Thread: The future of Rifle Ranges.

Originally Posted by jackson21

I think something in this discussion has been missed, you also need all "Council Conscents" in place to my knowledge? Whilst many may fall under existing use categories and no problem in some districts where they understand to try and cater for all constients. Other areas the lengths councils have gone to shut clubs has just seemed to fall in line with current govts overall agendas around sports they don't approve of.

The range certification process requires the range operator acknowledge they have all necessary Local Territory Consents. For a new permanent range (i.e. doesn't fall under existing use) with build firing lines, berms, buildings, infrastructure, etc. this will likely need building and earthworks consents.
For a new range that just has some target frames out and no substantial infrastructure (i.e. more of a field range) then in many areas shooting is considered a legitimate secondary land use for farmland (i.e. range doesn't change the primary land use in the eyes of the Council hence no consent required.

Overall my view on range certification is that it is bureaucracy because the bureaucracy knows nothing else - it is driven by Police perception and a Government that didn't listen to actual users. Historical incident rates prove existing ranges (including "unofficial" target shooting on farms) don't have problems - and they haven't had a certification regime either. Range certification is therefore a complete waste of taxpayer, and range operator money.

For example how will the effectiveness of the money spent be measured in 5 years time? By a reduced incident rate?
But there isn't a measurable incident rate at the moment?

Originally Posted by Gillie

The range certification process requires the range operator acknowledge they have all necessary Local Territory Consents. For a new permanent range (i.e. doesn't fall under existing use) with build firing lines, berms, buildings, infrastructure, etc. this will likely need building and earthworks consents.
For a new range that just has some target frames out and no substantial infrastructure (i.e. more of a field range) then in many areas shooting is considered a legitimate secondary land use for farmland (i.e. range doesn't change the primary land use in the eyes of the Council hence no consent required.

Overall my view on range certification is that it is bureaucracy because the bureaucracy knows nothing else - it is driven by Police perception and a Government that didn't listen to actual users. Historical incident rates prove existing ranges (including "unofficial" target shooting on farms) don't have problems - and they haven't had a certification regime either. Range certification is therefore a complete waste of taxpayer, and range operator money.

For example how will the effectiveness of the money spent be measured in 5 years time? By a reduced incident rate?
But there isn't a measurable incident rate at the moment?

Totally agree. This should have been a process to encourage people to join clubs & organisations to teach best practices. Using participating users of what would practically work in this country and achieve whatever goal they are trying to achieve?

Cynically to me it is just yet another Trojan horse by bureaucrats in part of a wider agenda to wind down and severely limit firearms use in New Zealand through economics.

Make every part of shooting sports expensive, cumbersome and hard so numbers dwindle over time. Eventually death by a thousand cuts you have a tiny group that politically then you can do what you want with.