Knik users: It’s all about us and them

Debate over a shooting range in the Knik River Public Use Area illustrates yet another reason why that once beautiful area is now mostly a smoldering trash pile.

Some of the concerns are legitimate. The sound of rifle fire in the middle of the night is disconcerting given that some neighbors across the river have had bullets strike their properties. More than one Jim Creek angler has heard twigs snapping overhead because a bonehead didn’t care about the direction he was firing.

But people have to understand, shooting range or not, there will be gunfire out there. By offering a firing range, at least there is an effort to manage that shooting. That’s what the debate should be about. When can the range be used? Who will oversee its use? What will be done to mitigate possible runoff containing lead?

These are the questions that people who care about the area — armed or not — can agree on.

The NRA promises to have a presence, even if it’s only a sign, that might remind responsible gun owners to abide by the rules.

We’ll know how that works if the sign stands for a week or two without bullet holes in it.

But the debate over the area goes much deeper than one shooting range.

Nobody who uses that recreation spot can get along. There have been meetings after meetings to try to get folks to agree on trails, camping sites, engines vs. heartbeats. It has become a local disgrace regarding the selfishness exhibited at the meetings.

Attempts to create one set of trails for motorized users and another set for hikers hasn’t worked. Even the hikers resent the horse people because they think horses tear up the trail and probably should be wearing diapers.

This is a recreation area of 420 square miles — 269,305 acres — yet people get upset over restrictions placed on 504 of those acres?

This [is] what needs to be done. All the user groups —target shooters or hunters, hikers or hose [horse] people, ATV riders and nature preservers — should elect two or three people to represent them at a council to decide how the area can be preserved and still used as an outdoor experience for all.

Shouting should be replaced by civil discourse by the elected parties. That way everybody gets a voice in the matter and can help be responsible for making sure their constituents adhere to the agreement.

The other option is to just fence the place off.