Maud road?

[AKDoug]

I pre-apologize for the crappy I-Phone photos. In these pics you can see the unacceptable parking area. In the following photo you can see one of the four areas that I passed that are routinely used for shooting. In this case, two guys were leaving before I snapped the photo. I certainly hope I can not be painted as anti-gun, anti-shooting, or anti-range. I annually donate thousands of $$ personally and through my business to 2nd amendment and shooting cause, I chair an FNRA committee that raised over $26,000 in 2013, and I am on the board of a local gun range. I wish every shooter was a good as Smitty, 68Bronco or myself. If that was the case public lands could be wide open to shooting. Unfortunately most of the public shooting areas look like the one in my photo below and that cannot be allowed to continue. I don't know what it's going to take to educate folks to stop littering and clean up after themselves. I do know that the range at Maud Rd. is going to do nothing to further the cause. Once it's destroyed (and it will be unless an active club adopts it) and the cost that the state wasted on it, the anti-gun range folks are going to hold it up as evidence that we cannot be trusted. This design should have never been approved without simply going online and researching it http://range.nra.org/sourcebook.aspx The wasted money is what pisses me off the most.

 

[Music Man]

68 Bronco
So, you want everyone to wait 10 or 15 yrs.? Or do you want it stopped for ever? Simple question, can you answer it?

 

[sharps5090]

I have to disagree with AKDoug. I think it is a very nice range, money well spent.
Just need more of them.

Also that last picture is not of the range, not sure what he was trying to show.

 

[rbuck351]

Does anyone here understand that this is phase one of three. This is not the finished range. According to plans there will be high berms along the parking lot side and berms between the, to be, pistol range and the rifle range. I'm not sure why you think the parking is unacceptable as it looks fine to me. The last picture is not of the range and has nothing to do with the range. It is an illegal place to shoot, has been for a long time and probably will remain so. A few busts by the Troopers for trespassing there would probably stop the mess. The range will not stop some folks from committing crimes. The range is simply a much needed place for people to shoot legally and when completed should have room for around twenty firing positions. We as a shooting community are going to have to help keep slob shooters from bringing junk there to shoot and leave. We may have to step out of our comfort zone and become unpleasant to those that want to trash our range. Maybe taking videos of those trashing it and forwarding them to the Troopers. I for one am going to help keep the place from being trashed. If I see someone trashing the place I WILL report them and their license plate.

 

[68 Bronco]

68 Bronco
So, you want everyone to wait 10 or 15 yrs.? Or do you want it stopped for ever? Simple question, can you answer it?

I can address this, yes, but perhaps not in the way you wish. Simple question made complicated by hasty moves already past.

Waiting 10 or 15 years is out of the question as the range is open and in place, although the typical revision period for land use plans may result in some alterations near a similar time span. Public outcry over problems could also affect changes at any time if management success does not emerge. Legal challenges to such messes are also not uncommon. Quote DNR upper management, "This is our first big project of this type and we need to do it right".

From the DNR Final KRPUA Final Plan:

"Management Guidelines
• Shooting areas with specified hours/days of operation should be designated within the
planning area. Areas will be located where shooting can occur in a safe manner and
where impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are minimized. Although DNR will
identify and designate areas for shooting range development, it is intended that local
groups interested in operation of a shooting range would apply to DNR for
development and operation of a facility. "

The first "intended", being "development", in contrast to the 'Plan,' has already been in very large part abandoned and assimilated by State (public) funding. The second "intended" listed is an acknowledged dire need, and a 'cart before the horse' situation - not the first for the KRPUA.

When DNR had the area hastily cleared of trees (on an unacceptable slope orientation) before the Public Comment period was over, the excuse given was 'Division of Forestry did it', as though there was no relation whatsoever to the range location, and even though forestry is not a function within the KRPUA Plan. Folks just are not that dumb. Further reasoning was that it 'needed done before bird nesting season' and the "availability of grant funding" - which refers to the first $20K provided by NRA. This, along with what many folks felt was an errant and biased vetting of the site resulted in public trust being broken and user divisions exacerbated, as it was quite clear that closed door motions were underway.

In summary, a very rough and somewhat complex start to this project!

