Bill Overview
Title: Range Access Act
Description: This bill directs the Departments of Agriculture and of the Interior to identify suitable locations for, and construct, shooting ranges on National Forest System land and public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, respectively, for the public to use for recreational target shooting. Such shooting ranges may not charge a fee to use the range.
Sponsors: Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who participate in recreational target shooting
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill affects those who participate in recreational target shooting, which is a popular activity in the United States and other countries.
- National Forest System lands and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management cover vast areas, attracting a significant number of recreational users annually.
- In the United States, there are estimated to be tens of millions of recreational shooters who could benefit from increased access to shooting ranges.
- While global estimates are harder to ascertain, recreational shooting is popular in many countries with access to firearms.
Reasoning
- The budget of $150,000,000 in year 1 suggests building a limited number of high-quality shooting ranges can be achieved within the constraints.
- With an estimated 30 million recreational shooters, the impact on individual wellbeing scores might be varied, depending on geographic proximity to new ranges and access patterns.
- The simulated individuals' wellbeing scores consider current access to shooting ranges, expected improvements from new ranges, and general life satisfaction.
- Both directly impacted and neutral observers are included to estimate the policy's reach.
Simulated Interviews
IT Developer (Colorado)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more shooting ranges would be great, it saves me time and travel costs.
- Free access is a huge plus, more people can enjoy the sport without worrying about fees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
School Teacher (Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already have access to private facilities, so this doesn't change much for me.
- It's a step in the right direction for promoting shooting sports among new participants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Ohio)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's nice for the younger folks, but I doubt it'll change much for me.
- I'm satisfied with my local facilities and the community we've built there.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Wildlife Biologist (California)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the environmental impact this might have.
- It's good for accessibility but should be balanced with conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
College Student (New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could make it easier for me to get into shooting sports.
- I hope it includes urban areas for better access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Park Ranger (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing access is generally positive if managed properly.
- I'd like to ensure environmental safeguards are in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Barista (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will encourage people like me to start shooting.
- It's a good initiative but access in remote areas could still be an issue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Alabama)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Love the idea of more ranges, makes hosting events easier.
- Free access will promote youth programs, a big plus for us here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Washington)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's beneficial to have more options for shooters.
- I might use them more often if they're easier to access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Truck Driver (Utah)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate having more places to shoot during my routes.
- The fact that it's free is a nice bonus, more hobby time, less stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing recreational needs with environmental impacts of constructing and operating shooting ranges on federal lands.
- Securing sufficient federal funding without relying on user fees to sustain the shooting ranges.
- Maintaining public safety and preventing noise pollution or other disturbances in areas surrounding the ranges.