New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[jjb4900]

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

 

(sp)

and outside of the NYS ECL, there may be local ordinances that may even further restrict or entirely forbid the discharge of any firearm or bow........

[growalot]

Correct..point was made that this just may increase with the DEC lowering...believe it or not there are still some towns ...few and far between with little or no zoning laws....

[Doc]

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.

Yes, I think there are some arguing the safety point, or at least they want to ignore it. When you legislate a setback, you cannot differentiate suburban/urban target practice from deer hunting. And certainly nothing like that is in any of the proposals that I have read.

[mike rossi]

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

 

(sp)

 

I see what you are saying, assuming that isn't "for the purpose of hunting".... I still say the proposed change might specify hunting, and without looking at the bill how can we be sure. With the pending mute swan plan there was a possible action to consider forfeiting the waterfowl discharge law (zero feet), making a specific safety zone set back for mute swans - which I opposed in my public comment, by the way.

 

The bill might say for hunting deer only, someone should post the bill. I want to revive what I said about who weighed in and when did they weigh in? Even if the discharge law covers target shooting and no special language is needed as you are suggesting, are the suburban target archers weighing in and supporting the bill? Or did they even weigh in during the public comment phase of the 5 year plan? I am asking these questions for reflection, I don't really expect an answer. Someone should post the bill though...

[growalot]

 

consider forfeiting the waterfowl discharge law (zero feet),

There is still a setback for water fowl in regards to shooting TOWARD a building...which is a point Doc has been trying to make....That is the only part of the regulation bow or gun that specifies that particular point....

 

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.

 

 

 

[Doc]

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) .

No it is not like saying no one should have a gun because they are unsafe. It is more like saying no one should be given legal permission to use a gun in a recognized unsafe fashion. And there's no reason to make an exception to that with archery equipment.

 

Just the other day I was up on my archery range back by the 50 yard stake, looking at my target, and thinking, "People really think that somehow if that target were a house, I should legally be able to shoot at it". It struck me as to just how ludicrous that really is. Fifty yards is nothing..... absolutely nothing. And I will say that if I were a suburbanite and I  saw some neighbor setting up his target in that fashion, I would really like a law in my pocket that I could use to put an immediate stop to that before the guy even pulled his string back, or cocked his crossbow or whatever. I really would not want to be forced to wait until something tragic happens before I have any legal recourse to put a stop to it.

 

 

 

[jjb4900]

No it is not like saying no one should have a gun because they are unsafe. It is more like saying no one should be given legal permission to use a gun in a recognized unsafe fashion. And there's no reason to make an exception to that with archery equipment.

 

Just the other day I was up on my archery range back by the 50 yard stake, looking at my target, and thinking, "People really think that somehow if that target were a house, I should legally be able to shoot at it". It struck me as to just how ludicrous that really is. Fifty yards is nothing..... absolutely nothing. And I will say that if I were a suburbanite and I  saw some neighbor setting up his target in that fashion, I would really like a law in my pocket that I could use to put an immediate stop to that before the guy even pulled his string back, or cocked his crossbow or whatever. I really would not want to be forced to wait until something tragic happens before I have any legal recourse to put a stop to it.

earlier I was just pointing out that backyard practice is fairly common in suburbia...............I wasn't trying to argue the point of it's legality or safety, maybe it doesn't alarm the average citizen when they see their neighbor doing it, why I don't know, maybe they don't realize how potentially dangerous in can be........now take that same archer, stick him in a treestand dressed in camo hunting deer, and I'm sure that will be viewed entirely different by the same person who never gave a second thought to the seemingly harmless target shooter.

[mike rossi]

There is still a setback for water fowl in regards to shooting TOWARD a building...which is a point Doc has been trying to make....That is the only part of the regulation bow or gun that specifies that particular point....

 

???????????? You are confusing me... This is getting off topic, it will annoy others, and I already spoke my opinions on this. I will answer you on this and then quit it...

 

Is this proposal even come to fruit as a bill, or is it an existing bill that's been in the suspense file, or is just all talk at this point? Any one got the bill number or will post it here?

