stupidity, annual fee will be more than the cost of a Stacato to keep up with their waste and cost.
I can't wait, with government stupidity, annual fee will be more than the cost of a Stacato to keep up with their waste and cost.
I have been to all 3 sites since they opened. They are getting much more crowded, especially the Church Camp Range - that one has been crazy busy at times. Even businesses come in and take up an entire range and charge people to shoot their guns/ammo. Was kinda lame that they did that, IMO.
I guess, if you build it, they will come. That was the purpose of these ranges, no? Encourage people to use them rather than in random places in the desert...
admin said:
The purpose for the ranges is exactly what is happening right now. Next step will be, "we can't find anyone to safely monitor the facility, so we can't open them to the public for safety reasons. Oh, and the surrounding deserts are still off limits to shooting...because we built these nice public ranges!"
I don't who originally posted this form letter, I found it the AZGuns reddit for those of you who may want to send an email.
Dear BLM Phoenix District Office,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed business plan for the establishment of fees and development of recreational shooting sports sites within the Phoenix District. As an Arizonan who cherishes the use of our public lands, I find this proposal deeply flawed for several reasons:
1. Lack of Demand for the Proposed Developments:
The Arizonans who utilize these lands for recreational shooting have not asked for these developments. BLM presents a "business plan" for a product or service for which no genuine demand exists. The absence of demand is unequivocally evidenced every time a citizen chooses to shoot on BLM land. These individuals have consistently opted to drive out to the desert, bypassing numerous existing private shooting facilities that are much closer and more convenient. Their choice to shoot in the desert rather than at a facility indicates a clear preference for an open, unstructured environment, not for the managed facilities that BLM proposes.
2. Public Land Rights and Double Taxation:
The desert lands are rightfully the public's to use. BLM's mandate from Congress is to manage public lands for a variety of uses, including recreation, while ensuring the preservation of natural, cultural, and historic resources for present and future use. The land in question is already being utilized effectively by taxpayers, whose contributions fund BLM operations. It is unjust and punitive to impose additional fees on citizens who are merely exercising their rights to enjoy public lands. Charging these fees equates to a form of double taxation, penalizing individuals for utilizing the very lands their taxes support.
3. Misleading Justification Regarding Private Facilities:
BLM's claim that not establishing fees would disadvantage private shooting facilities is fundamentally flawed. The people who choose to shoot in the desert do so because they prefer the natural, open environment over a structured facility. This preference will not change regardless of whether BLM imposes fees or develops these sites. The same individuals will continue to seek out public desert lands for shooting because it is the wilderness experience they value, not a facility-based one.
4. Erosion of Public Trust:
Implementing fees on previously free-to-access public lands exemplifies bureaucracy expanding unnecessarily. This proposal is a quintessential example of government overreach, creating red tape where none is needed. It fosters mistrust and frustration among the public, who see this as another instance of the quiet, compounding growth of government. The introduction of fees and further regulations on these lands, which are currently enjoyed freely by the public, is a solution in search of a problem—a problem that simply does not exist.
In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider this proposal. It is not in the best interest of the Arizonans who use these lands, and it contradicts the very principles of public land management. The public has not asked for these developments, and imposing fees on these lands will only serve to alienate and disadvantage the very citizens BLM is meant to serve.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Email Address]
Email To: [email protected]
Dear BLM Phoenix District Office,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed business plan for the establishment of fees and development of recreational shooting sports sites within the Phoenix District. As an Arizonan who cherishes the use of our public lands, I find this proposal deeply flawed for several reasons:
1. Lack of Demand for the Proposed Developments:
The Arizonans who utilize these lands for recreational shooting have not asked for these developments. BLM presents a "business plan" for a product or service for which no genuine demand exists. The absence of demand is unequivocally evidenced every time a citizen chooses to shoot on BLM land. These individuals have consistently opted to drive out to the desert, bypassing numerous existing private shooting facilities that are much closer and more convenient. Their choice to shoot in the desert rather than at a facility indicates a clear preference for an open, unstructured environment, not for the managed facilities that BLM proposes.
2. Public Land Rights and Double Taxation:
The desert lands are rightfully the public's to use. BLM's mandate from Congress is to manage public lands for a variety of uses, including recreation, while ensuring the preservation of natural, cultural, and historic resources for present and future use. The land in question is already being utilized effectively by taxpayers, whose contributions fund BLM operations. It is unjust and punitive to impose additional fees on citizens who are merely exercising their rights to enjoy public lands. Charging these fees equates to a form of double taxation, penalizing individuals for utilizing the very lands their taxes support.
3. Misleading Justification Regarding Private Facilities:
BLM's claim that not establishing fees would disadvantage private shooting facilities is fundamentally flawed. The people who choose to shoot in the desert do so because they prefer the natural, open environment over a structured facility. This preference will not change regardless of whether BLM imposes fees or develops these sites. The same individuals will continue to seek out public desert lands for shooting because it is the wilderness experience they value, not a facility-based one.
4. Erosion of Public Trust:
Implementing fees on previously free-to-access public lands exemplifies bureaucracy expanding unnecessarily. This proposal is a quintessential example of government overreach, creating red tape where none is needed. It fosters mistrust and frustration among the public, who see this as another instance of the quiet, compounding growth of government. The introduction of fees and further regulations on these lands, which are currently enjoyed freely by the public, is a solution in search of a problem—a problem that simply does not exist.
In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider this proposal. It is not in the best interest of the Arizonans who use these lands, and it contradicts the very principles of public land management. The public has not asked for these developments, and imposing fees on these lands will only serve to alienate and disadvantage the very citizens BLM is meant to serve.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Email Address]
Email To: [email protected]
Suck My Glock
Member
I'm over here just quietly waiting for the last part, so I can say I told you so. That will be when BLM prohibits all shooting in all BLM lands, citing how they made these nice and wonderful facilities for us, so no one needs to shoot out in the other spaces, which has been the goal from day 1, regardless of what various functionaries told you.
It's coming. Just watch. Everything else that happens in the meantime is just extra points for their agenda.
The goal has always been to hurt you, not help you.
It's coming. Just watch. Everything else that happens in the meantime is just extra points for their agenda.
The goal has always been to hurt you, not help you.
QuietM4 said:
I don't know who penned this proposed email, but they did a lot of research yet there is much more.
They just opened Box Canyon yet they have annual costs for it. They have no idea how to run or maintain ranges so their costs are worse than the worst SWAGS. They have costs for Table Mesa yet they haven't started on it and by the rate of completion of other ranges, it will be ten years.
I think that letter is a great foundation and if anyone knows the person who penned it please DM their info to me. I would like to have them work with the group of folks who are pushing back on BLM.
rockbronco
Member
and they will still be closed during fire restrictions....
bummer for sure, just means another form of gun control, its inevitable, without resistance, they will do what ever the local guru decides, again as we mentioned many moons ago on our debacle with blm closures, its imparative to fight back, with letters and discussion with politicals,
as we were advised, '' the public doesn't own the land'' the president does and i work for the president, thats a direct quote from the local guru who supposedly runs the show here, yeah, get the drift now.
as we were advised, '' the public doesn't own the land'' the president does and i work for the president, thats a direct quote from the local guru who supposedly runs the show here, yeah, get the drift now.
And now it appears to be a national push to screw outdoor shooters
https://popularoutdoorsman.com/recr...ds-at-risk/?lh_aid=13042479&lh_cid=rg6rdh8zm1
https://popularoutdoorsman.com/recr...ds-at-risk/?lh_aid=13042479&lh_cid=rg6rdh8zm1
Similar threads
