New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[Ford]

Whats going to happen is the DEC is going to be over whelmed with just this type of thing...and the hunters that did decide the buck they watched in the neighbors back yard was "his" buck and set up close..... will be calling and whining about not being allowed to recover...This will lead to some ECO over stepping their authority to get that deer...heres an option only allow the 150ft rule...which should be 300ft...to the taking of DOE ONLY!....Now for all those that loved the rule before this...how does that idea of retrieve hassle...  irritating your or others neighbors sound? I'd bet not so appealing  if honesty is applied

 

"This will lead to some ECO over stepping their authority to get that deer..."

 

And you know this how? I call baloney on that. 

[mike rossi]

Again, Cuomo did not insert anything (with the exception of his head into his you know what, but that happened a loooong time ago haha).

 

The bad journalism thing that I have an issue with is because its misinformation, and people are (obviously) blindly following and running with it. IMO People should make an informed decision on things, not just blindly follow what someone says based on emotions.

 

We already traced this to the initial mail surveys and provided a link to the 5 year plan. If that isn't enough, refer them the NY State Conservation Councils website link about their position statements and resolutions. They have been driving a set back reduction ( though it was 250 feet not 150 feet) for some time, perhaps before coumo was even elected. WNY and me are not denying the governor is "grand standing" on this issue. Was Senator Grisanti and others not grandstanding on his crossbow bill?

 

The importance here is people are still focusing on that grandstanding and have not learned how the dec process works, how their minds are manipulated by partisian politics, and to pay attention to surveys and public comment opportunities. Its called growth, and many are not growing...

 

Although WNYBH supports these setbacks, I oppose them, Yet we both understand the processes which leaded to this and are trying to explain it.

[Doc]

We already traced this to the initial mail surveys and provided a link to the 5 year plan. If that isn't enough, refer them the NY State Conservation Councils website link about their position statements and resolutions. They have been driving a set back reduction ( though it was 250 feet not 150 feet) for some time, perhaps before coumo was even elected. WNY and me are not denying the governor is "grand standing" on this issue. Was Senator Grisanti and others not grandstanding on his crossbow bill?

 

The importance here is people are still focusing on that grandstanding and have not learned how the dec process works, how their minds are manipulated by partisian politics, and to pay attention to surveys and public comment opportunities. Its called growth, and many are not growing...

 

Although WNYBH supports these setbacks, I oppose them, Yet we both understand the processes which leaded to this and are trying to explain it.

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.

[growalot]

Well for one thing...someone has stated such a case on this very forum...and recently I believe and I have seen first hand ECO over stepping their authority in such cases in years past....If the deer could be seen from the road... owner posted or not.... they would go in and retrieve without permission ...For at least one ECO that was SOP on a property where the owner had hundreds of acres of land surrounding a dozen hunting camps and refused to allow recovery and was constantly calling the DEC and state troopers...he would answer his door with a loaded shot gun....They do not have the right to trespass/enter posted property unless investigating a violation of environmental law...

[Doc]

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. 

[mike rossi]

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.

 

Nearly everybody agrees on the "grand standing" and that this is not Cuomo's patent invention... However, nearly nobody is paying attention to how these things are processed, connecting the dots, and becoming aware of how to respond in the future. Even fewer are understanding that the stakeholder input for sportsmen is being delivered by a select few... And then blaming the DEC and/or politicians for the resulting policies... How many times and how many different ways must I state the same thing?

[growalot]

Also take the word hunting out of that last part...remember this opens up back yard target practice...what are they going to say one someone is hit by a stray arrow...Well sorry they were set up legally ..it was "Just a foolish accident"?

[Doc]

Also take the word hunting out of that last part...remember this opens up back yard target practice...what are they going to say one someone is hit by a stray arrow...Well sorry they were set up legally ..it was "Just a foolish accident"?

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

[jjb4900]

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

I'm willing to bet that there's already quite a few backyard target archers that are closer to the neighboring houses than 500'..........probably more than you could count.

[growalot]

 

And you know this how? I call baloney on that.

So because... well I'm in a mood... and the whole your full of it ..liar...all the that's impossible  crap some throw out there.... that I have time and again said...too many ppl on here know me,,,for me to lie about stuff...apparently even some that do and didn't realize it...

 

About the stated guy and land ...Well that guy sold...and did so to one local and one guy from I believe LI..or some where down there...just so you know that what I said is traceable...the local person that partnered up on it ...and seemed to be a nice guy...passed by his own hand...so without pointing out exactly where or giving personal info...I know there is a possibility  that said owners and the land could be recognized.... I could be called out ...if it were not true...

[Doc]

I'm willing to bet that there's already quite a few backyard target archers that are closer to the neighboring houses than 500'..........probably more than you could count.

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

[jjb4900]

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

If you could take a poll , especially on L.I., the number of archers who shoot in their backyard would surprise you.

[Doc]

If you could take a poll , especially on L.I., the number of archers who shoot in their backyard would surprise you.

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. 

[phade]

Backyard archers in villages/cities may be more impacted by local discharge laws.

[growalot]

Which if haven't been put into place wide spread yet...certainly will be after......

[WNYBuckHunter]

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?

 

I wasnt pointing fingers with the comment. Just a general statement is all.

 

[Doc]

I wasnt pointing fingers with the comment. Just a general statement is all.

 

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.

[Doc]

Backyard archers in villages/cities may be more impacted by local discharge laws.

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.

[G-Man]

Backyard archers in villages/cities may be more impacted by local discharge laws.

