High Sierra Topix

I didn't appreciate lots of loud target shooting at all hours when trying to camp near Hooper Diversion Dam (Florence area) the past two Labor Day weekends.

Unless a specific closure area shooting should be legal in that area.

If politicians that have never shot a gun in their life did not think suppressors sound like the cliché quite noise used in every fictional media than they would be legal in California and we would be glad to shoot with them on.

RoguePhotonic wrote:

I didn't appreciate lots of loud target shooting at all hours when trying to camp near Hooper Diversion Dam (Florence area) the past two Labor Day weekends.

Unless a specific closure area shooting should be legal in that area.

If politicians that have never shot a gun in their life did not think suppressors sound like the cliché quite noise used in every fictional media than they would be legal in California and we would be glad to shoot with them on.

Oh, yes, it probably was legal and I have accepted to just not hang out and sleep near the river crossing beyond Florence spillway/dam area on Labor Day weekend. My next door neighbor is an avid hunter and camper with favorite spots a few miles from Henry Coe. I grew up in the State of Jefferson region and have tons of friends and acquaintances who love their guns, but I doubt many would bring them for target shooting at all hours while camping near other dispersed campers in a known boondock camping area and not far from a forest service campground. Anyway, better spots downriver a bit and I was fine. I didn't bother to look up the legality. It seemed like hunting opening had started or was nearing from who I was seeing around. The guy open carrying his handgun while fishing and backpacking at Chamberlain Lake with his dad and girlfriend gave me a chuckle. That was a new one for me on a Sierra hike. Given it is not an easy jaunt up there, it was actually kind of crowded with backpackers closing their season too. I found some peace and quiet up on Mt. Hooper. Nice views!

Although I can understand night shooting since I have done it myself it's certainly bad etiquette to do so if other people are camped near by.

Only twice I have had people shooting near me on trail. Once near the Muir Trail Ranch (coming from the ranch). And on the PCT high trail many miles North of Agnew Meadows.

it's certainly bad etiquette to do so if other people are camped near by.

Thank you for clarifying Rogue. I was concerned about factions of gun lovers going out and shooting up a storm just for fun. It's not written in the constitution that we have a right to sleep, but I would argue at 2am, our right to sleep trumps the right to generate excessive noise, whether it be from guns or boom boxes. Violating basic courtesies would be a good way to start losing such rights. Of course actual enforcement of any rules in the middle of nowhere can be an issue.

On a separate note we do find on occasions a hunter that will fire off a few rounds, but it almost always ends shortly and isn't too big of a deal. We've been more fortunate than Sean. More disturbing is my last two trips into the forest we've found clay skeets lying trailside shattered. I hope the people who shot them were well aware of their surroundings but I really have to wonder.

Like any group of people there are plenty of shooters that don't exercise proper safety and are generally assholes. People get so angry when a place gets closed off to their activity but when you are the cause who do you blame? I will go up into the national forest boundary near me and as soon as you get there you will find thousands of shells lying around and tons of trash everywhere.

You can email Director Deanna Lynn Wulff: deanna@deannalynnwulff.com

National Monuments are often a stepping stone to designation as a National Park. National Monument management goal is preservationist priority. I agree that if you are worried about public lands being sold, a Monument designation makes this more difficult. I think a lot of the talk about privatizing the National Forests is alarmist, as is the talk about "preservation = totally shutting out people". There would be a public outcry if the Sierra NF were to propose to privatize. The Forest Service manages for overall forest health (which may differ from a pure preservationist goal) and broader use. Both types of management are needed. I just feel we already have enough of the Sierra designated as National Parks. What is to say that a Sierra National Monument is not just a step to designate it as a National Park? I feel that a better solution is to better fund our National Forests so they are not always on the brink of insolvency. Based solely on my personal experience, in many states, National Park- National Monument lands are both more expensive and more restrictive relative to my personal use. They tend to develop more facilities in a small area of the monument, and then restrict use in the "backcountry". Sometimes this results in a better experience, sometimes not.

WD, that expresses my general sentiments; well said!

As far as etiquette, I specifically go to Sierra NF and similar places to avoid national park atmosphere, crowds, camping restrictions, dog restrictions, mountain bike restrictions, and fees; I have had good luck avoiding situations like I described in my other posts in all cases besides that specific location and spot on the calendar.

No need for it and decades 2 2 2 too late for that idea to be practical. YNP, Ansel Adams, John Muir Wilderness already protects the lake high country areas. A lot of the mid forests areas are not particularly scenic and in fact many in the San Joaquin River basin have had fires and look it. Hikers don't use those areas much, hunters more during limited seasons. Climbers use the roads to access the domes shown on that site's video. Lower down in those canyons are few public roads but considerable amount of water dam storage and hydro infrastructure. Is there some reason to think any of those areas are in danger from development? I doubt it. That recent nutzo bill to sell off BLM and NF properties might get traction in conservative Rockies states but has zero chance here in California. If they want to work on something useful, better to work on better funding for national forest agencies as they now exist because they have been in skeleton mode ever since Reagan.

I checked the Madera county Board of Supervisors site and found something very interesting. If you want bed-time story fodder, then go to http://www.madera-county.com/index.php/ ... n/topvideo, select "Video" for date of April 14, and in the popup choose item 11.

The main points:

They basically want to have management of the forest themselves instead of the feds, though if I interpreted correctly, they wanted the USFS to still do the actual work. Also, they wanted to do some massive tree thinning, which perhaps is not such a bad idea, but the motivational reasons also included generating more downstream water flow for valley towns. Chopping down trees to generate water flow sounds like a bad idea.