A Deserved Slap on the Wrist

Go down to my "Taxation Without Representation" post and read the long comment. Basically, a Fish-&-Game guy ripped me a new oriface, and I'd say that I deserved it.

Here's a little of what he said:

I can can state unequivocally that we are not working to "end shooting on public lands." Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are working hard to keep public lands open, but this is increasingly difficult since so many shooters are absolute pigs. Your previous suggestion that illegal dumping is the real problem is absolute b*llsh**t. Every time I visit an unofficial range" on nearby National Forest I fill a couple trash bags with beer cans/bottles, brass, hulls, ammo boxes, and various and sundry well perforated items brought in for that purpose alone. And then there are the liability issues, as all those new trophy homes pop up near our favorite shooting spots.

Okay, his points are spot-on. But so are mine...I said, and I stand by it, that the "broken windows" theory is a reality — if a place looks like a dump, it will be treated as a dump, including by brainless shooters. There are solutions to this problem, but it involves a partnership between the federal agencies and the shooting organizations — exactly the same partnership that now exists between the primary mountain bike organization and the various federal agencies. For reasons I don't understand, this gets shrugged off by both sides. Mea culpa.

And I do accept that Colorado is different than Arizona, and, yes, I did forget that Ben Avery, where I've shot numerous times, is owned by F&G. I do believe, however, that the program being run in Colorado is a pilot program; the Front Range of Colorado is the most liberal area in the West and the area most under pressure from urbanization/suburbanization. It's the area where an antigun program is most likely to work. And it is working just fine. I also want to say that withing the F&G and USFS "community" — including people I've shot with for years — not one single voice has been raised in defense of shooters. Not one. When I pushed one of my friends on it, he said, in essence, that he liked his job and would like to keep it. I understand that; I don't much like it, but I do understand it.

Frankly, on the issue of shooting on public lands, I wash my hand of it. Whatever happens in the Front Range happens. We get what we deserve.

My apologies to you, sir, and your F&G colleagues, for tarring you all with the same brush.

HOWEVER, on that $523 million generated by taxes on shooters and hunters, WE SHOOTERS ARE DUE MUCH MORE THAN THE LEFTOVERS WE GET BECAUSE IT IS OUR MONEY!

There is enough money from the excise tax to build and operate a Ben Avery-sized range in EVERY STATE, which would take a huge amount of pressure off the USFS shooting on public lands issue. There is enough money to upgrade existing ranges, to attract and train new sport shooters (which will lead to more hunters), to help GROW OUR SPORTS, which will make us that much stronger. Personally, I think formal ranges are a much better solution than informal ranges if for no other reason than safety.

But that is not where the bulk, or even a substantial percentage, of the money is going!

That has nothing to do with F&G agencies. It is a simple truth that the people who PONY UP THE MONEY deserve to have some say in HOW THE MONEY IS USED. I think that it is 'way past time for sone of the agencies who distribute the money to ask what the shooting and hunting communities priorites actually are. Should we acquire more land for habitat or build new shooting ranges?

If we want to do both, how should the moneys be allocated? Do you actually believe that if the wishes of the shooting community were included that only 8% of the money collected would go to "Hunter Safety and Shooting Range Programs" while 55% goes to "Sport Fish Restoration?"

Again, sir, I apologize for dis'sing you. But taxation without representation is still tyranny.