I saw this posted on another site, law to increase hunting distance from 500 to 1000?

[biggamefish]

Come on bubba you don't want anybody asking for a cup of coffee from the tree next to your house? I agree that 150 feet might be close but if they cut it to 250 feet that might be a little more reasonable.

[bubba]

oh I own much further that the150 feet, so I am not worried, but what about the person who it does make very nervous. Just another example of hunter image. I would think it would be tough to hunt that close to someones home and see anything.

[landtracdeerhunter]

With all the properties getting broke up in our area, and new homes being built back in places, they shouldn't be, it changes hunting properties forever with the 500' rule. I don't think the towns even consider that when issuing building permits. Years ago, nowone would even consider having that long of a driveway for plowing snow. Best part is, some houses are built and 2 years later, a 4-sale sign goes up. Ruin a neighbors hunting parcel forever. Increase the tax base, it's all about the $

Edited September 5, 2011 by landtracdeerhunter

[Doc]

The 500' rule sounds ok to me ...... 167 yards. It's pretty hard for me to imagine anyone wanting to hunt closer than that. Never mind the safety aspect, that simply sounds like invasion of privacy to me. Who needs it? ...... who wants it? Bow or gun, there's no real point to crawling up under someone's window on the pretense of hunting.

Does it need to be expanded? ...... I don't see any purpose in that either. One thing that I might be in favor of is some language added to the existing law that talks about pointing or discharging a gun/bow in the direction of a house or other structure, person, livestock or vehicle. You can be out there with tape-measures or rangefinders trying to determine 500' and still not really know for sure. But if you can see the side of a house through your scope or sights and you still pull the trigger, you should be subject to some pretty severe prosecution. I'll leave it up to others to concoct the exact language of such a regulation, but I think distances are not the answer. The real practical safety measure is simply not to shoot toward structures, people, livestock, or vehicles. That makes a whole lot more sense than trying to come up with some kind of "safe distance" reg. Let the distance part of the thing apply with respect for personal privacy kinds of issues.

[13BVET]

The problem, is that, if you live in places like the lower southern tier, it is virtually impossible to get 500' from houses. Westchester, Southern Dutchess, and other over developed areas, are creating a problem for the DEC, I would imagine. There's no question in my mind, that Southern Dutchess will be bow only in the future. It simply cannot accommodate a gun season down the road, with the way the development has been going. Westchester is a prime example. If the 500' rule was actually viable, then there would still be a gun season there. The problem, is that the 500' rule, in places like Westchester, for example, has had a negative effect on controlling the deer herd. We don't have large expanses of woods down here anymore. It's pretty much "hole in the wall'-"hunting." The 500' rule, in places like down here, and perhaps Niagara County, as Landtrac pointed out, does more harm than good. A prime example, is behind where I live. There are 4 acres back here. I measured out 500' from 2 houses. The third house, however, only measured out to 450', effectively making it illegal for me to hunt with the bow. Even if it was downgraded to 150', I still wouldn't hunt that close to a house. However, that downgrade would make it perfectly legal to hunt at that 450' point, plenty far enough away. I hope that makes sense.

[bubba]

The problem, is that, if you live in places like the lower southern tier, it is virtually impossible to get 500' from houses. Westchester, Southern Dutchess, and other over developed areas, are creating a problem for the DEC, I would imagine. There's no question in my mind, that Southern Dutchess will be bow only in the future. It simply cannot accommodate a gun season down the road, with the way the development has been going. Westchester is a prime example. If the 500' rule was actually viable, then there would still be a gun season there. The problem, is that the 500' rule, in places like Westchester, for example, has had a negative effect on controlling the deer herd. We don't have large expanses of woods down here anymore. It's pretty much "hole in the wall'-"hunting." The 500' rule, in places like down here, and perhaps Niagara County, as Landtrac pointed out, does more harm than good. A prime example, is behind where I live. There are 4 acres back here. I measured out 500' from 2 houses. The third house, however, only measured out to 450', effectively making it illegal for me to hunt with the bow. Even if it was downgraded to 150', I still wouldn't hunt that close to a house. However, that downgrade would make it perfectly legal to hunt at that 450' point, plenty far enough away. I hope that makes sense.

so you are saying if you could hunt closer to someones private property say 100 yards closer, it would make all the difference? Here is a thought, go ask if you can. If you have permission, the 500 foot rule is null and void as long as you have permission. Just go ask.

[SteveB]

The problem, is that, if you live in places like the lower southern tier, it is virtually impossible to get 500' from houses. Westchester, Southern Dutchess, and other over developed areas, are creating a problem for the DEC, I would imagine. There's no question in my mind, that Southern Dutchess will be bow only in the future. It simply cannot accommodate a gun season down the road, with the way the development has been going. Westchester is a prime example. If the 500' rule was actually viable, then there would still be a gun season there. The problem, is that the 500' rule, in places like Westchester, for example, has had a negative effect on controlling the deer herd. We don't have large expanses of woods down here anymore. It's pretty much "hole in the wall'-"hunting." The 500' rule, in places like down here, and perhaps Niagara County, as Landtrac pointed out, does more harm than good. A prime example, is behind where I live. There are 4 acres back here. I measured out 500' from 2 houses. The third house, however, only measured out to 450', effectively making it illegal for me to hunt with the bow. Even if it was downgraded to 150', I still wouldn't hunt that close to a house. However, that downgrade would make it perfectly legal to hunt at that 450' point, plenty far enough away. I hope that makes sense.

Deer can and will often run more then 250ft when hit. Therefore you would need permission to recover from the landowners outside the 4 acres or it couldn't be hunted responsibly.

Point is regardless of the legal distance, hunting smaller properties requires prior permission of the neighbors anyways if a hunter wishes to avoid confrontations and be able to recover their deer. The current 500 ft setback does not render any property unhuntable for any hunter planning to recover their deer and not just kill it.

[13BVET]

so you are saying if you could hunt closer to someones private property say 100 yards closer, it would make all the difference? Here is a thought, go ask if you can. If you have permission, the 500 foot rule is null and void as long as you have permission. Just go ask.

Bubba, I've been hunting for 31 years now, so I have been down that road, so I understand what you're saying. However, we have a different type of population, as compared to years ago. Most of the people living in these mcmansions are from the city, or Westchester, and certainly don't support hunting to begin with. There's where the problem lies. Anymore, in this area, it's not unusual for people to scream "murderer", "bambi killer", or some other asinine comment, at someone, as their going hunting. Simply put, even with the 500' rule, nothing's guaranteed.

[CNYScott]

It's a one-house bill that has not gone anywhere. It has about 12,000 companions - all one house bills that make for a good press release but will never become law.

[Elmo]

In the southern regions, there are houses surrounding you in all directions so an additional 500 feet means you've lost 500 feet behind you, 500 in front of you, to your left, your right, etc. For some people, the extra 500 feet rule can potentially cost them up to 17 acres of hunting land. I did the math.

[growalot]

So what are you saying?...that with out talking to them....lowering the 500ft rule and having a deer drop dead in their front side or back yard ....wouldn't make them any more or less anti hunting?....lol It would just make the local PD and courts a lot more busy....neighbor conflicts worse..... for do you think they are going to let you go pick up that dead deer? Because you can call the DEC until the cows come home and they CAN NOT LEGALLY force those land owners to allow you or them to recover that deer...all they can do is ask....Then you have every back yard hunter calling the already understaffed DEC to try and do recoveries....Gee no problems here....leave well enough alone...

If the problem is so bad ..which I have no doubt ...then let your local DEC or and archery groups do small town /neighborhood public meetings ...explaining the benefits to all in $$$$$.... allowing permission to having their hunting neighbors...not outsiders...lower the deer population...Setting up certain days so every ones on the same page....but NO...that would take an effort that many just couldn't put them self's out there for

[Geno C]

all these dumb regulations and proposals really put a damper on this sport...

[burmjohn]

Just an FYI - I received a letter in the mail today from Fred Thiele, the original sponsor of the bill... In short, he has since "stricken the enacting clause" which means its dead. I'll scan the letter when I get a chance. It was actually a really nice letter explaining everything.

[pawle76]

More liberal anti hunting anti gun non sense.