PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Shooting Range Closure? Cleveland National Forest - Orosco Ridge


Alaric
04-13-2011, 8:47 PM
I'm looking to Calguns to help the San Diego County shooting community understand and fight the closure of one of the most popular USFS shooting areas in southern California.

Orosco Ridge, in the Cleveland National Forest was "temporarily" and "indefinitely" closed by the USFS back in October of 2010. It's still currently closed. It had actually been closed for some time (months?) before the "official" closure was announced as well, for fire safety reasons, which will be touched on later. Here's a copy of the press release on the closure from the USFS:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/news/2010/10/2010-10-21.html

A little background first: Orosco Ridge draws shooters from throughout southern California, but mostly from San Diego County. We have been forced to purchase a USFS "Adventure Pass" at the sum of $5 a day to access the shooting area, but it's still one of the best options around (or it WAS) as BLM land is much further afield for most of us, and private ranges are much more costly. Additionally, many historically used shooting areas are now or have recently been shut down (Miramar, the border areas like "Brokeback Mountain", etc.), thus leaving Orosco as even more popular and necessary to us than ever.

Orosco Ridge was horribly abused. It was covered in a thick layer of debris and trash from years of unethical shooters abusing the area. Old, shot up appliances, a thick layer of unpoliced brass and shotgun shells EVERYWHERE, and general shooting debris from abandoned targets made the area a negative commentary on our cummunity. Many of us were ashamed to take people there, but the other options are lackluster at best.

In 2007, a ten year old boy accidentally shot his father at Orosco Ridge. It was a tragic occurrence that certainly never should have happened. From what I've read though, it did lead to an effort at the time to clean up Orosco Ridge and increase USFS oversight of the area.

In Feb. 2009, some of us used Calguns as a community resource to try to organize a cleanup at Orosco Ridge (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=229315). At the last minute the USFS, after enthusiastically endorsing the idea, pulled the plug on the cleanup. They cited, among other reasons (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3319865&postcount=38), protective gear, hazardous materials and OSHA requirements as reasons to cancel the cleanup.

In October 2010, the USFS issued it's official statement on the closure of the area to shooting. Here's a copy of the closure order as left on the gate on the road leading to the area:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=93747&d=1302649761

Please take note that Calgunners attempted to cleanup this area and were denied access. Now, reading the above, you'll see several codes and regulations cited:


The authority to close the area:
16 USC 551 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_16_00000551----000-.html)

36 CFR 261.50(a) (http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/261-50-orders-19770723)

What's regulated by the closure:
36 CFR 261.58(m) (http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/261-58-occupancy-and-use-19770747)

The penalties for defying the closure (and secondary reasons?):
18 USC 3559, 3571 and 3581 (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/3559.html)

I know this is getting complex, please bear with. I'm NOT a lawyer, so I'm having a hard time understanding how the USFS can justify punishing a violation of 16 USC 551 with a $5,000 fine and/or 6 months in jail when 16 USC 551 clearly states the penalty is a $500 fine and/or up to 6 months in jail. Simple typo? That's the first issue.

I'm also uncertain how this interplay of fire risk and shooting comes into play. It seems like they're implying that shooting creates a fire risk and they want to punish shooting with the fire code ($5,000 fine). I'm uncertain if this is a precedent we want to let stand: ie. the closure of shooting areas based on mitigable and negligible fire risk based on the assumption that shooters create fire danger.

Second issue, the USFS has stated that they want this area closed indefinitely and temporarily. Do they have the legal right to deny the shooting public access to an area historically used for target shooting, without offering permits to shooters (as indicated on the sign), allowing for a volunteer cleanup, or offering a replacement area on the copious USFS lands nearby?

Please note that I've already filed a USFS issue on Oaklanders reporting thread, and this issue is also being followed closely by area shooters (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6189207) in the ranges subtopic area. I'm hoping this thread will help raise awareness and fill in some gaps in the knowledge base for this issue.

I'd like to believe that this community exists to help inform and coordinate the work of people who believe in the 2nd Amendment. Any insight or help that anyone can offer us in fighting this closure is greatly appreciated.

Purple K
04-13-2011, 8:55 PM
Calling Oaklander!

