Doc

Yeah and people ride down the road swerving all over the place ignoring texting and cell-phone laws. They don't wear seat belts. They speed. There probably is not a law that hasn't been broke. So what? And I love all these statistical statements posed as fact. The real fact is that 50 yards is simply too darned close to be legally able to shoot at or around someone's house or even yard without their permission. It completely amazes me that anyone would even argue that point.

This is something else to keep in mind. This change to a 50 yard setback may very well force entire villages and townships and such to now implement local total exclusions of archery activity which could take in even areas that are currently in conformance with the 500' rule.

No I don't think you have anything to worry about there. I don't think that there is anybody that matters that can't separate out the issues from their hatred of Cuomo. His support of anything that has to do with sportsmen and women is very transparent. Almost comically so.

You maybe right. But then you may be wrong. If you ever find where somebody has taken such a poll, let us know. I will say this.... at least today if a neighbor looks over and sees somebody standing 50 yards away pointing their bow at an un-backstopped target that is nicely lined up with his livingroom window, he at least has some legal recourse to put a stop to it.

You know, if the gun manufacturers had only painted the AR-style rifles pink and put little teddy-bear decals on them, there would never have been any problem.

You may be right. But then, you may be wrong ..... lol.

Ha-ha .... So, I see this crossbow thread is taking the usual direction. Everybody having fun yet? ..... lol.

Backyard target practice may very well be the worst aspect of this whole set-back change proposal.

So is that a bow or a slingshot?.....lol

I understand what is trying to be achieved with this set-back proposal. The DEC is trying to control populations that are currently uncontrollable. They need to be able to access and allow hunting in areas where human population density makes it nearly impossible. But there is a problem when the only methods proposed run smack into the face of property owners rights and expectations of privacy and safety. I know which side of those two choices I come down on. There is also another aspect to it all that involves safety. Even current setback laws have left out verbiage regarding shooting at houses, or any regard to back-stopping, or neighbors going about their activities in the path of bow-shots (or gunshots for that matter). So, what is the solution? Well first of all, the 50 yard setback was a bit too aggressive. 100 yards is an improvement that still maintains elements of safety and privacy. Also, the addition of language prohibiting shooting directly at houses (which doesn't exist in any of the current setback laws). There also needs to be some words regarding adequate back-stopping. There also needs to be some requirement that retrieval permissions be granted for at least some minimal distance around a stand. That's not a cure-all, but it requires people to at least be aware of retrieval problems and take some steps toward alleviating that concern. No, none of this is a perfect solution, but at least something reasonable would be in place to address the concerns, rather than simply telling people that they can sit next to their neighbors house and indiscriminately shoot in any direction they want without concern for where the arrow is going to go.

I think the whole point of the discussion has sailed right over your head. Nobody is arguing the process, or where these proposals came from. The question was about the accuracy in the news coverage.

You know, I have yet to hear anyone talk about crossbows in small game season. I suspect everyone is assuming that small game is just a given. But I cannot tell you if small game is included in any of the proposals.

Well, that's a new one. I have yet to read or hear one person yet that has said they are against either of these proposals simply because Cuomo is for it. Did I miss something here? Where did that come from?

It is his budget. He is the author. No one else had the language added to that 2014 budget for these proposals so I have no idea how you can say that he inserted nothing. It is his document. And when I say he did all these things I am allowing that he has a staff that he directs to actually come up with the words and details. So when somebody reports that he supports and in fact is backing these proposals, I completely agree with them ..... he is! As far as the misinformation, I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. If you are trying to paint his insertion of these proposals and resources into his budget as mis-information, I'm not buying it. That is exactly what he is doing. It seems like you are getting all excited about nothing. At least that's the way it looks with what you have included in your replies. So what is your version of truth that has so badly been twisted by these articles? Hey, I'm just trying to help you sleep better at night ... lol.

Seriously? .... Are you guys really going to fight this battle all over again....lol. My gosh you guys really are getting bored. What we need is some energetic soul to go back into the archives and cut and paste all those years of crap and repost it here. There's not a single point that hasn't been repeated at least a couple dozen times.

Point #1 So, I guess the answer is to simply force them to put up with us. I think not. Point #2 These are a few of the many reasons to stay the heck out of these urban and suburban areas completely and I can think of a pile more of them. Who needs that kind of grief and opportunities for conflict? Point #3 I definitely hope that they will not create another book of regulations as to which setbacks apply where. we don't need that kind of confusion added on. Pick one and use it everywhere. Point #4 I believe they went a lot farther than they had to, or should have. 100 yards would be a whole lot less obtrusive.

Are those kinds of pills blue? I've never actually seen one .... lol. An August birth? That is one freaky thing. Somebody got their calendar messed up.

I am trying to stay away from those more incendiary terms .... lol. But I did want to make the point that this law is aimed at trying to force our way into people's privacy where we cannot seem to gain access through willful permission. I think that's a point that people are missing or purposely ignoring. And for those that have interest in the P.R. aspects to our hunting acceptance, the pitfalls may be obvious.

At some point, they must reach a point where they either don't have the ability or they don't have the interest. I don't know exactly what drives that, but it could be something to do with testosterone levels. If so, that may very well mean that "he can't get the job done".

I'm still trying to figure out what all is being done right now to make sure that we are staged for the best results in the next election. I was kind of hoping for a flurry of activity from our gun advocacy groups relating to voter registration, and other activities designed to rally our forces and increase gun owner participation in the next election, rather than crossing our fingers, hoping for the best and sitting back and waiting to see what happens. What exactly is our strategy? Anybody know? It seems like something should be happening right now. Seems like a long time doesn't it. I think we will all be surprised just how fast the next 8 months go by. I hope that time is being used wisely. I know Cuomo and his handlers are working on his re-election every hour of every day, around the clock.

So here is the deal ..... You can hunt anywhere you want and as close to buildings as you want. All you have to do is to get permission to do so. So the whole purpose of this regulation change is to be able to force your way next to houses in cases where you already know it would irritate the home owners to do so. Have I got that right? It is a legal tool to force acceptance of your intrusion into the lives of others that would rather you didn't. Yes, that sounds like something that is good for the image of hunters.

I don't know, but is it possible that the antlerless bucks that appear to be breeding does is simply going through the motions without actually completing the deed? I mean, I have seen button bucks attempt to mount does, but I doubt they really had any success.

Well, I don't know. That triangular shaped barrel and the black color make the gun look evil. I think those features should be added to the "assault rifle" definition. And that bi-pod ...... oh my! Anybody got Cuomo's phone number?

I have been asking the question to the point where I have simply given up. Can anyone point out some language in the law that prohibits mail order ammo components. I can't find it. I believe that the Safe Act doesn't apply to ammo components. I hate to get too loud about this for fear that they will amend the law.

I understand how difficult it must be in some areas to keep the deer in check. The stupid things are even moving into some urban areas where even the proposed 50 yard setback change would not do the job. I was visiting some people down in Naples (and I do mean IN the village) and I saw 3 deer wandering through the yards. A 50 foot setback would not have allowed these deer to be shot. I saw the same thing in Brighton where the distance between houses is only about one driveway width. Herds of 7 or 8 were wandering around in the back yards. Should they make the setback 10 feet to make sure that every one of these deer are subject to harvest? Let's face it, there are going to be some deer that we simply will never be able to control unless we want to put up with some very dangerous and invasive rules changes. Where do we draw the line? I will reiterate what some body on here said....We will continue to push the envelope so far that whole townships will be passing ordinances that forbid any kind of archery to take place throughout the whole township. So where will that have gotten us?