Previous Post
Next Post


When your supporters are dwindling and even significant swaths of the media aren’t willing to do that auto-prostration thing every time your name’s mentioned any more, you have to shore up your constituencies. Any way that you can. Which explains yesterday’s outreach to the anti-gun community made by the administration in its decision to boot shooters off millions of square miles of public lands. Even didn’t cover for the prez in their headline by trying to call it an Interior Department decision. No, Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands tells it refreshingly honestly, does it not?

But even the administration’s minions don’t make much of an attempt to spray this punchbowl turd with the Lysol of false necessity. No, they can’t even manage to muster a decent lie about safety issues where this one’s concerned.

Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.

“It’s not so much a safety issue. It’s a social conflict issue,” said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites “freak out” when they hear shooting on public lands.

Social conflict. They manage 245 million acres and can’t find a way to set aside and manage areas for shooters. As Dr. Evil would say, riiiiiiiight.

BLM actually invited the fight, seeking the council’s comments. But officials suggested to Whispers that no changes are being planned to the draft regulations.

Over five pages, the draft BLM regulations raise concerns about how shooting can cause a “public disturbance.” They also raise worries about how shooting and shooters can hurt plants and litter public lands.

Something called the Wildlife Hunting and Heritage Conservation Council (National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela’s and Ducks Unlimited, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation – no, really) are holding their breath and stamping their feet, but they might as well occupy a park across from the White House for all the good it will do.

This isn’t about anything more than playing to the gun-grabbing community who want firearms removed from all aspects of public life. Sure, it pisses off gun owners, but come on, how many of them are going to be Obama voters anyway? This is an electoral win-win at virtually no cost as far as Obama’s concerned.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Somebody did some recreational shooting on the federal land across from the whitehouse on Friday night, we’ll probably get blamed for that nutjob too.

  2. Um all I can say is Hyperventilating much? If you actually take the time to read whats being proposed its would allow BLM officers to close areas off to hunting when all other resources to to deal with litter, and safety issues due to hunting have been exhausted. In other words the clause fall into the Don’t be a dick category to things. If you don’t police where you hunt for your trash or aren’t paying attention to how busy it is in the area you are hunting then there should be consequences for your bad practices. or are you arguing that hunters should be put on a pedistule above hikers and campers?

    the quoted text

    “When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting.”

    • I blame the litter. Seriously, why should ALL recreational shooters be prohibited from public land because SOME recreational shooters (if that’s what we’re calling them) are litterbugs? Shouldn’t the BLM apprehend the litterers who, I am sure, are violating any number of local, state and federal statutes?

    • “When an authorized officer determines…” Right there, that is left to the whim of the authorized officer.

      This is completely subjective with no real guidelines other than the integrity or lack thereof of the “authorized official.”

      Do you really trust a government bureaucracy to behave in a consistent fashion? Do you really think there will not be some sort of hidden incentives for officials to make sure they shut down their quota of land?

    • Have you visited some campsite and trails? The litter and garbage problem is not just with shooters (not that i believe there is a problem with shooters because any place I have ever been on public land has had someone picking up every last piece of brass or ammo box before leaving). I would be ok if this law was applied evenly, instead, this will be an “excuse” to eliminate shooters from public land. No evidence will be needed, no proof will be required “When an authorized officer determines…” at a whim, then shooting is done! They should start by cleaning up the damn campsite and giving tickets and fines to some campers, hikers and dog walkers first.

      In an area near my home where I go, its the Boy Scouts who clean up the campsites and hiking trails 4 to 6 times a year — never seen anyone fined the $500 posted for littering.

      • Well BLM land is not national Parks and I have been out to BLM areas where camping is prohibited but not hunting. the thing i think some people forget is that BLM land is not the same as national parks and that administrator for the individual BLM land and regional BLM managers make case by case decisions already. the one issue i have with this is normally the regional BLM has to have a discussion period before making a decision which this would end, but the ability of the BLM to punish a group of people for violating rules should not be seen as some evil thing. is it the best way to go about it hell no but if we as gun owners want to argue that we shouldn’t take responsibility for our actions or the land we use for our recreation, then we need to be ready to face the consequences for our actions and lack of actions.