Alaric
04-13-2011, 8:58 PM
Calling Oaklander!

Please note that I've already filed a USFS issue on Oaklanders reporting thread, ...

I know, I buried it in there.

creekside
04-13-2011, 9:13 PM
Has anyone attempted to apply for a permit? It would be amusing to do so in writing and see what happens.

ojisan
04-13-2011, 9:16 PM
Back about 20 years ago, I (and other shooters) worked with the USFS Angeles National Forest to clean up the Kentucky shooting range so we could keep it open.
Clean it up we did, with over 250 shooters showing up to clean up the trash on Mothers Day weekend.
The USFS then started crying about the dump fees for all the trash we picked up.
Then they closed the area anyway, subject to the results of a post-clean up Environmental Impact Report.
Politics came into play here...the EIR basically said all was good and the lead from the fired bullets in the soil was inert...
Except: What if a child who has PICA syndrome went there 5 days a week, 8 hours a day for a year or more, and ate dirt the whole time they were there? (PICA syndrome is kids who eat dirt).
In this situation, the child could be harmed by lead contamination.
To re-open the range, all the soil has to be cleared of all traces of lead, and all lead cleaned up on an annual basis if the range is re-opened.
In their opinion, a private vendor must take over the operation of the range and charge fees to be used for the clean ups.
No private vendor can possible pay the $$$$ they USFS will want for the lead clean up before the range could be re-opened, then absorb the cost of annual clean -ups as well.
Therefore, ANF is essentially closed to shooting, except for A Place To Shoot.
Middle and Kentucky shooting areas will remain closed until the political / environmental "climate" changes.

scoutsniper687
04-13-2011, 9:25 PM
If there is anything I can do to help with let me know

Alaric
04-13-2011, 9:29 PM
Has anyone attempted to apply for a permit? It would be amusing to do so in writing and see what happens.

I don't know, but I assume any application would go straight to the "circular file".

Perhaps if we find the perfect candidate, someone who isn't an LEO (who may be exempt anyway), but say a military guy with an unimpeachable background who'd make the perfect litigant for a follow up lawsuit...

Veggie
04-13-2011, 9:30 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the govt wants to outlaw all shooting outside of ranges. Where they can monitor who is shooting. If they seriously sighted that PICA syndrome bullcrap then there is obviously an ulterior motive.

wildhawker
04-13-2011, 9:58 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the govt wants to outlaw all shooting outside of ranges. Where they can monitor who is shooting. If they seriously sighted that PICA syndrome bullcrap then there is obviously an ulterior motive.

This is a bit TFH with respect to the OP. Those issues I've addressed personally, and I suspect this also, has more to do with incompetence than malice.

-Brandon

PsychGuy274
04-13-2011, 10:02 PM
If any action is going to be done about this it should go through the 'right people' first.

Once it has, I'm on board as a volunteer for whatever needs to be done.

pantera52
04-13-2011, 10:18 PM
I worked on the Cleveland for quite a while as a firefighter up until a few years ago. Although I've relocated to the Bay Area I still hold some high ranking connections down there. Let me know what I can do if anything. I may be able to get some official documents and what nots into the right hands if need be.
And I think its important to note that all my firefighting buddies that are shooters, that are stationed throughout the Cleveland, are probably pretty pissed to say the least.

Alaric
04-13-2011, 10:28 PM
This is a bit TFH with respect to the OP. Those issues I've addressed personally, and I suspect this also, has more to do with incompetence than malice.

-Brandon

I don't think it's malice either, but whether it's incompetence, an overzealous desire to protect a remote, barren rocky ridge, or part of a larger politically ordered change in policy towards public land use remains to be seen.

Given the push USFS has been making to limit access by closing roads throughout all the National Forests, among other trends, I tend to think it may be the latter.

BKinzey
04-14-2011, 12:10 AM
....I'm also uncertain how this interplay of fire risk and shooting comes into play. It seems like they're implying that shooting creates a fire risk and they want to punish shooting with the fire code ($5,000 fine). I'm uncertain if this is a precedent we want to let stand: ie. the closure of shooting areas based on mitigable and negligible fire risk based on the assumption that shooters create fire danger.