As to my personal wishes (speaking to your direct question), I have suggestions and have made some to the SC DNR Manager, Clark Cox. I have asked questions, some of which have yet to be answered.
First, understand that by the time the range development came about, I was personally sick of the deceits/misinformation documented in the forming of the KRPUA and DNR's biased enabling of same (verifiable by the record with some also inadvertently confirmed by the State's own attorney, if any one wants to debate). With some of the same individuals responsible for and immersed in this range project - I basically stayed my distance. There were already plenty of participants on both sides, so I held my testimonies primarily to concerns about the drainage into the wetlands (which DNR acknowledged and addressed) and to noise abatement concerns at the location (I suggested others - not considered). I think I sent some studies regarding noise disturbances to waterfowl, as well. As a shooter, I was a man in the middle, supportive of a range done properly in the KRPUA but also appreciative of quiet activities - and not fully accepted by groups on either side of the debate as a result.
Other users of the area have related that they felt DNR chose this area where the sound carries off the cliffs as a "slap in the face" to quiet users and conservationists. Clark Cox says, "We all hear it equally, don't we?" There are many users that enjoy quiet, and no, all did not need to 'hear it equally'. There were options, had hasty decisions and actions not ruled. Shooters in these pages have also expressed doubts regarding noise abatement at this location.

DNR has followed a path, so far, of providing unenforceable amenities for special interests, rather than the one thing that every single user group stressed before the legislature as priority No.1 - effective enforcement.
We have the cart before the horse at the new range and AKDoug has it right - it needs a serious group to adopt it ASAP. That will not be me, after volunteering way too long already in the drive for reason in this area accessible to 300K+ users. May as well be Central Park in some respects and we need to take care of it. 'Winners' of the KRPUA fiasco are now, ironically, facing the very problems that others recognized early on.

We have shooters here that proclaim the archaic "Junk Science" argument, eschewed end all to discussions, and relate that 'we don't know how much lead is in the wetlands'. Such proclamations will only further exacerbate users divisions and possibly imply to the uneducated shooter that it is OK to shoot skeet over Mud and Jim Lakes. Other users are simply not going to "go away" and is a wholly inappropriate remark. Even were I to take this, as directed, personally and 'go away' - little difference would result.

I have asked DNR how they intend to enforce hrs. of operation, closed range days, and prevent vandalism. I have gone a step further and suggested that two consecutive days be considered for closure. Personally, I feel this would be a sensible step towards closing the already exacerbated user division between shooters and other users. Folks used to enjoy overnight canoe trips, etc. in the area. MSB used to advertise the canoe trails - I have the map they printed. The way it is now, ea. shots rings out over great distance for approx. three seconds. "Go away" does not cut it. I advise a more conciliatory approach, otherwise the divisions will continue to rage. Give other users a quiet time to enjoy.

Noise abatement at the range may or may not be successful, but I hope it makes enough difference that everyone can enjoy the facility as well as other traditional activities in the area. This needs done as soon as possible.

Keeping the range open while incomplete and unmanaged invites further, and all too familiar, issues, no doubt - but changing that politically charged situation is certainly beyond my energy quotient or grasp and I have no pity for those inviting their self induced headaches on the matter.

Regarding the messes on adjacent Eklutna lands, DNR is "... working with them, but they have no funds or personnel..". Translation - nothing to work with. I have asked DNR if they really have no enforcement authority whatsoever on the State easement to Mud Lk. Likely, they do not.
That means that if folks want the illegal shooting/trashing abated on those lands, appeals to Eklutna Inc. and education of the problem visitors on Maud Rd. (generally attracted by the KRPUA) are recourses that need ardently pursued. I have suggested redoubling education efforts to DNR.

Anyone here notice the apparent range violation in AKDoug's 2nd photo posted?

A quote from the late Austin Helmers for consideration -

"I try to look at the Jim Swan issues in positive terms. There are at least 17 types of recreational user groups that could find visiting the area a rewarding experience - given appropriate considerations for the habitats. However, the current trend dominated by only a couple of users groups is rapidly destroying, and permanently, the experience for all others.
Besides planning, the key to to preserving this area will be enforcement."

