Shooting on BLM Land

[M1A Rifleman]

My point was that a Ranger did in fact decide on her own to close a NF to target shooting. She used the 150' rule and this required shooters to hike into an area away from the road and their vehicle, which made it rather difficult if not impossible, which was the intent of the Ranger. The end result was that a rule clarification was issued by the Dept of Agr. The clarification included a provision indicating a forrest area can be closed to shooting but only under special circumstances. So what I posted is not FUD, however I have not been able to verify the actual requirement of a permit to target shoot in the southland. It apprears the three designated sjhooting ranges are allowed by a "use permit" for opperation of the range, which is different and not the same as a requirement that shooters obtain a permit.

[MudCamper]

My point was that a Ranger did in fact decide on her own to close a NF to target shooting. She used the 150' rule and this required shooters to hike into an area away from the road and their vehicle, which made it rather difficult if not impossible, which was the intent of the Ranger. The end result was that a rule clarification was issued by the Dept of Agr. The clarification included a provision indicating a forrest area can be closed to shooting but only under special circumstances. So it is not FUD.

I am not trying to win an argument with you, although that seems to be what you are trying to do. Go back and look at what we've been discussing. We've been discussing whether or not a BLM/FS area or personnel can require a shooting permit:

a proprietor tried to convince me that a new law/regulation had just become effective requiring either a permit or pre-existing hunting license to target shoot on BLM land.

It was reported in another thread yesterday that there is in fact a new rule regarding a requirement for a permit to target shoot within the NF within the southland, so I would imagine this includes BLM.

As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, I am aware of no authority for any BLM or FS personnel to do this, but all that they can do restrict shooting per 36 CFR 261.58.

Again, the rumor that the OP stated appears to be FUD, unless somebody can post some kind of evidence otherwise.

[M1A Rifleman]

I am not trying to win an argument with you, although that seems to be what you are trying to do. Go back and look at what we've been discussing. We've been discussing whether or not a BLM/FS area or personnel can require a shooting permit:

.

No, no, don't mis-understand me. I'm not trying to win anything. I don't post FUD, at least not intentionally. I only provided a link to a post where another stated a permit was required for the NF in souther CA.

[MudCamper]

No, no, don't mis-understand me. I'm not trying to win anything. I don't post FUD, at least not intentionally. I only provided a link to a post where another stated a permit was required for the NF in souther CA.

OK. I see the specific post now. It was this one.

Regarding SoCal Nat'l Forests, they are now governed under a rule requiring shooting in "designated areas" only. They also require a permit to be purchased and displayed in your vehicle when you go shooting in those areas. Those areas can and are closed at the whim of local ranger districts due to "fire danger". As was the case with the Orosco Ridge shooting area in the Cleveland Nat'l Forest last month, the Forest Service rangers simply locked the gate leading to the area, thus keeping us out.

They can and do close areas for "fire danger". Although you are correct, not just any ranger can. It must be a "Forest Supervisor", and it must be posted. My beef is with the "require a permit to be purchased" statement.

[M1A Rifleman]

My beef is with the "require a permit to be purchased" statement.

10-4. I don't think this is correct either as I have not found this requirement by a simple search. Only the reference to a "Use Permit" for the range to operate, which is not the same.

[ppknut]

In the Cleveland NF here in San Diego, ANY user of the forest service who parks a vehicle within the forest lands is required to have an "Adventure Pass." This is for recreational hikers, skiers, sledders, and so on. I have no problem with this requirement. It is not related to shooting, per se.

I was just wondering if the guy who spouted the crap about a "license" of some sort for BLM land was as fos as I thought he was.