I used to question the fire danger as well until one day I was out at Angeles Shooting Range (when they checked for steel core ammo) and a small fire broke out down range. They called a cease fire (and when the fire didn't cease... Nyuk-nyuk) they rode out there with a sprayer and put it out.

I happened to know a guy who worked out there so I asked him and he said it was common and certainly so during fire season. He did estimate how many times a year but I can't remember the number.

Hunter158
04-14-2011, 6:21 AM
I thought the latest issues/closure were based on another shooting incident.

Bullet fired skyward, and penetrated another shooter on return.

Anyone remember the specifics of the event?

SteveH
04-14-2011, 9:21 AM
In a recent email I was told that not only is Orozco ridge closed, but truck trail 9S07 aka palomar divide is also closed. This following the close of the high point area adjacent to palomar divide many years ago means there are currently NO legal shooting areas in the clevland national forest.

loather
04-14-2011, 10:48 AM
I heard it was someone shooting themselves in the foot.

scoutsniper687
04-16-2011, 6:21 AM
So where do we go from here?

twolane
04-16-2011, 6:37 AM
This may not be of much help but.... The way the situation was explained to me was there was a new head ranger (as of '09) that was in charge of the region, and the final call was up to the head ranger. This may be one heck of an up hill battle until said ranger leaves or is replaced by someone more gun friendly.
The last time I was up there I was really disappointed to see they were no longer grading the roadway in. It was always great to see families come out to Orosco in their sedans etc and spend a day at the range. With the state of the road last time it was impassable by anything other than a 4wd with some ground clearance. I think their plan of limited time/resources spent on maintaining the facility only made the situation worse in the end.
Damn shame. Let me know if there's anything I can do!

ALSystems
04-16-2011, 9:05 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the govt wants to outlaw all shooting outside of ranges. Where they can monitor who is shooting. If they seriously sighted that PICA syndrome bullcrap then there is obviously an ulterior motive.
Los Angeles and Orange County have have already outlawed shooting in open areas except a few public shooting ranges. Other areas are using bulcrap reasons for closures. Public access roads are often closed and certainly not maintained.

These are no accidents. It all amounts to California public officials discouraging shooting as much as possible by making it almost impossible to find an open area to shoot.

sfpcservice
04-16-2011, 10:10 AM
There is a statewide systematic closure of all public places to shoot it seems. Almost like there was a plan from higher up....

After years of working for the Federal Government, I can confidently say the only way anything will change is to drag the offending agencies into Federal Court. No amount of discussion or FOIA requests will resolve this. They will all out lie, ignore document requests, respond to document requests with non-responsive documents, lie some more, destroy evidence prior to discovery....

I guess my confidence level is low with Mangers of the USFS, BLM and NPS. :cool:

sfpcservice
04-16-2011, 10:15 AM
I'm looking to Calguns to help the San Diego County shooting community understand and fight the closure of one of the most popular USFS shooting areas in southern California.

Orosco Ridge, in the Cleveland National Forest was "temporarily" and "indefinitely" closed by the USFS back in October of 2010. It's still currently closed. It had actually been closed for some time (months?) before the "official" closure was announced as well, for fire safety reasons, which will be touched on later. Here's a copy of the press release on the closure from the USFS:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/news/2010/10/2010-10-21.html

A little background first: Orosco Ridge draws shooters from throughout southern California, but mostly from San Diego County. We have been forced to purchase a USFS "Adventure Pass" at the sum of $5 a day to access the shooting area, but it's still one of the best options around (or it WAS) as BLM land is much further afield for most of us, and private ranges are much more costly. Additionally, many historically used shooting areas are now or have recently been shut down (Miramar, the border areas like "Brokeback Mountain", etc.), thus leaving Orosco as even more popular and necessary to us than ever.

Orosco Ridge was horribly abused. It was covered in a thick layer of debris and trash from years of unethical shooters abusing the area. Old, shot up appliances, a thick layer of unpoliced brass and shotgun shells EVERYWHERE, and general shooting debris from abandoned targets made the area a negative commentary on our cummunity. Many of us were ashamed to take people there, but the other options are lackluster at best.

In 2007, a ten year old boy accidentally shot his father at Orosco Ridge. It was a tragic occurrence that certainly never should have happened. From what I've read though, it did lead to an effort at the time to clean up Orosco Ridge and increase USFS oversight of the area.