 

[68 Bronco]

Does anyone here understand that this is phase one of three. This is not the finished range. According to plans there will be high berms along the parking lot side and berms between the, to be, pistol range and the rifle range. I'm not sure why you think the parking is unacceptable as it looks fine to me. The last picture is not of the range and has nothing to do with the range. It is an illegal place to shoot, has been for a long time and probably will remain so. A few busts by the Troopers for trespassing there would probably stop the mess. The range will not stop some folks from committing crimes. The range is simply a much needed place for people to shoot legally and when completed should have room for around twenty firing positions. We as a shooting community are going to have to help keep slob shooters from bringing junk there to shoot and leave. We may have to step out of our comfort zone and become unpleasant to those that want to trash our range. Maybe taking videos of those trashing it and forwarding them to the Troopers. I for one am going to help keep the place from being trashed. If I see someone trashing the place I WILL report them and their license plate.

Yes, some of us do understand that. Others should do their research on the KRPUA website by reading all available on the range.
A berm to be constructed between the parking lot and range should indeed help the placement concerns.

The only connection between the range and the last picture is the shooters (and others) being drawn to the general area to recreate. Somehow getting Eklutna Inc, to act on this holds benefits for all.

 

[Smitty of the North]

I certainly hope I can not be painted as anti-gun, anti-shooting, or anti-range.

You sound like the "I'm a HUNTER, but I don't think Bear Baiting is Ethical" crowd".

Smitty of the North

 

[Smitty of the North]

Does anyone here understand that this is phase one of three. This is not the finished range. According to plans there will be high berms along the parking lot side and berms between the, to be, pistol range and the rifle range. I'm not sure why you think the parking is unacceptable as it looks fine to me. The last picture is not of the range and has nothing to do with the range. It is an illegal place to shoot, has been for a long time and probably will remain so. A few busts by the Troopers for trespassing there would probably stop the mess. The range will not stop some folks from committing crimes. The range is simply a much needed place for people to shoot legally and when completed should have room for around twenty firing positions. We as a shooting community are going to have to help keep slob shooters from bringing junk there to shoot and leave. We may have to step out of our comfort zone and become unpleasant to those that want to trash our range. Maybe taking videos of those trashing it and forwarding them to the Troopers. I for one am going to help keep the place from being trashed. If I see someone trashing the place I WILL report them and their license plate.

Yours is a voice of Reason.

Smitty of the North

 

[Smitty of the North]

I can address this, [
[/FONT]

yadda, yadda, yadda,

Too many places are CLOSED to Shooting already, and for no good reasons.

As I said at the outset. You're no help in this. You make things worse for everyone.

You act like the world is being destroyed. You are much too creative.

What do you hope to gain from this? Would you like to have a Swamp named after you?

Smitty of the North

 

[Music Man]

yadda, yadda, yadda,

Too many places are CLOSED to Shooting already, and for no good reasons.

As I said at the outset. You're no help in this. You make things worse for everyone.

You act like the world is being destroyed. You are much too creative.

What do you hope to gain from this? Would you like to have a Swamp named after you?

Smitty of the North

No! He wants a range named after him that no one else can use.

 

[Smitty of the North]

No! He wants a range named after him that no one else can use.

I notice how he answered your "simple question" with 12 paragraphs of gobbledegook attempting to define the issue on his own terms. His issues are not my issues.

Smitty of the North

 

[68 Bronco]

I notice how he answered your "simple question" with 12 paragraphs of gobbledegook attempting to define the issue on his own terms. His issues are not my issues.

Smitty of the North

And I realize that answering Music Man's loaded question with one word, "Neither" and foregoing any attempts at explanation would have been a better option on my part for you considerate fellers.

 

[Smitty of the North]

And I realize that answering Music Man's loaded question with one word, "Neither" and foregoing any attempts at explanation would have been a better option on my part for you considerate fellers.

From your "explanation", it's clear that "Neither" would not be an honest answer.

Judging by your unreasonable, and rabid opposition to it, you would like to see the range, done away with, and you would would gladly accept delay. You will use anything, a law, a regulation, propaganda, etc, to further your foolish cause. So why don't you just admit it?

Your supposed concerns, about shooting at the range, are IMO, manufactured ones.

Please tell, what terrible calamities await us if the range is completed, and people have another, much needed place to enjoy their firearms.

Smitty of the North

 

[68 Bronco]

From your "explanation", it's clear that "Neither" would not be an honest answer.

Judging by your unreasonable, and rabid opposition to it, you would like to see the range, done away with, and you would would gladly accept delay. You will use anything, a law, a regulation, propaganda, etc, to further your foolish cause. So why don't you just admit it?

