New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[SteveB]

Fact is shooting deer 150 ft from buildings rather than 500 ft IS going to lead to more recovery conflicts.

Especially when recovery permission is not discussed PRIOR to needing it.

These conflicts will not be a positive image for hunters.

Hopefully those wanting to hunt within stones throws of peoples decks and dining rooms will

at least have the courtesy to talk to them about recovery 1st.

[Jason118]

Growalott~~~yes , it's kinda hard to describe the layout of the parcels and the funnel the natural lay of the land makes. Consideration also to a neighbor that's ok with a chance retrieval but would not have been cool with a stand in his back yard to be 500' away from the old peoples apartments. I'm not going to be that person that puts up a 20' stand 151' away from the kitchen window from a family

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Ok. So being in between a deer and a house and shooting away from the house toward the deer makes the deer more likely to run toward the house (property)? More so than shooting from the middle of a property toward a deer that is in between you and the adjacent property? Do you have any experience hunting small parcels SteveB?

[SteveB]

Bow killed over 40 deer - enough to know you can not predict which way they will run.

And know enough hunters to be aware of the fact a good number will not even try - all that matters is getting the shot.

I do hunt some small properties and I do set up closer than 500 ft.

It's legal because I discuss with the owners before hand and get permission.

And it's the right way to do it.

[notasheep]

Fact is shooting deer 150 ft from buildings rather than 500 ft IS going to lead to more recovery conflicts.

Especially when recovery permission is not discussed PRIOR to needing it.

These conflicts will not be a positive image for hunters.

Hopefully those wanting to hunt within stones throws of peoples decks and dining rooms will

at least have the courtesy to talk to them about recovery 1st.

I just don't get why this rule automatically puts hunters in peoples dining and living rooms.im sure scenarios like Jason's is exactly why this change would make sense.and this recovery question spin is just that.the 500 ft rule was to put a safe distance between hunters and dwellings for stray shots...gunshots.

[notasheep]

Ok. So being in between a deer and a house and shooting away from the house toward the deer makes the deer more likely to run toward the house (property)? More so than shooting from the middle of a property toward a deer that is in between you and the adjacent property? Do you have any experience hunting small parcels SteveB?

Yes it will....and those deer will get to 500 feet and stop and drop dead because if they don't the deer hunters will all look bad so screw all the hunters that may have an opportunity to hunt a spot that they may not be able to hunt now.and I know cause I killed 40 deer.

[Doc]

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.

[SteveB]

I was asked about my experience so I gave it. Sarcasm does not change the fact that this new rule will be taken advantage of by those too lazy or inconsiderate to get permission from the adjoining landowners.  And despite safety being the primary reasoning for the 500 ft setback, it will not change the fact that setting up 350 feet closer will cause more recovery issues. Of course if you have shot many deer, you may know this. To deny either of these will happen and not consider the fallout is just stupid - your choice of course.

[SteveB]

Great post Doc - it's all about selfishness and being lazy.

[Doc]

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.

[SteveB]

I tried staying away from similar terms too but it seems they are sometimes needed.

 

[A Sportsman]

In some suburban settings your just not going to get the permission no matter how nice you may ask. You have animal rights people, vegetarian types, peoples kids play in the woods and they are nervous about someone with a bow out there, and just grumpy people who enjoy saying "no" for no reason whatsoever.

On long island, I always made sure I was 500'. And even still, I've had nearby homeowners call suffolk police. I've had them call env con officer, with a false claim thh I was baiting. Notes left on my car. And all at different spots.

Hopefully dec will be able to allow a new setback distance where its needed, and not everwhere in the state.

I know I keep saying this, but ill repeat it again since everyone else is repeating their points. The problem I think many hunters may have with the knew distance is that it is too close. For the life of me, I can't understand why they would go from 500 all the way to 150. If it was 300, this thread likely wouldn't be 12 pages. And 300 still would have opened up all kinds of woods, while respecting privacy.

[Meat Manager]

My experience with suburban hunting small wood lots is they tend to stay in cover when shot, no guarantee though ,good thing I know all the neighbors pretty well.

This is also my experience...I've harvested a couple out back and in NJ...they typically run to cover.

Getting recovery permission from adjacent landowners prior to season is an ethical approach to 150' setback hunting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited February 10, 2014 by Meat Manager

[Doc]

Point #1     In some suburban settings your just not going to get the permission no matter how nice you may ask. You have animal rights people, vegetarian types, peoples kids play in the woods and they are nervous about someone with a bow out there, and just grumpy people who enjoy saying "no" for no reason whatsoever.