In Feb. 2009, some of us used Calguns as a community resource to try to organize a cleanup at Orosco Ridge (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=229315). At the last minute the USFS, after enthusiastically endorsing the idea, pulled the plug on the cleanup. They cited, among other reasons (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3319865&postcount=38), protective gear, hazardous materials and OSHA requirements as reasons to cancel the cleanup.

In October 2010, the USFS issued it's official statement on the closure of the area to shooting. Here's a copy of the closure order as left on the gate on the road leading to the area:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=93747&d=1302649761

Please take note that Calgunners attempted to cleanup this area and were denied access. Now, reading the above, you'll see several codes and regulations cited:


The authority to close the area:
16 USC 551 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_16_00000551----000-.html)

36 CFR 261.50(a) (http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/261-50-orders-19770723)

What's regulated by the closure:
36 CFR 261.58(m) (http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/261-58-occupancy-and-use-19770747)

The penalties for defying the closure (and secondary reasons?):
18 USC 3559, 3571 and 3581 (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/3559.html)

I know this is getting complex, please bear with. I'm NOT a lawyer, so I'm having a hard time understanding how the USFS can justify punishing a violation of 16 USC 551 with a $5,000 fine and/or 6 months in jail when 16 USC 551 clearly states the penalty is a $500 fine and/or up to 6 months in jail. Simple typo? That's the first issue.

I'm also uncertain how this interplay of fire risk and shooting comes into play. It seems like they're implying that shooting creates a fire risk and they want to punish shooting with the fire code ($5,000 fine). I'm uncertain if this is a precedent we want to let stand: ie. the closure of shooting areas based on mitigable and negligible fire risk based on the assumption that shooters create fire danger.

Second issue, the USFS has stated that they want this area closed indefinitely and temporarily. Do they have the legal right to deny the shooting public access to an area historically used for target shooting, without offering permits to shooters (as indicated on the sign), allowing for a volunteer cleanup, or offering a replacement area on the copious USFS lands nearby?

Please note that I've already filed a USFS issue on Oaklanders reporting thread, and this issue is also being followed closely by area shooters (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6189207) in the ranges subtopic area. I'm hoping this thread will help raise awareness and fill in some gaps in the knowledge base for this issue.

I'd like to believe that this community exists to help inform and coordinate the work of people who believe in the 2nd Amendment. Any insight or help that anyone can offer us in fighting this closure is greatly appreciated.

It would be interesting to FOIA any permits issued to shoot in that area.... Not that they will respond, but it's good to rattle their cage.

EscapeFromCal
04-16-2011, 10:29 AM
I would suggest requesting the incident reports that they used to justify the closure. My local forest had half of its shooting area closed a year ago and I was told it was in response to an incident report created during an investigation of some shells left on the ground. The rangers were able to determine that it was unsafe to shoot in the area based on the theoretical trajectory from the shell location to a paper target that was left in the bushes that could have crossed a dirt trail more than a mile away. Yeah the shooters sound like they were idiots and not shooting against a backstop but I thought that's what a rangers job is to educate and or cite the citizen. With this logic we should be all locked in prisons to avoid any possible crimes from ever happening.

I am more familiar with closures of off-road riding and they use incident reports as well for closures. It is my understanding that a trail closure cannot happen without a Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is just as complicated and expensive as getting a trail added. To avoid these cost they just create a full closure of an area.

sfpcservice
04-16-2011, 10:55 AM
I would suggest requesting the incident reports that they used to justify the closure. My local forest had half of its shooting area closed a year ago and I was told it was in response to an incident report created during an investigation of some shells left on the ground. The rangers were able to determine that it was unsafe to shoot in the area based on the theoretical trajectory from the shell location to a paper target that was left in the bushes that could have crossed a dirt trail more than a mile away. Yeah the shooters sound like they were idiots and not shooting against a backstop but I thought that's what a rangers job is to educate and or cite the citizen. With this logic we should be all locked in prisons to avoid any possible crimes from ever happening.

I am more familiar with closures of off-road riding and they use incident reports as well for closures. It is my understanding that a trail closure cannot happen without a Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is just as complicated and expensive as getting a trail added. To avoid these cost they just create a full closure of an area.