 

Listen:

 

1) The draft swan plan indicates the DEC  will entertain the idea of creating  an increased  set back for mute swans. That would mean it would be greater than the regular 500 foot set back AND the waterfowl exception would not apply to mute swans. I expressed opposition to this in my public comment I sent them earlier this week.

 

2) Yes the waterfowl exception only applies when hunting over water and off course, not shooting in the direction of buildings. If you shoot a shotgun, even loaded with a light load of number 7 steel, toward a house 500 feet away you will hit that house. I think the way you capitalized the word "toward" might be misleading. To understand the maximum range of various shotgun loads consult Journnees's Formula, which can be found online. Maximum range, however, should not be confused with effective range. It is not ethical or wise  to shoot at game more than 120 feet away with a shotgun...

 

3) My interpretation of the discharge laws, correct or not, and the way I follow them, is that my pellets are not to land anywhere within a 500 feet circumference of a building.

 

On a same but different note, it is my understanding that if your pellets, bullet, or arrow falls onto or crosses private property, that it is considered trespassing under the law the same as if you physically crossed the property boundary.

Edited February 11, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

I have to say that I have no clue as to exactly what the term "executive budget powers" really means. I have done my best to find some definition, but have been completely unsuccessful. My thought has always been that a state budget was a bunch of line items with a dollar figure after them and then some addition and subtraction and other mathematical gyrations. I never realized that a Governor had the power to stuff agenda items in there that have nothing to do with financials. Well, apparently he has such powers. I have no idea where these agenda items are delineated in the budget. I have no idea where you would look to see the exact wording and details. Somebody must know because the media is reporting on them ..... unless they are working off of press releases that are in general synopsis form.

 

I do not know what form these agenda budget items take, a bill, a decree, or something else. I have gathered from some of what I have read that there is some legislative voting procedures required because there was some talk about him needing legislative support on these items. Anybody have any clue what the nuts and bolts of Executive Budget Powers are and how it all gets through the system?

 

 

[jjb4900]

see, at least Cuomo has people thinking about how stuff gets done in the government.............

[Doc]

see, at least Cuomo has people thinking about how stuff gets done in the government.............

I hate his stinking guts, but even I have to admit that he is a political genius. He is so far ahead of anyone else in Albany that he is actually a dangerous man, capable of bulldozing or manipulating any situation or even his opposition into a politically advantageous situation for him. That's scary stuff!

[mike rossi]

All I can find that seem related to all this is the following:

 

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6317-2013

 

The following two are NOT the same, they are companion bills in the senate & assembly:

 

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A6428A-2013

 

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S4419A-2013

Edited February 11, 2014 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

Or is it one of these? There are 3,066 environmental conservation bills currently pending, perhaps the readers of the source of this story should contact the author or editor and find out exactly what he was talking about...

 

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6357-2013

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8557-2013

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S3741-2013

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A6833-2013

[Doc]

Or is it one of these? There are 3,066 environmental conservation bills currently pending,

3,066 Environmental Conservation bills pending. Lol .... That reminds me of a recent conversation that we had where it was stated that it is the personal responsibility of every citizen to be aware and understand all of these. Oh and then that is only the environmental conservation legislation, we also have an individual responsibility to be familiar with the details of all the other bills going through the legislature. Oh and lets not forget the Federal government that dwarfs the state legislature in terms of numbers of bills initiated. So, are we all up to date on all this stuff and fulfilling our obligations as proper citizens?

 

Sometimes it is so easy to tell people what they are expected to do as good well informed citizens, but really comes out kind of stupid in the face of reality.....lol.

[mike rossi]

3,066 Environmental Conservation bills pending. Lol .... That reminds me of a recent conversation that we had where it was stated that it is the personal responsibility of every citizen to be aware and understand all of these. Oh and then that is only the environmental conservation legislation, we also have an individual responsibility to be familiar with the details of all the other bills going through the legislature. Oh and lets not forget the Federal government that dwarfs the state legislature in terms of numbers of bills initiated. So, are we all up to date on all this stuff and fulfilling our obligations as proper citizens?