I've seen more target archery in the subburbs  around buffalo, cheektowaga,lancaser,depew,westseneca. that have dischargelaws and are obviously in violation of 500' regardless. ...for the doom and gloom people that envision shooting out windows, people in yards getting shot,ect...it hasnt happened ,unless its by some kids f-ing around shooting cats n dogs...  the set back for archery that is proposed isnt a big deal. let alone for the guy that has a camp next to a non hunter(more and mor eare buying recreational land) and want to target shoot next to his/her cabin. 500' is 166yards. 150 is 50 yards... 90% of all shots on deer are under 50 yards. I would guess 50% or more of good legal hunters violate the 500' rule on multiple ocasions in their life unknowingly in most circumstances.                                                                                                                                                     For example:                      

we use to shoot off our deck in lancaster, they built a house across the street, we continued to shoot off our back deck in the opposite direction of the street on land we owned.but if a tape was pulled out the house across the 50' street sat 60' off the road and our house sat back 40' from road and was 36'deep.. guess what we were under 200' from that home and i was in violation of a 500' rule...  50 'maybe a tad short but it is much better than 500' now figure that at camps, all occupied building sitting 10' off line (barn for example) your property is completly off limits with a 500' rule... unless it is 1000 plus ft wide, 500 ft is way to long especially when you think of all the long narrow (under 800' wide properties and camps)

[jjb4900]

I've seen more target archery in the subburbs  around buffalo, cheektowaga,lancaser,depew,westseneca. that have dischargelaws and are obviously in violation of 500' regardless. ...for the doom and gloom people that envision shooting out windows, people in yards getting shot,ect...it hasnt happened ,unless its by some kids f-ing around shooting cats n dogs...  the set back for archery that is proposed isnt a big deal. let alone for the guy that has a camp next to a non hunter(more and mor eare buying recreational land) and want to target shoot next to his/her cabin. 500' is 166yards. 150 is 50 yards... 90% of all shots on deer are under 50 yards. I would guess 50% or more of good legal hunters violate the 500' rule on multiple ocasions in their life unknowingly in most circumstances.                                                                                                                                                     For example:                      

we use to shoot off our deck in lancaster, they built a house across the street, we continued to shoot off our back deck in the opposite direction of the street on land we owned.but if a tape was pulled out the house across the 50' street sat 60' off the road and our house sat back 40' from road and was 36'deep.. guess what we were under 200' from that home and i was in violation of a 500' rule...  50 'maybe a tad short but it is much better than 500' now figure that at camps, all occupied building sitting 10' off line (barn for example) your property is completly off limits with a 500' rule... unless it is 1000 plus ft wide, 500 ft is way to long especially when you think of all the long narrow (under 800' wide properties and camps)

thanks for confirming what I said earlier.....backyard archery is widespread and many are under the 500' rule. I know maybe 10-15 archers, the majority shoot safely in their backyards without problems or complaints from neighbors. 

[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.

[jjb4900]

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.

I don't think anyone is arguing the safety point...........it was said earlier that this will open the door for backyard archers, backyard target shooting has been going on for years, whether or not you want to believe it.............target shooting and shooting a deer without a safe man made backstop are two different things.

[mike rossi]

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?

 

There is no vice in focusing on what really happened instead of dwelling on what did not... 

 

In response to your quote above; what you said is probably true, but not unheard of in the wonderful world of hunting. If it isn't retaliation against a particular politician, it is against an organization or an ideology. Numerous examples exist. Two which come to mind first are opposition by the so-called "organized sportsmen" to the quiet waters proposal and the finch land acquisition. The same game is played every time sporting organizations support or oppose any proposals which do not directly benefit or impact hunting and conservation to undermine certain politicians, organizations, or ideologies. Often the spite, hatred, partisan loyalty, and superstition  run so deep; that sporting organizations will reject proposals which benefit the sporting community. Without a change in attitude as well as leadership this vicious cycle will persist and continue to compromise conservation policy.

 

Regarding the comments made about target archery: Some of those suburban target archers might have weighed in on this at some point, either by survey or submitting public comment. or perhaps afterward - during the crafting of the legislative bill. I did not look at the bill. If the bill was designed to enable the relevant strategy of the 5 year plan, then who was the impetus for inserting language to include target practice? The DEC plan has nothing to do with target archery. Can someone post the bill?

Edited February 11, 2014 by mike rossi

[G-Man]

Doc , the fact is you live in the country as i do now and when i was a kid before development. laws are broke all the time but to simply say 150 is to close to legally shoot is like saying, no one should have a gun they are unsafe!!     iIm sure this was looked into and deemed an appropraite distance to discharge a bow. you may have different view on what your are comfortable with but as many have said here this is broken numerous time by target archers with no incident, thus negating the its not safe issue.. as for working it into management plan . it lets homeowners in large private estates 3-10 acres remove deer from their properties legally when the 500' rule doesnt. especially with numerous anti hunting land owners mixed into these developments (recovery of said game is a different issue) .

[growalot]

 

The DEC plan has nothing to do with target archery.

Well they have nothing to do with skeet shoots or any of the rifle competitions either...but those are not legal to do within the parameters of the DISCHARGE LAW

 

 

Discharge of Firearms and Bows

For information on where various legal implements may be used in the state, see Rifle, Shotgun, and Bow Areas.

It is illegal to discharge a firearm or bow:

• so that the load or arrow passes over any part of a public highway,
• within 500 feet of any school, playground, or an occupied factory or church,
• within 500 feet of a dwelling, farm building or structure in occupation or use unless you own it, lease it, are an immediate member of the family, an employee, or have the owner's consent.
• You may hunt waterfowl, over water, within 500 feet of a dwelling or public structure as long as neither are within 500 feet in the direction you are shooting.

(sp)

Edited February 11, 2014 by growalot