Your supposed concerns, about shooting at the range, are IMO, manufactured ones.

Please tell, what terrible calamities await us if the range is completed, and people have another, much needed place to enjoy their firearms.

Smitty of the North

"Neither" is my firm and honest answer.

Why would anyone bother continuing to respond to someone whom has consistently and ardently prejudged, presupposed what one "will" and "would" do, hurled numerous sarcastic insults, and has not responded to questions asked of themselves?

Our one on one conversations are finished, Smitty.

 

[hogfamily]

You sound like the "I'm a HUNTER, but I don't think Bear Baiting is Ethical" crowd".

Smitty of the North

Nope he is not. I know Doug personally.

Doug has done a lot for the shooting sports and hunting.

Best not to comment about someone you know nothing about.

 

[Smitty of the North]

"Neither" is my firm and honest answer.

Why would anyone bother continuing to respond to someone whom has consistently and ardently prejudged, presupposed what one "will" and "would" do, hurled numerous sarcastic insults, and has not responded to questions asked of themselves?

Our one on one conversations are finished, Smitty.

Good Plan.

Smitty of the North

 

[Smitty of the North]

Nope he is not. I know Doug personally.

Doug has done a lot for the shooting sports and hunting.

Best not to comment about someone you know nothing about.

I know him too, sorta. I dunno if I'd recognize him again.

My response was just to express, that to me, it seems sort of traitorous to be in favor of shooting, and to support it to the degree claimed, then be so OPPOSED to another Range, that he is not associated with.

I'm disappointed that he said what he said, but Bronco, who is possibly the range's worst enemy, LOVES it.

I didn't say he didn't support shooting and hunting, nor did I say anything ABOUT him. I commented TO him.

Perhaps, you're the one who shouldn't comment. (Until you get a better grasp of the English Language.)

Smitty of the North

 

[Munster]

First of all, I am an avid hunter and shoot at the range from time to time. The blatant disregard for others that I have seen by folks "shooting" is astonishing. I will use Kodiak as my focus. If it has a flat spot on it, it has a bullet hole in it. Nearly every road sign, public restroom, and anything else that will fit in a crosshair, has holes in it. Clay targets litter the beaches at Pillar and Monashka. Folks have the "I can do what I want because its Alaska" attitude and it fuels the fires for the anti gun/hunting crowd. A small illegal range sits atop a cliff overlooking Monashka bay, with the only backstop being the open ocean. Very irresponsible!! The more of the poor behavior goes on, the more ammo the anti's have. Bronco is spot on, these things need to managed properly.

 

[hogfamily]

I know him too, sorta. I dunno if I'd recognize him again.

My response was just to express, that to me, it seems sort of traitorous to be in favor of shooting, and to support it to the degree claimed, then be so OPPOSED to another Range, that he is not associated with.

I'm disappointed that he said what he said, but Bronco, who is possibly the range's worst enemy, LOVES it.

I didn't say he didn't support shooting and hunting, nor did I say anything ABOUT him. I commented TO him.

Maybe you should reread what you posted...You are the one that suggested that Doug, as a hunter, may not support bear baiting. Regardless, if that is a comment about him or to him you still commented on someone you know nothing about.

Perhaps, you're the one who shouldn't comment. (Until you get a better grasp of the English Language.)

Smitty of the North

Doug commented on the safety concerns he has about the range. I would say that he knows more than most of us about what a safe range is.

I'm thinking I'm done discussing this with you also.

 

[Smitty of the North]

Doug commented on the safety concerns he has about the range. I would say that he knows more than most of us about what a safe range is.

I'm thinking I'm done discussing this with you also.

"You are the one that suggested that Doug, as a hunter, may not support bear baiting. Regardless, if that is a comment about him or to him you still commented on someone you know nothing about."

That, IN QUOTES is utter nonsense. If I suggested anything, it was that he had gone over to the enemy. I expected MORE of him.

The Bear Baiting thing was just an example. I said,,,,,, "You sound like the "I'm a HUNTER, but I don't think Bear Baiting is Ethical" crowd".

When I spoke of you getting a "better grasp of the English Language" it was half in jest, but now it seems I gave you too much credit.

And, you say that "I" don't know what I'm talking about. Well, at least I can read.

I can appreciate that you wanted to defend a friend. That's laudable, but it would help if you paid closer attention to the facts.

Smitty of the North