New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[Doc]

I got what you are saying now. amend the law to allow a reduction if passed by the local government, which make the state 500' a regulation rather than a minimum (that can be amended). The only issue I see with that is at what level does this occur? For example. what if Monroe County takes that action because of the 8C deer problem but the town of Greece doesn't want it? They would have to take an action anyway  to reverse it in their jurisdiction.

Well, I am not sure how the hierarchy of governments work that sort of thing out now, but they must have figured something out because changes in setbacks are accomplished already (Just in the other direction). For example, some how they worked it out that setbacks could be expanded locally, so there must be some form of compromise and interaction already established.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I understand Doc.  You are saying that the law should provide for a 500ft set back unless the locals deem otherwise, but that is not consistent with the legal principles involved with respect to state law superseding local laws.  That is why, if you want to leave it to the locals, the less restrictive the state law, the better.

But isn't an option to remove the law and mandate it as a regulation of 500' "unless local government sets it otherwise"? I am shooting in the dark here but it doesn't seem too difficult. we must have other regulations that are not law. I am thinking speed limits. 65 state maximum but local authorities can set what the area requires.

[moog5050]

Honestly Culver - to answer your question would require some research for me to answer.  Generally, regulations are promulgated by an agency to enforce a law (state or federal) and really provide more specifics on how that law is to be applied.  The agency is given the authority to do so by the law.  I really have no idea what provision of the ECL gives the DEC the authority to establish the set back, so I can't say for certain whether the regs could be amended to maintain for a 500' set back, subject to a less restrive determination by the locals.  It all depends on the the language of that ECL provision.  Obviously, the ECL itself could be amended, but that requires legistlative vs. agency action.   The point here was that by reducing the set back under the regs, the locals have more autonomy under the current structure.  Changing the structure (the ECL) could be done I guess.  In other words - it would require an amendment to the state law vs. DEC regs.  Different process.

[Doc]

And don't forget that determining which setback (500' or 150') is the less restrictive setback is still subject to interpretation. The size of the number does not always determine just what is more restrictive. In this case, a smaller setback could be more restrictive or less restrictive depending on who's viewpoint you are considering. If you are a homeowner, the 150' setback may very well be the more restrictive to your privacy and safety rights. It all relates to just who's ox is being gored.

[NonTypical]

And don't forget that determining which setback (500' or 150') is the less restrictive setback is still subject to interpretation. The size of the number does not always determine just what is more restrictive. In this case, a smaller setback could be more restrictive or less restrictive depending on who's viewpoint you are considering. If you are a homeowner, the 150' setback may very well be the more restrictive to your privacy and safety rights. It all relates to just who's ox is being gored.

Well considering it is a hunter who is paying for a license and who is also responsible for following the set rules and regulations, without a doubt it would be from a hunters viewpoint. When they pass a law that states when a homeowner, building, or dwelling can or can't do something, then obviously it would be viewed from the other perspective. As far as privacy and safety rights that you stated, 150' setback still will not allow people to trespass on your property. From a safety issue, I'm sure the regulation will state that an arrow cannot be released in the direction of the building or dwelling.

[jjb4900]

when you think about it, the 500' rule is not too safe when it comes to discharging a firearm in the wrong direction, but it seems to have worked so far. 

[NonTypical]

Didn't New Jersey reduce the setback last year? Does anyone know if it was for firearms as well as archery?

Edited February 14, 2014 by NonTypical

[Doc]

Well considering it is a hunter who is paying for a license and who is also responsible for following the set rules and regulations, without a doubt it would be from a hunters viewpoint. When they pass a law that states when a homeowner, building, or dwelling can or can't do something, then obviously it would be viewed from the other perspective. As far as privacy and safety rights that you stated, 150' setback still will not allow people to trespass on your property. From a safety issue, I'm sure the regulation will state that an arrow cannot be released in the direction of the building or dwelling.

Don't forget who is passing laws and interpreting the meanings of these sorts of things. The odds are very good that they don't hunt.

 

As far as wishful thinking about the direction of shooting being specified, I have to point out that current setback laws say absolutely nothing and never did say anything about what or who is in the direction of the shot. It only talks about proximity to certain structures.