Yeah, I guess it's not just shooting, it's anything recreational that will eventually be banned in recreation areas. The managers of these areas are appointed, but they are very politically connected and in my opinion, often aim to please small interests that want to turn every public area into a "wilderness area" by outlawing anything but walking. Time for CGF to start the cleanup. How can I help?

SteveH
04-16-2011, 12:19 PM
Los Angeles and Orange County have have already outlawed shooting in open areas except a few public shooting ranges. .

The only outdoor range in Orange county I am aware of is the old El toro Marine range which the Feds took over. They dont let anyone but federal LE shoot there.

Deja-Vu
04-16-2011, 10:04 PM
I just took a hunter safety class with Doug McClanahan in Descanso, San Diego Co.
He said that he will be starting up a private gun range out somewhere by Lake Henswall behind Palomar Mountain it will be 500 meters, and he will setup it up like the military so that you will have some one setting up targets in a hole in the back, and he will have a on sight Chronographs to.

I guess he got a lot of land out there, on the rest of the land he is going make it a wild hog hunting ranch.

I hope this all works out he did say that the land he has is right in the middle of a lot of land that the environmentalist have been buying up.

chewy352
04-16-2011, 10:16 PM
I have a pick up truck and will pay the dump fees for what I haul if we need to do a clean up.

OHW
04-17-2011, 10:45 AM
The ranger told me I was the last person to ever shoot at the ridge as he chased me out. The range would be forever closed til a full time range officer could be hired to work on 4 or 5 new developed safe ranges . Of course a major clean up would need to be done. Which our volenteer services were refused.
Ranger went on to say that the funding for the cleanup creation of stalls and lanes for caliber specific ranges along with a full time RO was not ever going to happen. So ineffect therange is permanently closed . Politics using the budget crisis to force their totalitarian policies.

Alaric
04-17-2011, 11:53 AM
So who wants to do the legwork to apply for a permit to shoot there?

LeeSmith@Michel&Assoc.
04-18-2011, 12:15 PM
This is typical of what our office has been encountering lately, especially with USFS. There is a concerted effort by local, state and federal regulators to repudiate the EPA's guidelines for Best Management Practices for outdoor shooting ranges. These regulators use unsound science to bolster their argument that spent lead ammunition is such a dangerous hazardous waste that must be cleaned up to, above and beyond, current clean up standards and, sometimes, contrary to present regulations. Our office is involved in many of these battles to preserve ranges throughout California. If you require assistance and/or consultation with a specific range, please do not hesitate to contact our office or visit our website. Example are available on our website: Michel & Associates, PC Significant Cases (http://michellawyers.com/attorney-profile/c-d-michel/significant-cases/)
Michel & Associates, P.C. Firm News (http://michellawyers.com/news-and-alerts/firm-news/)
Michel & Associates, P.C. Firearm Law News (http://http://michellawyers.com/news-and-alerts/firearm-news/)
Michel & Associates, P.C. (http://michellawyers.com)

Dutch3
04-18-2011, 1:40 PM
I heard it was someone shooting themselves in the foot.

I saw what you did there.

Seriously, I am surprised that there have not been many more closures and/or restrictions of public shooting ranges in recent years.

"Environmental Contamination" and "Public Safety Concerns" are phrases that can easily get the ignorant do-gooders rolling. Once they latch onto an issue and the media gets on board, it can be nearly impossible to sway public opinion, even though the misconceptions are not based on facts.

QQQ
04-18-2011, 1:48 PM
The only outdoor range in Orange county I am aware of is the old El toro Marine range which the Feds took over. They dont let anyone but federal LE shoot there.

Correct. There are no public outdoor ranges in Orange County other than maybe the Sheriff range, but it's only a pistol range. And I'm not even sure if it's outdoors.

And I can count on one hand the number of public indoor ranges that I know of.

vantec08
04-19-2011, 3:50 AM
I saw what you did there.

Seriously, I am surprised that there have not been many more closures and/or restrictions of public shooting ranges in recent years.

"Environmental Contamination" and "Public Safety Concerns" are phrases that can easily get the ignorant do-gooders rolling. Once they latch onto an issue and the media gets on board, it can be nearly impossible to sway public opinion, even though the misconceptions are not based on facts.