 

Sometimes it is so easy to tell people what they are expected to do as good well informed citizens, but really comes out kind of stupid in the face of reality.....lol.

 

See the post I just made about the antis flooding the DEC about the draft plans open for comment until feb 21. How many sportsmen will whine at the outcome later, but have not sent a letter or e mail? Have you, I did, in addition to Paul Revering this on this forum and elsewhere.... Then consider those who come up with these statements that the dec does what it wants, bla, bla, bla, insinuating participating in public comment is a waste of time.... It is personal responsibility and so is evaluating the source of your information. Questions about an article should be directed at the person who wrote the article, don't you think?

 

Also, this draft bear plan also shows the same trail and sequence of events. If you go to the NYSCC website and view their resolutions, you will see that the desires of the NY State Hounsmen, a member organization of the NYCC, are clearly reflected in the DEC's draft bear management plan... Those desires were published as a resolution a long time ago - if an article comes out and implies xyz politician endorses it, do we have this discussion AGAIN rather than understand the difference between an endorsement of a policy and the creation of a policy?  If the plan is approved the DEC will have its legislative affairs branch get with the politicians to craft legislation or amend current law. During the legislation phase both supporters and those opposed of the change will contact state lawmakers and the governor...

Edited February 12, 2014 by mike rossi

[growalot]

It's why I brought it up a few days ago...had a feeling many didn't  realize any thing about this bear plan...

[A Sportsman]

Doc and mike, regarding citizens making themselves aware of pending legislation and if necessary voicing their opinion, I think your both right. As Doc pointed out its darn near impossible to stay up on everything that may be affecting you. And so every so often, there will be laws that bother you that you never saw coming. And if those laws bother enough people, they hopefully can be repealled.

But to mikes point, as hunters we owe it to ourselves to make sure we stay informed on bills that may affect us and make sure we have our voices heard. Either thru letters, or public mtgs etc.

I am a surfcaster on Long island and over the yrs have gotten involved in making my voice heard with respect to fisheries management. Having seen how that system works, with the ASMFC,the politics behind decisions,recs often at odds with the commercial fishing industry, etc., its a nightmare. It often seems hopeless for the rec fisherman. I think there is a much better chance for Hunters to afffect change to the legislation that concerns us, than the poor recreational fisherman constantly chasing his tail while the comms and asmfc keep raping fisheries for every last cent they can, until they collapse.

[NonTypical]

I've been following this thread and I finally decided to register so that I could give my opinion. I hunt Long Island for the entire season, but I also do get upstate and hunt near Ithaca occasionally. As far as the 2 locations, they are very different from one another. Upstate I would never think of or feel the need to hunt within 500' of a dwelling. But down here on the Island is another story. Many of the deer on the Island are what you may call suburban deer. They live in residential developments that resemble a maze of homes, many of which are surrounded by 6-8' foot deer fence that has been put up by homeowners who hate the deer eating their shrubs. Many of these homes are also weekend or seasonal homes. I hunt private as well as town property that backs up to these very homes. With a 500' setback, much of these town parcels become off limits. Reducing the setback to 150' will open up many more opportunities to harvest deer without putting the public at risk. There is a deer problem here on the Island because deer thrive in a suburban environment. We need to be able to hunt them in a surburban environment as well. As far as a deer dying on someone's lawn, odds are its not going to happen, especially with all of the deer fences around. They almost always run for cover, not towards someone's house. But if they do, it's a chance I'm willing to take because the population is out of control. It is a lot safer to control the population with bows rather than with sharpshooters and silencers hunting over bait.

Quick story. Several years ago hunting on the Island, a friend of mine hade a marginal hit. While tracking, it did cut across one backyard. We decided it would be best if we knocked on the door to get permission to track. An older gentleman answered the door with a WWII veteran hat. We didn't know what to expect as he intently asked us several questions. Finally he raised his hand and gave us a salute and said "Carry on. You are doing the community a service." We did find that deer. But after that night we did realize that even though there are a lot of tree huggers, there are even more that are sick of the deer or truly realize that it is over populated and needs to be brought under control. Hopefully this reduction in the setback will happen.

