DNR Seeks to build 500+ acre shooting range

[FJ540]

I'm completely with those who say stop spending money we don't have. BUT

Private industry hasn't provided what some shooters want. I'd love a 400yd rifle range. 600-800 would be even better. No one can afford that much land to invest in a private facility, or there simply isn't enough money in it to justify the expense (low demand - which is what the DNR is trying to fix).

I agree that the plan is way too shotgun heavy. Even the police ranges I'm aware of have more than 5 lanes indoors for handgun.



Now, since I'm sure this will get pushed through assuming they can find a location (everything they set their mind on gets passed) - I'd like to be on the advisory board so we could HOPE to have something worth using at the end of them spending the money to build it.

[Belgiboy]

Hey, I'm one of the few shotgun competitors here and I think it's shotgun heavy. Only 15 rifle stations??? That's gonna look nice when it's time to sight in the deerslayer. There would have to be triple that amount but with 500+ acres and some careful layout work, it should be possible to accomodate that AND have a couple of long yardage lanes too.

[lenny7]

Devote just one acre to handgun stations and you could have a heck of a lot more than five. Put in 2 or 3 acres for handgun and you could have plenty of space for your tacticool handgun stations too.

Perhaps the thinking is that shotgunning is more palatable to the masses than rifle or handgun? Or more likely, it may be an issue of making sure the lead stays on the premises. To idiot proof rifle and shotgun ranges takes more doing than for trap or skeet ranges. The SCALE Regional Public Safety Training Facility in Jordan has both rifle and handgun ranges with blue-sky barriers and it looks like it takes a lot of concrete to do it:


It would not surprise me to see that the rifle and handgun ranges in this proposed facility would get the same sort of treatment. The old school rifle range with just a berm for a backstop would not fly in the metro area.

[cmj685]

I gotta' say I am pretty proud of you guys--most people who claim to be against higher taxes and more government intrusion in our lives are only against higher taxes and more government until the government promises them they will get whatever they want--then all of a sudden more spending of other people's money is great! The promise of various entitlements constantly lures people to support bigger government and more spending--which is why we are where we are today. But many of you guys are against this project even if it gets you something you would really like! Way to go guys!

[DeanC]

[JJ]

As much as I'd like to see a long range rifle range in the metro area, no way this will work. The DNR can't seem to do anything efficently (or any other gov't agency for that matter). There are lots of clubs around the cities that are open to the public, and lots of clubs that there is no wait to get in. If you want long range rifle, get on the waiting list at GRRC in Harris.

And really do we need that many shotgun stations? A lot of clubs don't even offer skeet anymore and are doing sporting clays. In the metro they would get more traffic from rifle/pistol ranges I would venture to guess.

Out of this I would rather see the money they currently have appropriated go to grants to improve one of the many private clubs around.

[Rip Van Winkle]

My first thought is what I posted on the other board. The last time the state got involved in building a shooting facility they got the brilliant idea of building it in Grand Rapids. I bet most shooters don't even know it exists. Needless to say it's been closed for several years because of lack of use.

Second thought is, after looking at the grand plan (scheme), is they are out of their minds. There is no way a facility that big could ever pay for itself, unless the DNR is expecting to lure in some (multiple) major national shotgun competitions.

[1911fan]

I was talking to an engineer who's company got one of the RFP's for this, and their suggestion was to make the 100 and 200 yard rifle ranges underground, or at least, ground sheltered. Several benefits exist, from heating and cooling costs to safety and noise abatement, and they believe the system they proposed was CHEAPER than what would be required to make an open air range safe and quiet. If the rifle range was covered with say, 3 feet of earth, over a layer of concrete panels, there would never be a chance of a "lost" round ending up in someone's yard or window. It would also have the benefit of being naturally cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. with a mild positive airflow toward the target end, ventilation would keep the firing area's almost completely free of any combustion gases.

While the MSSEC (as mentioned in Grand Rapids) did fail, the basic reasoning behind such a place does stand firm when you get to shooting in any Metro area. Lots of people in the Cities shoot. Finding places that are safe, convenient, and capable of handling large national competitions are very difficult. Grand Rapids failed in the model as run because so many people up there just have places to shoot without the need of an established range.

As to funding, I would be willing to pay an addition buck or two for small game or deer licenses to fund this, and I would say that I would even opine that this increase could be applied to only Metro area residents to prevent outstaters from rattling on about the "the Cities" getting all the benefit.

Shooting sports is a growing TV market as well, and having a place like this that could be used and funded by importing some TV revenue would be very likely.

I do not want to see this paid for by general fund tax dollars.

I have talked to several people lately that have said in the high schools, there is a movement to bring back shooting sports as a sanctioned activity. Wouldn't it be great to have a state HS trap, Skeet, Combined Clays, small bore and Bullseye competition happening every year as a way to build public support?

[FJ540]

200yds indoors in january would be awesome. I also like that with the high walls, there's less issues with wind.

[tweener]

what city or county wants to take 500+ acres off their property tax rolls.

[cmj685]

Since I am just getting ready to retire here after a career with the Federal government, I can safely say that no one should actually think that the prime reason the DNR wants this is...for young hunters, or any other kind of hunters for that matter. There is only one reason anything in government is proposed and done ultimately--because the agency which heads it up will get huge budget increases, significantly expanded oversight roles, large increases in staffing, and really incredible new promotion opportunities as many new staff and high-ranking positions have to be created to command and to staff the project. We have to understand how a government agency grows. It doesn't grow if it just does its job. Indeed, because of technology and being able to do more with less, that is the one sure way to shrink the agency. It grows by constantly expanding its oversight roles--by creating more and more really "important public services" to "serve the public". But to do that--to convince people that the government has a crucial role--it has to consistently come up with creative new "problems" which can then only be solved by the government agency for the sake of the people. This is simply another new "problem" which the DNR has come up with because only it can then provide the "solution" for the sake of the poor public which otherwise has no recourse for shooting. No one should ever fool themselves that a government agency proposes something to serve the people because...well, it just ain't so.

[JoeH]

CMJ FTW

[Rip Van Winkle]

Since I am just getting ready to retire here after a career with the Federal government, I can safely say that no one should actually think that the prime reason the DNR wants this is...for young hunters, or any other kind of hunters for that matter. There is only one reason anything in government is proposed and done ultimately--because the agency which heads it up will get huge budget increases, significantly expanded oversight roles, large increases in staffing, and really incredible new promotion opportunities as many new staff and high-ranking positions have to be created to command and to staff the project. We have to understand how a government agency grows. It doesn't grow if it just does its job. Indeed, because of technology and being able to do more with less, that is the one sure way to shrink the agency. It grows by constantly expanding its oversight roles--by creating more and more really "important public services" to "serve the public". But to do that--to convince people that the government has a crucial role--it has to consistently come up with creative new "problems" which can then only be solved by the government agency for the sake of the people. This is simply another new "problem" which the DNR has come up with because only it can then provide the "solution" for the sake of the poor public which otherwise has no recourse for shooting. No one should ever fool themselves that a government agency proposes something to serve the people because...well, it just ain't so.

That would tend to explain the "Taj Mahal" scale of this proposed project.

[ttousi]

They have been batting this around for years.. I participated in a round table discussion on the subject of centralized DNR ranges about 4-5 yrs ago..Even got paid for my time.

[justaguy]

..Even got paid for my time.

You SOB!