True. The Forest Service held a public hearing in Hemet some years ago to "publicy discuss use of the forest in bee canyon", when it was really an effort by babs boxer to close it to shooters. The big-dog, main-most ranger even ADMITTED that shooters in bee canyon were not nearly the threat campers were but was not holding any "public discussion" about this vastly greater threat (campers). When he said the EPA was "concerned" about groundwater contamination from spent lead and brass, I latched onto him and demanded to see the EPA report on it. When pressed by several other shooters, he finally admitted there was no such report, it was merely a suggestion by EPA (to justify closing the canyon to shooting, of course). I have developed a healthy mistrust and disrespect for the Forest Service and the BLM. They, like many enforcement agencies of the government, have become political tools to be wielded by political fad and fancy.

1BigPea
04-19-2011, 11:08 AM
This is too bad, I had many good shooting trips to Orosco. Hopefully this isn't the end and something can be figured out.

CHS
04-19-2011, 1:44 PM
Correct. There are no public outdoor ranges in Orange County other than maybe the Sheriff range, but it's only a pistol range. And I'm not even sure if it's outdoors.


There is an outdoor range on the Los Alamitos naval weapons base. Looks set-up for trap (possibly skeet too) and pistol only.

I'm sure there's no way for the public to use it. That's really sad, because it should be open to the public. Hell, the golf course is :)

donw
04-19-2011, 2:40 PM
it has just begun, my friends...see my post about "Assault on gun owners..." here. the info i got was from "League of American Voters" <newsmax@reply.newsmax dated April 19, 2011...

quote:

Rand Paul: Hillary Commits to UN Small Arms Treaty

I didn't write it, i just read it...

Southwest Chuck
04-19-2011, 2:48 PM
it has just begun, my friends...see my post about "Assault on gun owners..." here.

Where? no link :chris:

taperxz
04-19-2011, 2:51 PM
SoCal........ Chicago west!

tileguy
04-19-2011, 2:51 PM
i feel bad for all of you in southern cal. i thought you could shot on any national forest. i live in nor cal by the plumas nat. forest and as far as i know there are no restrictions for shooting.as long as you are not on the main roads you can shot when and what you want.
is the whole clevland forest closed to shooting or just that area.

Southwest Chuck
04-19-2011, 2:52 PM
Where? no link :chris:

Found it. It's Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=422938) and the thread is now closed. Old news.

CHS
04-19-2011, 3:00 PM
i feel bad for all of you in southern cal. i thought you could shot on any national forest. i live in nor cal by the plumas nat. forest and as far as i know there are no restrictions for shooting.as long as you are not on the main roads you can shot when and what you want.
is the whole clevland forest closed to shooting or just that area.

The problem with SoCal is that most of the National Forest lands are VERY close to homes and regular city areas. Hell, people practically have houses IN the Cleveland National Forest in Orange County.

There is of course also the SoCal fire danger.

But most of the National Forest areas have designated shooting areas where it's ok. Problem is, they're shutting those down faster and faster.

tileguy
04-19-2011, 5:52 PM
you guys have it bad down there.

Alaric
04-19-2011, 11:45 PM
you guys have it bad down there.

Yes we do.

Not only do they restrict shooting to designated areas, and then fail to designate areas, but about 15-20 years ago they implemented the "adventure pass" program. That is, you have to buy a pass just to drive out and park a vehicle in parts of the forest - like campgrounds, picnic areas, and shooting areas (if we had any left).

It's just a matter of time until the northern California forests get the same treatment.

ttboy
04-20-2011, 3:56 AM
can't we get a congressman for assistance on this since, it is a federal issue Duncan Hunter is the rep. where Orosco is located.

donw
04-20-2011, 10:30 AM
Where? no link :chris:

i received the notification via email alert from league of American voters yesterday, 04/19/2010

the information given in the document was dated as being current as provided by newsmax.com.

the NRA linked information was dated in April, 2010; I'm certain the info was current THEN...the information i received was dated a YEAR later. (i am a NRA life member and i must have some faith in them or i wouldn't be a life member would i?)

is it possible the information/situation has changed since the NRA wrote that informational letter in the year 2010?