[mike rossi]

Don't forget who is passing laws and interpreting the meanings of these sorts of things. The odds are very good that they don't hunt.

 

As far as wishful thinking about the direction of shooting being specified, I have to point out that current setback laws say absolutely nothing and never did say anything about what or who is in the direction of the shot. It only talks about proximity to certain structures.

 

There are at least 3 other laws which address that, including trespassing law. There are laws that prohibit "indiscriminate shooting" and "reckless endangerment". Trespassing applies because your arrow, pellets, or bullet entering private land is the same as you walking on private land. Off course if you are casting an arrow or firing a gun toward a building at the set back distances (existing or proposed) you have more to worry about than trespassing...

Edited February 15, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

when you think about it, the 500' rule is not too safe when it comes to discharging a firearm in the wrong direction, but it seems to have worked so far. 

Seems to have worked? Depends on who you ask. The relatives of that little 4 year old girl that was shot and killed in their livingroom might not agree with you. And then there was the other occurrence where a rifle bullet came through the wall of a house and ripped through a mattress of a crib that had moments before been occupied by a baby. Also, I have seen a few newspaper pictures of the old mom and pop characters pointing to bullet holes in their walls. And then I am sure there are many instances where the homeowner never knew his house had been hit because the bullet didn't enter a living area.

 

But I will agree with the first part of your sentence. The 500' rule without any regard as to what is in the background is not very safe. There certainly is some more verbiage required on that one, not that we will ever see it.

[mike rossi]

New Jersey, as well as most states, do not have the same discharge law. They have a safety zone law. Don't confuse this with trespassing as it applies in NY, but, your load or arrow cannot enter the  safety zone perimeter designated by law. In Pennsylvania, you cant even drive game without a gun or bow within a safety zone. So those , including senators who continually reference other states need to do some homework...

[NonTypical]

Seems to have worked? Depends on who you ask. The relatives of that little 4 year old girl that was shot and killed in their livingroom might not agree with you. And then there was the other occurrence where a rifle bullet came through the wall of a house and ripped through a mattress of a crib that had moments before been occupied by a baby. Also, I have seen a few newspaper pictures of the old mom and pop characters pointing to bullet holes in their walls. And then I am sure there are many instances where the homeowner never knew his house had been hit because the bullet didn't enter a living area.

But I will agree with the first part of your sentence. The 500' rule without any regard as to what is in the background is not very safe. There certainly is some more verbiage required on that one, not that we will ever see it.

I don't know the details of the incidents that you mentioned but I would have to guess that whoever discharged the firearms was probably much further than 500' away. Who in their right mind would shoot at a house? Only someone that shouldn't be in the woods with a gun and is going reckless no matter what the setback is.

[Doc]

I don't know the details of the incidents that you mentioned but I would have to guess that whoever discharged the firearms was probably much further than 500' away. Who in their right mind would shoot at a house? Only someone that shouldn't be in the woods with a gun and is going reckless no matter what the setback is.

I don't know whether you are comfortable with that kind of logic, but I personally would simply rather see something included in that setback law that talks about what's behind the target. You must have a lot more trust in strangers than I do.....lol.

 

Let's face it if everyone out there was doing what is safe and sane when deer get in front of them, we wouldn't really need a lot of these laws to call their attention to unsafe practices would we? I have seen people shoot in the direction of our house. With the introduction of rifles since then, the results may have turned out to be quite a bit different. But the point is that they do it. And if they do it with guns, they damned sure will do it with a bow if there isn't some language prohibiting it. If they are out at 500' shooting their bow at the house, I probably wouldn't worry a whole lot about it unless they were trying to hit the house. But at 50 yards, the arrow trajectory easily makes to the house without any particular exaggerated elevation in aiming.

 

Also, while it is getting a bit repetitive, I have to remind you that the concerns are not just with hunting situations. Backyard target situations also have to be considered. There are a lot of suburban situations where the 50 yards can easily be accommodated, but the backdrop (houses, yards, etc.) is not so easily controlled.

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So Doc. What would be a safe set back then? Mile and a half? How about a mandatory 0' set back. That would really be the safest spot, right. If you are standing against it you won't be shooting towards it.lol

[mike rossi]

This is a "quality of life" issue, not just a safety issue. Many people, myself included, don't want anyone that close to our house or buildings, no matter what they are doing. People in suburbia may be accustomed to people that close,but they are not used to people hunting, carrying weapons, and dead or dying animals or their blood & entrails. Most people understand this.

 

I also am concerned this could damage the already tainted  image of hunters and  hunting. Never the less, I personally don't feel strongly enough about this issue to contact my state representatives about it - if and when this proposal becomes a bill.

 

As far as the law addressing the direction you shoot in addition to discharge setback, there are indeed laws that address shooting toward a building. And you are warned about "beyond your target" in hunter education.  I don't think anybody is suggesting that reckless endangerment and indiscriminate discharge of a weapon needs to be outlined in the regulation handbook, but if you think about it, it almost sounds that way.  

 

 

[Doc]

So Doc. What would be a safe set back then? Mile and a half? How about a mandatory 0' set back. That would really be the safest spot, right. If you are standing against it you won't be shooting towards it.lol

With archery, I think it is fine the way it is. At 500', as I said before, you would really have to be purposely shooting at a ridiculously elevated aiming point to hit anyone that far away or their house. Probably would also be true even at 100 yards as well. I also think the privacy invasions would also be alleviated with a 100yard or 500 ' setback. And even at that, I still would like to see some language added to all setback restrictions that mentions features, people, pets, etc., in the background of where a shot is aimed.

 

Since firearms setbacks have also made their way into this discussion, I would add that the 500' setback is adequate as long as there is language added making it illegal to shoot toward buildings, people, pets, etc.  How that wording ever got left out of that law is beyond me.

[jjb4900]

With archery, I think it is fine the way it is. At 500', as I said before, you would really have to be purposely shooting at a ridiculously elevated aiming point to hit anyone that far away or their house. Probably would also be true even at 100 yards as well. I also think the privacy invasions would also be alleviated with a 100' or 500 ' setback. And even at that, I still would like to see some language added to all setback restrictions that mentions features, people, pets, etc., in the background of where a shot is aimed.

 

Since firearms setbacks have also made their way into this discussion, I would add that the 500' setback is adequate as long as there is language added making it illegal to shoot toward buildings, people, pets, etc.  How that wording ever got left out of that law is beyond me.

no need to worry about that wording being out of that left out of that law.......the NYS Penal law covers it if someone acts recklessly when it comes to the discharge of weapons, whether it be in a hunting situation or otherwise.

[Doc]

no need to worry about that wording being out of that left out of that law.......the NYS Penal law covers it if someone acts recklessly when it comes to the discharge of weapons, whether it be in a hunting situation or otherwise.

Yes, there are a whole string of protections somewhere in the law that will eventually make someone pay for a tragedy (not necessarily prevent it). And that's one of the problems with our legal system. Instead of writing things out with the details included in the pertinent law, you are expected to wade through an armful of law books to figure out what the details are, instead of simply including it in the first place. When somebody reads that set-back law, I want them to read the other relative verbiage at the same time.

[stubby68]

jjb I believe you would 2 !/2 acres on either side of you that would give 520 feet either side.so if i am right you would need 9 acres.could be wrong though

 

[Doc]

jjb I believe you would 2 !/2 acres on either side of you that would give 520 feet either side.so if i am right you would need 9 acres.could be wrong though

I'm not sure of the context of your comment, but it does look like there might some confusion about acreage. An acre is a measure of area not linear distance. For example an acre can be a parcel that is only 1' wide x 43560' long or it can be 208.7' wide x 208.7' long or a jillion other combinations.

[G-Man]

This set back reduction is to try and control deer in a rural area. many are now 3-5 acre lots, with many anti hunters living interspersed a reduction would allow someone to shoot off their back deck with a neighbor house less than 500' away (assuming the neighbor doesnt like hunting) it is a good sugesstion, (i know recovery is another issue) but a good doube lung on a deer is usually recovered in approximatly under 60 yards or 180 feet. 500' is a long way with a bow or crossbow, i would guess 70% of hunter cant accuratly judge 500' but can estimate 150' pretty accuratly.