    • Walking the dog, hiking, camping are all healthy, beneficial activities. Shooting is sick, it’s about violence and destruction and ultimately killing, if only the simulated and make-believe kind.

      Maybe that’s the explanation. maybe reasonable people understand this.

      • Let me see if I’ve got this straight . . .

        Anyone who’s reasonable believes shooting is sick. Anyone who doesn’t isn’t reasonable. Because . . . you’re a reasonable man who thinks shooting is sick.

      • I just,went shooting today and didnt kill anything. I practiced with my conceal carry handgun so that I may,better protect myself and my family. I went with my dad and it was a great bonding experience. We left the range cleaner then how we found it. We spent a half hour cleaning someone elses mess. Not a shooter but a camper left a fire pit surrounded with trash. I am legitimately offended that you would suggest I am sick because you spend your time differentley than I do. I take gun ownership very seeing as how if my dad hadnt been carryin his colt python in at a dark truck stop so many yrars ago I would of never been born because my dad would of been killed had he not been carrying.

  3. It’s about time that some one stood up and highlighted how much guns hurt plants and how ineffective our current public land litter laws are. Hopefully these BLM stalwarts of plant civil rights will realize the extensive “hurt” that hiking trails and camping are inflicting on public land plants and quickly put an end to those intrusive activities before it’s too late!

  4. “Even didn’t cover for the prez in their headline by trying to call it an Interior Department decision. No, Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands tells it refreshingly honestly, does it not?”

    Actually….you linked to US NEWS & WORLD REPORT’s website, But whatever, point taken. 😀

  5. Yes Eric, I believe he does. So do I.

    I don’t quite no how to interpret this yet. I live about 12 miles from a huge swath of BLM land that people go shooting in all the time. However parts of that land are often used by bicyclist, motorcycles, etc., and I have witnessed dumbass embarassment shooters shoot pretty unsafely.

    I think part of the problem is there really are no BLM/fed officers to deal with the litterers or other dumbasses. If I remember correctly, there is something like 1 officer for every 270 square miles of BLM land. So this may just be an act of the BLM getting complaints and throwing up their hands.

  6. If certain people or activities are banned from public lands, then other accommodations should be made. Don’t want us clashing with idiot hikers who “freak out” at gun shots like the good little sheep they are? Build a range in one corner of the game lands and cordon it off.

    Why is it normal citizens have to keep giving in to the “encroaching” drooling drones? Tell them people are allowed to shoot on these lands and if they don’t like it, then they can get the hell out. Better yet, tell them to stay in their east/west coast utopias and keep out of real America if they can’t handle it.

  7. BLM’s ultimate mission is to ban ALL humans in ALL parks to satisfy the lunatic fringe. Shooters are just low-hanging fruit.

    • From what I’ve seen around here, I completely disagree. In fact they encourage people to use the space. Which is part of why there are some conflicts now between traditional *hunters and horsemen* and new users *everybody else*.

    • WTF – you have no idea what you are talking about. What park? You know BLM land and National Parks are different right? They aren’t even managed by the same agency. Every BLM manager I have ever met is a shooter and a hunter. This is a typical Chicken Little comment this blog is getting know for.

  8. I do not want anyone on public lands to litter or damage the area, but the wording of the administration’s response is worrying. Public land is open to the public by definition. I wish I could drive hippies out of parkland, but I know that valuing one culture over another is plain wrong.

  9. Hey man, that photo you’re using is of me, and it is in Canada. Up here we can use crown land as we please. I hope that in the US you remain able to do what you please on your publicly owned land as well.

  10. I would just like to point out that I am the rights holder of that photograph and you are using for commercial purposes without my permission which is kinda-sorta a violation my intellectual property rights. Please contact me ASAP so we can sort this out.

    You can view the source image at

Comments are closed.