I'm NOT trying to spread misinformation...i merely tried to pass on information i received IN GOOD FAITH.

orozco ridge is located near Ramona in SD county. the last time i was there it was bad...trash...no organization or designated directions for shooting. in reality, not exactly a good role model for the average non-shooting public to view.

hill billy
04-20-2011, 10:48 PM
Back about 20 years ago, I (and other shooters) worked with the USFS Angeles National Forest to clean up the Kentucky shooting range so we could keep it open.
Clean it up we did, with over 250 shooters showing up to clean up the trash on Mothers Day weekend.
The USFS then started crying about the dump fees for all the trash we picked up.
Then they closed the area anyway, subject to the results of a post-clean up Environmental Impact Report.
Politics came into play here...the EIR basically said all was good and the lead from the fired bullets in the soil was inert...
Except: What if a child who has PICA syndrome went there 5 days a week, 8 hours a day for a year or more, and ate dirt the whole time they were there? (PICA syndrome is kids who eat dirt).
In this situation, the child could be harmed by lead contamination.
To re-open the range, all the soil has to be cleared of all traces of lead, and all lead cleaned up on an annual basis if the range is re-opened.
In their opinion, a private vendor must take over the operation of the range and charge fees to be used for the clean ups.
No private vendor can possible pay the $$$$ they USFS will want for the lead clean up before the range could be re-opened, then absorb the cost of annual clean -ups as well.
Therefore, ANF is essentially closed to shooting, except for A Place To Shoot.
Middle and Kentucky shooting areas will remain closed until the political / environmental "climate" changes.

Actually, if you are referring to Kentucky Canyon, there is currently a range open further up that same canyon, Desert Marksman. DM is experiencing it's own problems with the USFS, though.

Most recently, the USFS closed the range for several months when the current permit expired, then allowed it to reopen with a temporary permit and has now promised a new 20 year permit but claims the guy who issues it is too busy to do the actual issuing right now. How long can it take to issue a permit? I smell a rat, and I am very concerned.

CHS
04-21-2011, 8:07 AM
Most recently, the USFS closed the range for several months when the current permit expired, then allowed it to reopen with a temporary permit and has now promised a new 20 year permit but claims the guy who issues it is too busy to do the actual issuing right now. How long can it take to issue a permit? I smell a rat, and I am very concerned.

That sounds VERY SIMILAR to the original Burro Canyon closure around 10 years ago.

ojisan
04-21-2011, 8:22 AM
Actually, if you are referring to Kentucky Canyon, there is currently a range open further up that same canyon, Desert Marksman. DM is experiencing it's own problems with the USFS, though.

Most recently, the USFS closed the range for several months when the current permit expired, then allowed it to reopen with a temporary permit and has now promised a new 20 year permit but claims the guy who issues it is too busy to do the actual issuing right now. How long can it take to issue a permit? I smell a rat, and I am very concerned.

Yes, I was refering to the Kentucky shooting area.
We also tried to clean up the Middle shooting area but they would not let us.
DM is up the road from Kentucky, I'm guessing that the DM folks have keys to the locked gate at the road entrance to get in. (???)
DM is a private members-only range, no public use.
The USFS, with this locked gate / closure, also effectively closed off a great off-roading route down through Santiago Canyon that connects to the Azusa canyon off road riding area.
:mad:

hill billy
04-21-2011, 8:28 AM
Yes, I was refering to the Kentucky shooting area.
We also tried to clean up the Middle shooting area but they would not let us.
DM is up the road from Kentucky, I'm guessing that the DM folks have keys to the locked gate at the road entrance to get in. (???)
DM is a private members-only range, no public use.
The USFS, with this locked gate / closure, also effectively closed off a great off-roading route down through Santiago Canyon that connects to the Azusa canyon off road riding area.
:mad: DM uses a combo lock on the gate, however, anyone can become a member. Pay the yearly fee and a small initiation fee and you're in. This open door policy allowed a few miscreants in, but they tend to get weeded out one way or another. So I would call it semi private. ;)

As for the fire road up there. the USFS placed a secondary gate further up that road in the last six months.