Point #2    On long island, I always made sure I was 500'. And even still, I've had nearby homeowners call suffolk police. I've had them call env con officer, with a false claim thh I was baiting. Notes left on my car. And all at different spots.

Point #3    Hopefully dec will be able to allow a new setback distance where its needed, and not everwhere in the state.

Point #4    I know I keep saying this, but ill repeat it again since everyone else is repeating their points. The problem I think many hunters may have with the knew distance is that it is too close. For the life of me, I can't understand why they would go from 500 all the way to 150. If it was 300, this thread likely wouldn't be 12 pages. And 300 still would have opened up all kinds of woods, while respecting privacy.

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.

[phade]

I think responsibility as to recovery is a must.

 

But, having said that, I think the setback rule change is more to do with the method of control in areas of suburbia and places where the DEC does not have land access available for those to control the population. We complain here all the time about towns taking measures such as snipers over bait, birth control, etc. and so on and so forth. I see this move as a way to at least allow hunters to come in before such measures are taken.

 

Does it pose a challenge of recovery, yes. Does it pose a bit of a PR issue, yes. But, I also believe the DEC feels this reduction will lead to more good than bad. They wouldn't be reducing it otherwise.

 

For example, 8C is pretty developed. There's also little/no public land. Hunters can literally shoot as many does as they want there and keep getting tags. The DEC has stated that unit is way overpopulated, to the extreme. But, getting access is the challenge. I think this area is precisely one of the spots they thought of in this situation. Shy of other fiscally more expensive methods, they have no other way to get the numbers in check. This is a tool to help them get numbers down more efficiently.

[growalot]

 

On long island, I always made sure I was 500'. And even still, I've had nearby homeowners call suffolk police. I've had them call env con officer, with a false claim thh I was baiting. Notes left on my car. And all at different spots.

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

[WNYBuckHunter]

Sorry but the minute Cuomo inserted those proposals into his budget he took ownership of them because regardless of past history, he is the only one at the moment who is taking them forward legislatively. That's how it's been reported and those are the facts. The magazine articles simply are pointing out the fact that he is the one moving the issues forward. I understood it, and I can't understand why you are having such a hard time with it. Is it bad journalism to point out Cuomo's role and the fact that he is the one moving these proposals forward? You seem to think so. I do not. I have not seen any magazine quotes that state, insinuate or imply that Cuomo sat around and thought up these ideas by himself. Some how you have inserted that idea into these articles and can't get it out. And you are saying that your imaginings are  somehow misinformation .... lol. I can't help you out there. But anyway, you seem to think the articles mis-stated something and it really seems to bother you. I guess I have no real problem with that if that's something that you need to believe. I was just curious as to how some of those notions got into your head. It's not a big deal.

 

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.

[growalot]

I have not followed you guys "discussion" but from the last post...I'll say upfront...too busy to go back to find ...I read a lot...but I did read in a news paper..not NYODN...where it was stated Cuomos ppl said these new proposed regulations are a priority of his to...hhhmm can't quote.... but reassure NYS sportsman after the safe act..

 

PS.... do not jump on the word new...new to this session...

Edited February 10, 2014 by growalot

[WNYBuckHunter]

Yep, its some grandstanding the issue on his part, but these would have been inserted into the budget this year, just like they were last year, even if he wasnt playing the grand standing game with them. Many of these articles are insinuating that these proposals, or the insertion of them into the budget, was Cuomos idea. Thats where it becomes misinformation. My problem with this, is that the safe act stuff is such a big bone of contention with many people, that they hate Cuomo and oppose ANYTHING his name is attached to, even if its something they would normally agree with, or debate legitimately rather than just saying Cuomo likes it so Im against it. Thats really all Im saying. JMO.

[Doc]

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.

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.

[Doc]

My problem with this, is that the safe act stuff is such a big bone of contention with many people, that they hate Cuomo and oppose ANYTHING his name is attached to, even if its something they would normally agree with, or debate legitimately rather than just saying Cuomo likes it so Im against it. Thats really all Im saying. JMO.

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?

[virgil]

That's a new one?  Isn't that kinda what's been going on at the federal level for the past five years in Congress?

Edited February 10, 2014 by virgil

[Culvercreek hunt club]

WNY and Doc. I think you two are the only ones I have seen that can be on the same side of an issue and still get in an argument about who's stance is correct. lol

[ELMER J. FUDD]

SteveB, define small parcel.

[Five Seasons]

That's a new one? Isn't that kinda what's been going on at the federal level for the past five years in Congress?

Amen

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk