New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[Culvercreek hunt club]

EXACTLY!!! Currently the municipalities can't do anything but increase it.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Doc]

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.

No, I believe the new proposal mandates it be universally (statewide) changed to 50 yards whether the municipality wants it or not (including rural situations). I am saying the 500' setback should remain as the state default with local governments being allowed to reduce that through local ordinances, approved by local voters. That puts the onus of whatever negative occurrences that come about on the local governments and local voters.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

No, I believe the new proposal mandates it be universally (statewide) changed to 50 yards whether the municipality wants it or not (including rural situations). I am saying the 500' setback should remain as the state default with local governments being allowed to reduce that through local ordinances, approved by local voters. That puts the onus of whatever negative occurrences that come about on the local governments and local voters.

I think you are wrong, Doc. It doesn't say it will be enacted statewide. It give the DEC the ability to change it.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I have to relocate  an article I saw yesterday that spoke just bout this. Had some good quotes from DEC officials.

[Doc]

EXACTLY!!! Currently the municipalities can't do anything but increase it.

Right, and that is what needs to be changed, not the statewide default setback. It's a fine point, but if a municipality wants to create a 100' setback, 50' set-back or even a 0' setback, that should be a local decision. It should take a local vote to create situations that residents may have objections to without it being a mandated by the state.

 

What is being proposed is that a 50' set-back be universally mandated for the entire state including the rural areas and even suburban areas that don't even need it or necessarily want it.

[Doc]

I think you are wrong, Doc. It doesn't say it will be enacted statewide. It give the DEC the ability to change it.

That's not the way I read it. But even if that were the case, this is not something that I believe should be forced upon any municipality by the DEC. I see it as a local issue.

[WNYBuckHunter]

50 yards, not feet.

[jjb4900]

I'm pretty sure a local municipality doesn't have the ability to lessen a state law, if NY's law is 500' feet that's what it is.......by the state moving it to less than that, the local municipalities still have the authority to keep it a greater distance or tweak it as they see fit.........much like if the state maximum speed limit is 55, a local town can't increase it, but they do have the authority to lessen it.

Edited February 12, 2014 by jjb4900

[Culvercreek hunt club]

That's not the way I read it. But even if that were the case, this is not something that I believe should be forced upon any municipality by the DEC. I see it as a local issue.

In many of the articles I have read regarding the Urban and suburban deer problems it appears the DEC has been in consultation with many of these local governments. I agree the set back should be a tool available and not utilized in an across the board scenario. The one DEC official I read, commented that CT had a 0 set back rule. and no issues of safety, but they also allow baiting in many of the high populated areas. Kind of like you say Doc, isn't the big woods hunting many of us grew up doing. At that point is just using the hunter as a tool. and one that the municipalities don't have to pay for like they do for sharp shooters.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Culvercreek hunt club

[moog5050]

That's not the way I read it. But even if that were the case, this is not something that I believe should be forced upon any municipality by the DEC. I see it as a local issue.

 

DOC,

 

The state already forces it down the throats of the locals with minimum 500ft.  So based on your logic - whether you prefer 500ft or 150ft - the new law would give more options to the locals.

 

Example - Ithaca (don't recall if its town or village) has a 1000ft minimum.  It was increased.  The locals can't suspersede state law by decreasing it, only adding to it.

Edited February 12, 2014 by moog5050

[jjb4900]

DOC,

 

The state already forces it down the throats of the locals with minimum 500ft.  So based on your logic - whether you prefer 500ft or 150ft - the new law would give more options to the locals.

 

Example - Ithaca (don't recall if its town or village) has a 1000ft minimum.  It was increased.  The locals can't suspersede state law by decreasing it, only adding to it.

Bingo!

[mike rossi]

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.

 

I exaggerated, I admit it. But some truth holds...

[mike rossi]

Local laws can be more restrictive than state law, but not less restrictive. An unreasonable set back may back fire and encourage municipalities to increase their set back even more than 500 feet. Vestal, and from what is said above, Ithaca have already done this. It seems this could set unwanted precedents through out the state and has the potential to create a controversy capable of  evolving into a well organized political agenda.

Edited February 12, 2014 by mike rossi

[NonTypical]

Local laws can be more restrictive than state law, but not less restrictive. An unreasonable set back may back fire and encourage municipalities to increase their set back even more than 500 feet. Vestal, and from what is said above, Ithaca have already done this. It seems this could set unwanted precedents through out the state and has the potential to create a controversy capable of evolving into a well organized political agenda.

I don't think that will happen here on the Island. The towns are aware that there is a population problem and would like to see numbers reduced. Going to a 150' setback will help them achieve this goal.

[Doc]

50 yards, not feet.

Typo

[Doc]

I'm pretty sure a local municipality doesn't have the ability to lessen a state law, if NY's law is 500' feet that's what it is.......by the state moving it to less than that, the local municipalities still have the authority to keep it a greater distance or tweak it as they see fit.........much like if the state maximum speed limit is 55, a local town can't increase it, but they do have the authority to lessen it.

And that is the problem. Like I said before, that sort of thing should be in the domain of the local government since the situations and potential negative effects are local. If they are serious about offering solutions to a local problem change the law so that they can do that (with local voters approval).

[Doc]

DOC,

 

.......The locals can't suspersede state law by decreasing it, only adding to it.

And in the case of setbacks that is the part of the law that they should be changing, not diminishing setbacks for a whole lot of the state that doesn't need or want it.

 

Out of control deer herds are a local problem and solutions should also be local with local accountability if or when things go wrong.

[Doc]

I don't think that will happen here on the Island. The towns are aware that there is a population problem and would like to see numbers reduced. Going to a 150' setback will help them achieve this goal.

Understand that Long Island is just a tiny part of NYS. Other towns and townships when faced with what they consider a state mandated unsafe condition with invasive privacy issues may see things very differently and perhaps reactions will occur that will result in hunters losing much more access than they have now. That is why I keep repeating like a broken record that deer populations are a local problem and should be dealt with at a local level.

[moog5050]

And in the case of setbacks that is the part of the law that they should be changing, not diminishing setbacks for a whole lot of the state that doesn't need or want it.

 

Out of control deer herds are a local problem and solutions should also be local with local accountability if or when things go wrong.

 

 

Doc, you seem to be missing the point.  Diminishing set backs under state law does leave it in the hands of the locals to set it where ever they want - which is what you contend should happen.  In fact, if the state law was reduced to 0, the locals would have complete autonomy.  You seem to be against reducing the set back under state law, but want more local control.  That IS inconsistent if you understand that the locals can be more, but not less, restrictive as they choose.  No more comments from me on this subject.

[jjb4900]

Doc, you seem to be missing the point.  Diminishing set backs under state law does leave it in the hands of the locals to set it where ever they want - which is what you contend should happen.  In fact, if the state law was reduced to 0, the locals would have complete autonomy.  You seem to be against reducing the set back under state law, but want more local control.  That IS inconsistent if you understand that the locals can be more, but not less, restrictive as they choose.  No more comments from me on this subject.

maybe if one more person explains how it works the point will get across......

[Doc]

Doc, you seem to be missing the point.  Diminishing set backs under state law does leave it in the hands of the locals to set it where ever they want - which is what you contend should happen.  In fact, if the state law was reduced to 0, the locals would have complete autonomy.  You seem to be against reducing the set back under state law, but want more local control.  That IS inconsistent if you understand that the locals can be more, but not less, restrictive as they choose.  No more comments from me on this subject.

And my point, which apparently I'm not explaining too well, is that if you set the default archery setback to 50 yards statewide, every township across the state without a deer problem, suburban or rural will be forced go through the effort to change it back to where it is now or live with it. It sure seems to make far more sense to me to leave it where it is as default but change the law to allow the few areas with problems to pass local laws to shrink the setback. In other words put this invasive and perhaps unsafe setback only in areas where it is in dire need and force the communities deciding to do so to take full responsibility for any negative results.

 

Apparently this is becoming a hard concept for me to explain, so please take a bit of extra time to slow down and understand the nuances of what I am trying to say.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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.

[moog5050]

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.

[moog5050]

OK I am really done responding now.  Lawyers can never shut up.

[Doc]

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.

Lol ..... less or more "restrictive is a matter of interpretation ..... eh? If you are a landowner you might consider the 500' setback to be less restrictive in that it impinges less on your rights to privacy and safety. But the hunter may see the 500' setback as the more restrictive because he can't cozy up to your house.