[mike rossi]

It's why I brought it up a few days ago...had a feeling many didn't  realize any thing about this bear plan...

 

Do they realize how many anti-hunters in NY received the following e-mail blast last night?

 

 

https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy;jsessionid=833AFEC7388C3C5F6ED922CFBB86862F.app338b?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=6395&autologin=true&s_src=em_ha021114#.UvubFeeA3IU

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Welcome to the site. after reading this statement below one would have to wonder what kind of answer you would get from the folks living in those areas... Hunters in camo 50 yards close to kids and pets with stick and string or a trained sharpshooter making head shots over bait piles in the middle of the night without the landowners even knowing they are doing it.  I believe the sharpshooters would get the nod from the home owner. Sad but True

 

 But if they do, it's a chance I'm willing to take because the population is out of control. It is a lot safer to control the population with bows rather than with sharpshooters and silencers hunting over bait.(Quote)

[NonTypical]

Also just for the record, in all of my years hunting surburban deer, if there has ever been children playing nearby or homeowners raking leaves I have never had an opportunity to release an arrow at a deer. They will either alter their route to avoid people or wait 20-30 minutes after things quiet down being moving around anywhere near these homes. They are better at patterning us as we are them.

[Doc]

See the post I just made about the antis flooding the DEC about the draft plans open for comment until feb 21. How many sportsmen will whine at the outcome later, but have not sent a letter or e mail? Have you, I did, in addition to Paul Revering this on this forum and elsewhere.... Then consider those who come up with these statements that the dec does what it wants, bla, bla, bla, insinuating participating in public comment is a waste of time.... It is personal responsibility and so is evaluating the source of your information. Questions about an article should be directed at the person who wrote the article, don't you think?

 

Also, this draft bear plan also shows the same trail and sequence of events. If you go to the NYSCC website and view their resolutions, you will see that the desires of the NY State Hounsmen, a member organization of the NYCC, are clearly reflected in the DEC's draft bear management plan... Those desires were published as a resolution a long time ago - if an article comes out and implies xyz politician endorses it, do we have this discussion AGAIN rather than understand the difference between an endorsement of a policy and the creation of a policy?  If the plan is approved the DEC will have its legislative affairs branch get with the politicians to craft legislation or amend current law. During the legislation phase both supporters and those opposed of the change will contact state lawmakers and the governor...

It is truly amazing when I hear people trying to convince us that as good conscientious citizens, they keep up with all of the pending legislation in the DEC, as well as state and federal proposals and now also each and every detail of every proposal of every government agency. I am trying to think of a courteous way of saying B.S.  It is virtually impossible for anyone to do even if they don't have a life that they are trying to conduct.  The numbers alone make it impossible. In fact there are legislators who readily admit that they don't have the time to read and research all the bills that they vote on. And they only have to worry about their portion of the bills. So if all this high and mighty talk about the responsibilities of conscientious citizens appears to be going in one ear and out the other, it is only because it is.

[Doc]

Doc and mike, regarding citizens making themselves aware of pending legislation and if necessary voicing their opinion, I think your both right. As Doc pointed out its darn near impossible to stay up on everything that may be affecting you. And so every so often, there will be laws that bother you that you never saw coming. And if those laws bother enough people, they hopefully can be repealled.

But to mikes point, as hunters we owe it to ourselves to make sure we stay informed on bills that may affect us and make sure we have our voices heard. Either thru letters, or public mtgs etc.

 

Darn near impossible??? Did you miss Mike's statistic about 3,066 Environmental Conservation bills pending? Have you ever tried to read one those bills and understand what it was all about as well as research supporting issues and data to evaluate it, and then do that for over 3000 bills? I want to know who on earth can even do 1% of that. Note that these 3000 pending bills are only environmental conservation bills. The volume of pending legislation involving state and federal and local legislative activity and agency proposals dwarf that teeny contribution of environmental conservation bills and are usually of higher priority and are also expected to become a part of every one of your day's activities. So, who among us has successfully kept up with the thousands, and more likely millions of documents churned out by the various governments and their agencies? Some would try to convince us that they have, but we know they are not telling the truth. Do you get my point. It is virtually impossible to do the kind of job that should be done. Our effectiveness as educated citizens is buried under mountains of paperwork every day. And anyone who tries to tell you that they are indeed aware and fully up to speed on even 1% of all this legislative frenzy is really just messing with you. So when you say, "every so often, there will be laws that bother you that you never saw coming", understand that that is a huge understatement. I will say that percentage-wise, that will happen just about every time.