tackdriver
04-21-2011, 12:02 PM
Alaric, glad to see you've at least gotten a few responses. When I was trying to save the Jacumba and get the kitchen creek area reopened, I couldnt generate any. And I get tired of being the head drummer..
If you need official info regarding the closure of Orosco, it would be best to request it from them under the Freedom of Infomation act. I did this regarding Kitchen Creek. Their excuses ranged from, "bushes were being run over" to a pix of a shot up can of Raid to prove that "toxins" were contaminating the area.
Best course of action I would recommnend at this time would be to join the local NRA Council of San DIego. Great bunch of guys who have contacts and advice. And as mentioned in another post if "we" can get a letter campaign going to Duncan Hunter (Jr) we may get something. I tried this with his dad and never received as much as a courtesy reply however.
I'll wish you better luck than I had, you've generated some interest lets see if now we can generate some action!@

woodnsteel
04-29-2011, 10:29 PM
Goose Creek rangers say it will be decided after a lawsuit is heard-and that if it is to be reopened the blessed information will be divined to us by an oracle.
So unless some strange looking dude in a trance waving snakes over a fire says that we should get to use our range again -we can forget it.
Thats how I see our judicial system.
Add enough bat and lizard guts to the mix,:chris: and you will have our whole CA state legislature.

DannyInSoCal
04-30-2011, 7:46 AM
SoCal........ Chicago west!

Coming from Barrington Hills - I second the nomination...

tacticoolme
05-03-2011, 12:42 PM
They just keep on restricting and restricting...

I thought if you were far enough from a civilization, and used a proper backdrop you were good to go. I wanted to plan a target shooting/camping trip in Clevland National Forest off of Highway 74... at least a couple miles from major roads and campgrounds... is that not okay?
Technically Orange County I think.

Target Shooting is allowed on public lands, unless posted “No Shooting”. County shooting ordinances and codes must be followed on Federal Lands. In addition, you must provide your own targets and remove your debris and targets when you leave.



http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/recreation/shooting/blmhighptinfo.shtml

Hunt
05-03-2011, 10:54 PM
i feel bad for all of you in southern cal. i thought you could shot on any national forest. i live in nor cal by the plumas nat. forest and as far as i know there are no restrictions for shooting.as long as you are not on the main roads you can shot when and what you want.
is the whole clevland forest closed to shooting or just that area.

NO NO NO you can't target shoot on any public lands, you can hunt "legally" on most public lands, don't confuse the two.

Hunt
05-03-2011, 11:01 PM
Orosco will never reopen, I am grieved at the loss of another place to shoot but that place was very dangerous, if you ever wondered what a bullet sounds like whizzing by your head you could always take a trip to Orosco to find out. The NFS will use environmental regulations to lock the place up. On the upside we may see some more deer habitat come out of the closure. Just pay the $85.00 and join the South Bay Rod and Gun Club or drive up Otay Mtn.

Hunt
05-03-2011, 11:07 PM
They just keep on restricting and restricting...

I thought if you were far enough from a civilization, and used a proper backdrop you were good to go. I wanted to plan a target shooting/camping trip in Clevland National Forest off of Highway 74... at least a couple miles from major roads and campgrounds... is that not okay?
Technically Orange County I think.




http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/recreation/shooting/blmhighptinfo.shtml
NO NO NO target shooting is a special recreation privelidge--- assume it is all closed to target shooting unless special priviledge is allowed in National Forest. Check with local Ranger or risk the Kommiefornia Gulag. Legal hunting is allowed on most public lands *not* target shooting. BLM lands slightly different story you must check with local authorities or risk the Kommie Gulag.

tacticoolme
05-09-2011, 8:48 AM
That's amazing... libs would rather I shoot a deer than paper and steel??? huh? I'll keep looking for an area I'm free to camp and shoot at paper less than a days drive away, thanks for the reply.

Looks like there's a national forest in Utah nine hours from me... Great, now the libs are making me increase my carbon footrpint to go shooting... do prius's come in 4wd?

woodnsteel
05-09-2011, 10:07 PM
I think the main reason for the closure is due to "them" not being able keep the OLL's from being used-a key feature to the enjoyment of legislation is being able to enforce it.
Without the ability to enforce the AW ban on OLL's they just decided to take away our ranges instead-for the time being that is...