Close
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 103
  1. #61
    Gong Shooter
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    478

    Default

    I just emailed them my comments I encourage everyone to do the same. Remember there are going to be many who oppose this so we need to stand united and let TPTB know there are safe shooters out there.

  2. #62
    Paper Hunter
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Any idea which organization will manage the site.
    I would hate if it will become a club with 3 year wait...
    But I would be willing to pay small fee( 5$) to keep range clean


    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Shooter View Post
    I just emailed them my comments I encourage everyone to do the same. Remember there are going to be many who oppose this so we need to stand united and let TPTB know there are safe shooters out there.

  3. #63
    My Fancy Title gnihcraes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CastleRock/Lakewood
    Posts
    4,422

    Default

    I'm not the greatest at writing responses to such things, anyone want to post up theirs that can give some of us ideas to go on. (without duplicating their work)

  4. #64
    BoulderLaw
    Guest

    Default

    Here is the response to my FOIA request for documents allegedly supporting the decision. Essentially, the landowners in the area don't like the noise and are afraid of the shooting sports. According to the police reports included among the documents, the LEOs who have looked into the situation have seen no evidence of safety problems.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32331945/A...g-Area-Closure

  5. #65
    Witness Protection Reject rondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    8,285
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Essentially, the landowners in the area don't like the noise and are afraid of the shooting sports.
    Pussies.

  6. #66
    My Fancy Title gnihcraes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CastleRock/Lakewood
    Posts
    4,422

    Default

    After reading some of the documented near misses, it seems like they might be hearing hummingbirds or something similar. It also seems strange to me that nobody has any "bullets" from these near misses. Many sound like they should have markings on the house, deck or dirt nearby, or pieces of the bullets etc recoverable... if the person is below the deck, that means the house is a couple levels above minimum, and there are no projectiles to be found or markings of it hitting something? hmmm..

  7. #67
    Witness Protection Reject rondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    8,285
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    These bullets hit my house!!! I want that shooting place CLOSED!!!


  8. #68
    Gong Shooter
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    360

    Default

    BoulderLaw, thanks for posting those documents. They were very interesting reading, and give us a better understanding of some of the dynamics in this situation.

  9. #69
    AGC
    Guest

    Default

    Good luck.

    The chances of the site being re-opened are non-existent.

    The Forest Service is run by spineless bureaucrats. None of them are going to risk being blamed for an accident if they lift the closure---and more importantly none of them is going to run the risk to their careers of lawsuits against the USFS by the local complainers.

    I used to live just outside of Flagstaff, Arizona, and we experienced the same issues: retirees and tree-huggers moving into the woods on the edge of the local National Forest, then complaining loudly about locals shooting, hunting, cutting firewood, etc. The loudest complainers were wealthy retirees who had both the time and the money to make nuisances of themselves to every bureaucrat and politician who had any say in the matter.

    The Arizona Game & Fish Department attempted to built a shooting range---one laid out with safety in mind, to be staffed by full time range masters. The NIMBYs took them to court. One site was "too close" to homes---it was miles outside of town and several miles from any existing homes. The next site was "environmentally sensitive" because once in a while antelope had been seen walking across it. Another "posed a threat to ground water resources."

    Game & Fish started trying to build a range back in 1996 or so. They're still tied up in court, and in the meantime most of the National Forest for miles in every direction has been closed to shooting.

    If this site is a former dump, that might be one way to apply leverage to the Forest Service. Has the dump been properly cleaned up? Seems if the Forest Service wants to "preserve" it, perhaps they needed to have their feet held to the fire by means of a lawsuit demanding that they spend a big chunk of their budget cleaning it up and completely remediating the damage done by dumping? Bureaucrats fear losing budgeted money more than anything else...

  10. #70
    Grand Master Know It All trlcavscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milliken
    Posts
    3,081

    Default

    Same fucking signs at some of the areas at the pawnee grasslands. Dirty bastards!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •