New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I had one spot that another guy and I hunted for two years. Permission to park and hunt, All the neighbors except one gave recovery rights and the ones within 500' gave hunting rights. So it is all set to go, or do we not hunt it because of the one woman that said we couldn't recover. Odds were in our favor and luckily we didn't have to renegotiate. I suppose I would have just asked her again, with the emphasis on how many ticks we have been seeing on deer that year. Besides the one the people in the neighborhood we very pleased. We shared some of the deer we took. They go a little revenge for the hundreds of dollars and hours lost on ruined gardens and landscaping. Like Grow said. I have seen a standing deer clear a 6' ROW fence in a bound. Short of totally enclosing in fence, if they want to eat it they will get to it.

 

Don't get me wrong. This wasn't really a hunt. We saw some bruiser bucks but no shots, this was more of tag filling. It was in 8C and basically if you keep shooting does you keep getting new tags. no limit.

[phade]

8C permission is like hitting the lottery.

[jjb4900]

the more I think about it, this may just be another of Cuomo's evil plans.....it'll turn everyone against hunters, even other hunters......just look at the most recent changes/proposals and the amount of infighting they've generated, crossbows, antler restrictions, youth season, legal discharge distance...........

Edited January 29, 2014 by jjb4900

[A Sportsman]

The number of 150 feet is something I first remember reading in that DEC 5 year management plan document. Few yrs ago. My gut reaction was 150 is too close and that it won't pass the laugh test. But politicians being what they are, mostly clueless, and not willing to take the time to fully understand legislation, the number never got properly analyzed. I think its as simple as "DEC said 150 and it just stuck."

I understand the concerns of those of you who don't like the proposed change. But in order to open up the suburban areas to hunting, the number has to be lessened. As I said above however, the 150 number is laughable. 300 is a much nicer number and still lessens the current distance by a whopping 40 percent.

Another point, people living in suburbs are used to other people around them. So I don't think they will care as much as some of the rural folks think.

Lastly, even with the 500 ft rule, if you hunt in suburb area, you got a reasonable chance at deer running/dying on a private parcel. But honestly I don't hear of it hardly at all. And I personally never been in that situation. I think a little too much is made of this scenario for the frequency with which it happens.

[JimmyDaSavage]

Love this new rule. Hopefully I can shoot a deer and it can run in someones house and we can cook it right up!

[jjb4900]

any mathematicians out there who can figure out how large a piece of property you need in order to be 500' from a building in all directions if you stood in the middle?

[bubba]

in a perfect square 1000 x 1000

Edited January 29, 2014 by bubba

[jjb4900]

just found this.........

"There are 43,560 square feet per acre. Assuming the acre is square, there would be 208.71032 feet on one side of the acre."

if this is correct, if you stood in the middle of the center acre, you would roughly need another two acres on each side of that center acre for a total of 9 acres. Does that make sense?

Edited January 29, 2014 by jjb4900

[SteveB]

Its 500 ft from the building - not from the property line.

[jjb4900]

Its 500 ft from the building - not from the property line.

yes I know, but was just asking what you would need to be absolutely 100% sure you would always have that 500' buffer without worry..

[jjb4900]

what I'm trying to say, is if you stood in the center of your property and had a house 500' in all directions, you would need at least 10 acres to hunt it.....that's a pretty big piece of land, maybe some type of discharge distance change makes sense, maybe not 50 yards but something more reasonable.

[fasteddie]

1000' X 1000' = 1,000,000 sq ft divided by 43,560 sq ft (1 acre) = 23 acres .

[BizCT]

I can stand in my parents backyard, less than 2 acres and be more than 500' from all other houses in a residential neighborhood. The 500' rule applies to houses not property lines. Legally I could hunt my parents backyard but don't because of recovery issues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WNYBuckHunter]

Eddie, it wouldnt be a square, it would be a circle.

[fasteddie]

Eddie, it wouldnt be a square, it would be a circle.

 

okay ..... Area = Pi X r squared

               Area = 3.14 X 500 X 500 = 3.14 X 250,000 = 785,000

 

               785,000

                 43560  equals  18 acres

[Culvercreek hunt club]

in a perfect square 1000 x 1000

that would require their house to be on the property line. The question can't be answered without knowing the make up of the adjacent properties. I could legally hunt on a lot 20'x20'

[Culvercreek hunt club]

what I'm trying to say, is if you stood in the center of your property and had a house 500' in all directions, you would need at least 10 acres to hunt it.....that's a pretty big piece of land, maybe some type of discharge distance change makes sense, maybe not 50 yards but something more reasonable.

I know what you mean but the shape of the lot could mean as much as the actual acreage.

[mike rossi]

The number of 150 feet is something I first remember reading in that DEC 5 year management plan document. Few yrs ago. My gut reaction was 150 is too close and that it won't pass the laugh test. But politicians being what they are, mostly clueless, and not willing to take the time to fully understand legislation, the number never got properly analyzed. I think its as simple as "DEC said 150 and it just stuck."

I understand the concerns of those of you who don't like the proposed change. But in order to open up the suburban areas to hunting, the number has to be lessened. As I said above however, the 150 number is laughable. 300 is a much nicer number and still lessens the current distance by a whopping 40 percent.

Another point, people living in suburbs are used to other people around them. So I don't think they will care as much as some of the rural folks think.

Lastly, even with the 500 ft rule, if you hunt in suburb area, you got a reasonable chance at deer running/dying on a private parcel. But honestly I don't hear of it hardly at all. And I personally never been in that situation. I think a little too much is made of this scenario for the frequency with which it happens.

Regarding what you said that is bolded above, was the set back aspect of the plan adopted? Because if it was, it is likely the DEC is seeking legislative approval of the 50 yard setback. It is important we know this because it will give insight into the extent the DEC will get involved with the legislature. There is a boundary to the extent the DEC will get involved with legislation and we should know where that line is drawn.

 

On a slightly similar note, I have an old document with a statement from a DEC employee that the department does not get involved in "controversial issues". I think we are entitled to transparency and clarification of these policies. It seems the only sportsman privy to how those policies operate are those politically connected. Those politically connected sportsmen discuss little other with the sporting community other than what they think and want  everybody to support and oppose; and promote interest in the issues they are  personally interested in. This has been going on too long and we need to end the cycle, as well as get the information which has not been made easily available to us.

 

FYI: there even is some sort of mandate or policy procedure  for transparency in state government. I don't know what it is, but this is something they are required to do, it may even be a legal mandate, but I am not sure.

Edited January 30, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

To be quite frank about it all, it really doesn't bother me that there are urban and suburban places that have out-of-control deer herds. Understanding that such places are hotbeds of anti hunting and anti gun sentiment, it brings joy to my heart to hear all the whining an wailing about the damage that deer are doing to these areas. Yes, we may see some amazing trophy deer in such places that we would like to harvest, but the pro-hunting PR that is being generated by these kinds of situations is absolutely fantastic. I'm not all that interested in law changes that allow them all to once again feel comfortable with their anti-hunting biases.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Doc, Im pretty positive Cuomo supported these bills last year too, why werent you screaming about it then? Bottom line is that its all PR at this point, from both sides. Cuomo didnt come up with this stuff, hes just supporting it, as he has in the past. People seem to be misconstruing things to get emotions riled up, exactly what people are stirring the hornets nest? Im not really sure. Could it be people that are against these regulations playing on the emotions of those that might support them by making Cuomo's support out to be more than it really is? Maybe...food for thought at least.

 

I honestly support the 150 foot setback for archery, and allowing crossbows in all seasons. The big thing in either of these issues I have a problem with was the insinuation by NYCC that I should thank Cuomo for anything.

[A Sportsman]

Mike Rossi,

I don't know the exact process that was required to "adopt" the proposed rule changes. But I do remember DEC pointing out that some changes could be made by DEC acting alone and others needing to be made thru a legilative process. If I have some time today ill look for that 5 year plan on line.

[Doc]

Doc, Im pretty positive Cuomo supported these bills last year too, why werent you screaming about it then?

Because if that really was the case, this is the first time I have heard about it. Funny that it didn't happen to become common knowledge and talked about until this year isn't it?

 

And, I don't think there has been anyone here or anywhere else that has claimed that any of these issues were original thoughts created by Cuomo. I don't know exactly where you got that thought from. My claim is that his sudden interest in matters of hunting seem to coincidentally come on the heels of unprecedented anger directed at him because of the Safe Act, and the fact that he has an election coming. Frankly, I don't believe he any interest in these issues other than pacifying gun owning voters. My biggest fear is that some hunters who are unable to see the phony motivation will be swayed by these little bones being thrown their way when they mistakenly believe that Cuomo is in any way "in their corner".

[WNYBuckHunter]

Because if that really was the case, this is the first time I have heard about it. Funny that it didn't happen to become common knowledge and talked about until this year isn't it?

 

And, I don't think there has been anyone here or anywhere else that has claimed that any of these issues were original thoughts created by Cuomo. I don't know exactly where you got that thought from. My claim is that his sudden interest in matters of hunting seem to coincidentally come on the heels of unprecedented anger directed at him because of the Safe Act, and the fact that he has an election coming. Frankly, I don't believe he any interest in these issues other than pacifying gun owning voters. My biggest fear is that some hunters who are unable to see the phony motivation will be swayed by these little bones being thrown their way when they mistakenly believe that Cuomo is in any way "in their corner".

 

That was the case, at least with the crossbow bill it was. The only person that kept that fro going through was Sweeny. Go look at the threads about it from last year.

 

The title of the thread is

"New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo"

[Doc]

I believe the subject of this thread related to setback rules. But I never saw any headlines about him pushing crossbow legislation until just a few months ago. Now I don't know whether his support was mentioned somewhere on the down-low earlier (I certainly didn't hear any of it prior to the Safe Act uproar), but to my knowledge the only time he actually announced any legislative support and action was very recently in conjunction with the setback changes. In fact, I haven't heard any mention of any matters regarding hunting prior to the safe act backlash. And that is exactly the point I have been making. For those that want to believe that Cuomo is now some sort of hunter savior, I just want to clarify what the real likely motives for all this attention are.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Thats my point Doc, he supported this stuff last year and nobody raised a huge fuss about it. Now this year he supports the same things and everyone is flipping their lids. Why has it even been made a headline this year and last year it wasnt?