 

Yes, as best we can, we should take an active participation on those things that we come across or that are brought to our attention. but let's not fool ourselves or try to fool anyone else that we are really effectively aware and active in even a miniscule amount of the legislative activity that effects us as hunters or citizens.

[Doc]

I've been following this thread and I finally decided to register so that I could give my opinion. I hunt Long Island for the entire season, but I also do get upstate and hunt near Ithaca occasionally. As far as the 2 locations, they are very different from one another. Upstate I would never think of or feel the need to hunt within 500' of a dwelling. But down here on the Island is another story. Many of the deer on the Island are what you may call suburban deer. They live in residential developments that resemble a maze of homes, many of which are surrounded by 6-8' foot deer fence that has been put up by homeowners who hate the deer eating their shrubs. Many of these homes are also weekend or seasonal homes. I hunt private as well as town property that backs up to these very homes. With a 500' setback, much of these town parcels become off limits. Reducing the setback to 150' will open up many more opportunities to harvest deer without putting the public at risk. There is a deer problem here on the Island because deer thrive in a suburban environment. We need to be able to hunt them in a surburban environment as well. As far as a deer dying on someone's lawn, odds are its not going to happen, especially with all of the deer fences around. They almost always run for cover, not towards someone's house. But if they do, it's a chance I'm willing to take because the population is out of control. It is a lot safer to control the population with bows rather than with sharpshooters and silencers hunting over bait.

Quick story. Several years ago hunting on the Island, a friend of mine hade a marginal hit. While tracking, it did cut across one backyard. We decided it would be best if we knocked on the door to get permission to track. An older gentleman answered the door with a WWII veteran hat. We didn't know what to expect as he intently asked us several questions. Finally he raised his hand and gave us a salute and said "Carry on. You are doing the community a service." We did find that deer. But after that night we did realize that even though there are a lot of tree huggers, there are even more that are sick of the deer or truly realize that it is over populated and needs to be brought under control. Hopefully this reduction in the setback will happen.

I'll be honest with you. If a municipality decides that they want to cut the set-back distance to whatever they think they need (zero feet if they can sell that notion), I think that that is something that should be made possible. That would be a decision made by that municipality with the input and buy-in of those residents effected. That community would have to live with whatever consequences that evolve with that decision, but they would be deciding their own fate at the level of those that are directly effected. I do not see it as being something that the state should be forcing on every municipality across the state, for all the reasons of safety and privacy that have been laid out in this thread. The responsibility for local decisions that effect local situations should be in the hands of local jurisdictions who are directly accountable to local voters.

[moog5050]

I'll be honest with you. If a municipality decides that they want to cut the set-back distance to whatever they think they need (zero feet if they can sell that notion), I think that that is something that should be made possible. That would be a decision made by that municipality with the input and buy-in of those residents effected. That community would have to live with whatever consequences that evolve with that decision, but they would be deciding their own fate at the level of those that are directly effected. I do not see it as being something that the state should be forcing on every municipality across the state, for all the reasons of safety and privacy that have been laid out in this thread. The responsibility for local decisions that effect local situations should be in the hands of local jurisdictions who are directly accountable to local voters.

 

Actually Doc, the proposed change would do exactly that.  Right now, a local municipality cannot decrease the set back from 500, but can increase it.  By the state reducing the set back, it leaves the locals greater discretion to set it where they want with the minimum being 150, not 500.  As had been mentioned before, if the law is passed, I will not be surprised if many local municipalities increase the local set back to something even greater than 500 (since the issue is now being brough to thier attention) - which may result in the opposite of the concerns you have expressed.  But, it would be the locals making that decision on their own.