Lower the legal shooting distance for bow????

[G-Man]

Everyone talks about the hunters wanting this distance lowered... as far as i know it was presented by the dec... our/your officials. They must have safety/hunting/conservation/population control in mind. the question originally was if we as hunters agree with this. the poll stands at about 2/3 for 1/3 against. in a democracy i guess thats enough support shown for it. 500' for gun has been in place for years and the only safety issues i have heard about it i can count on 10 fingers. I do not see a problem with lowering it from safety stand poiint for bow. I have a lot of faith in hunting ed instructors (there are a few in this forum) in instructing to check your backstop and think safety first. Again there are a few bad apples the will do dumb things, they do it with gun and i expect it with bow. But the number of incidents in the cuffs n collars can again be counted on a few fingers. out of hundreds of thousands of hunters thats a pretty good safety record. Don't punish the majority for the mistakes of a few....

[Grouse]

Doc, it is already legal to do what you want to prevent, if the hunter has permission from the owner of the land he is on and is 150 yards from the neighbors house. And he can not shoot an arrow into the neighbors yard, lest he violate the safety zone law.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Grouse

[Doc]

Doc, it is already legal to do what you want to prevent, if the hunter has permission from the owner of the land he is on and is 150 yards from the neighbors house. And he can not shoot an arrow into the neighbors yard, lest he violate the safety zone law.

I'm not familiar with the "safety zone" law, but I agree that a landowner can grant whatever permissions he wants to anyone he chooses.

[liberty]

So Doc, according to your theory an arrow is more dangerous at a 150ft than a 30'06 bullet at 500 ft. Not even a close comparison. I think your are more concerned about the appearance of someone hunting at 50 yards than safety aspect of it. You keep using the word "Safety" as a disguise for "I just do not like it.". Like I said if you are truly concerened about safety you should outright oppose hunting with a high powered rifle at 500 ft. Far more dangerous in the hands of an idiot hunter.

[Grouse]

The safety zone is the 500' radius that surrounds any structure that is expressly included in the hunting laws, and prohibits loaded firearm or nocked arrow possession, or discharge of either, inside that zone. The law also states shooting into that safety zone from outside the radius is illegal as well.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Grouse

[Doc]

So Doc, according to your theory an arrow is more dangerous at a 150ft than a 30'06 bullet at 500 ft. Not even a close comparison. I think your are more concerned about the appearance of someone hunting at 50 yards than safety aspect of it. You keep using the word "Safety" as a disguise for "I just do not like it.". Like I said if you are truly concerened about safety you should outright oppose hunting with a high powered rifle at 500 ft. Far more dangerous in the hands of an idiot hunter.

Lol .... I don't have any theories. I'm simply saying that 50 yards is too close from a safety standpoint to be shooting arrows at or near neighboring buildings and I would also add neighboring yards as well. The proposed law is for modifying archery proximity only and I simply believe for all the reasons stated already that that is simply not safe and the law should not change. It really is nothing any complicated than that simple fact.

[Doc]

The safety zone is the 500' radius that surrounds any structure that is expressly included in the hunting laws, and prohibits loaded firearm or nocked arrow possession, or discharge of either, inside that zone. The law also states shooting into that safety zone from outside the radius is illegal as well.

Ok then apparently that is just another name for the law we are discussing changing for archery equipment.

[Grouse]

Yes, but it is important to realize you can not shoot into a safety zone, or towards the house in it. I believe that goes a long way to insuring safety.

[Doc]

Yes, but it is important to realize you can not shoot into a safety zone, or towards the house in it. I believe that goes a long way to insuring safety.

That does help as long as every shot goes where you intend it to. But at a mere 50 yards, there is no calling back a bad shot or an accidental release.

I guess I have never seen any specific wording that talks about the direction of shooting. Are you sure that is actually included?

[liberty]

Lol .... I don't have any theories. I'm simply saying that 50 yards is too close from a safety standpoint to be shooting arrows at or near neighboring buildings and I would also add neighboring yards as well. The proposed law is for modifying archery proximity only and I simply believe for all the reasons stated already that that is simply not safe and the law should not change. It really is nothing any complicated than that simple fact.

The rifle comparison is to show the disparity you have with the term "Safety". You keep insisting that that someone in that 50 yard zone is going to shoot recklessly and carelessly everytime. Explain what is different with a rifle at 500ft? A 30'06 can travel up to a 5 (five) mile distance. That is why I am saying you are more concerned with the appearance of someone hunting at 50 yards than the with the safety. .

[Doc]

You keep insisting that that someone in that 50 yard zone is going to shoot recklessly and carelessly everytime.

Wait a minute there fella. Where are you getting that from. Are you kind of making up quotes as you go along? I don't mind people paraphrasing what I have said as long as there is something recognizable regarding what I really said.

First of all, I was of the impression that we were discussing lowering the legal shooting distance for shooting bows. And I am simply stating my opinion that cutting that distance down to 50 yards is a safety concern that should be obvious to anyone who has ever stood in the yard of any typical suburban residence. I'm not really sure just how many times I have to repeat that.

Not to encourage "topic creep", but since you asked, I will say that I do have concerns about any proximity law that doesn't take into consideration directions of shots and what is in the immediate visual sight behind that shot. And that pertains to any weapon at any distance. And of course that has absolutely no relationship to this topic unless you can talk the authors of this proposed change into adding such language (which I'm sure you can't). However, I have tried to stay within the confines of the topic and only address the piece of legislation that is actually being proposed.

[Doc]

Yes, but it is important to realize you can not shoot into a safety zone, or towards the house in it. I believe that goes a long way to insuring safety.

Grouse-

Here is all I could find in terms of actual wording:

From the Environmental Conservation Law of New York Volume 1

Page 11-89, section11-0931 section 4.a.(2)

4. a. No person shall:

(2) discharge a firearm or long bow within five hundred feet from a dwelling house, farm building or farm structure actually occupied or used, school building, school playground or occupied factory or church.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There may be more somewhere else, but I couldn't find anything. There was no mention of direction of the shot in the passage that I found. Further down the page they have a rather lengthy description written in legalese of who is exempt from the law (Owners, family members, employees, and others with permission). The little blurb that they have included on the DEC web site also has similar wording:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is illegal to discharge a firearm or bow:

· within 500 feet of any school, playground, or an occupied factory or church,

· within 500 feet of a dwelling, farm building or structure in occupation or use unless you own it, lease it, are an immediate member of the family, an employee, or have the owner's consent.

[liberty]

Wait a minute there fella. Where are you getting that from. Are you kind of making up quotes as you go along? I don't mind people paraphrasing what I have said as long as there is something recognizable regarding what I really said.

First of all, I was of the impression that we were discussing lowering the legal shooting distance for shooting bows. And I am simply stating my opinion that cutting that distance down to 50 yards is a safety concern that should be obvious to anyone who has ever stood in the yard of any typical suburban residence. I'm not really sure just how many times I have to repeat that.

Not to encourage "topic creep", but since you asked, I will say that I do have concerns about any proximity law that doesn't take into consideration directions of shots and what is in the immediate visual sight behind that shot. And that pertains to any weapon at any distance. And of course that has absolutely no relationship to this topic unless you can talk the authors of this proposed change into adding such language (which I'm sure you can't). However, I have tried to stay within the confines of the topic and only address the piece of legislation that is actually being proposed.

You are right this is abou the bow. You keep saying that 50 yards is unsafe no matter what the situation. Bringing the gun into the debate shows the ignorance of what safety actaully means. Firearms are much more dangerous than a bow ever will be. If you do not object to a firearm at 500 ft How in the world could you object to a bow at 150ft. It is all about the direction of shot which is up to the individual hunter. A law cannot correct stupidity, We keep punishing those who are decent for those who are careless. You keep ignoring the simple fact that 500 ft is way too close for the stupid among us who hunt with a rifle. Your arguement should hold for the gun as it does for the bow beacuse distance is relative. Logic holds true here.. We who support this are trying to understand your objections. You constantly sight safety but you could sight a safety concern with every hunting scenario. I think no matter what is said here you will remain biased like the others because it is not your "TYPE" of hunting.

[Grouse]

Doc, how would the law be applied by a warden if a shooter was 500' from a house but shot a deer within 20 feet of the house? The term "discharge" is interpreted to mean not only where the gun is, but also where the bullet goes. Same applies to archery equipment.

[Doc]

You are right this is abou the bow. You keep saying that 50 yards is unsafe no matter what the situation. Bringing the gun into the debate shows the ignorance of what safety actaully means. Firearms are much more dangerous than a bow ever will be. If you do not object to a firearm at 500 ft How in the world could you object to a bow at 150ft. It is all about the direction of shot which is up to the individual hunter. A law cannot correct stupidity, We keep punishing those who are decent for those who are careless. You keep ignoring the simple fact that 500 ft is way too close for the stupid among us who hunt with a rifle. Your arguement should hold for the gun as it does for the bow beacuse distance is relative. Logic holds true here.. We who support this are trying to understand your objections. You constantly sight safety but you could sight a safety concern with every hunting scenario. I think no matter what is said here you will remain biased like the others because it is not your "TYPE" of hunting.

I guess if one legal arrangement is a bit faulty, we should strive to make all legal arrangements faulty. I guess I don't really follow that kind of logic .... lol. At any rate, you needn't be too concerned with my opinion. I have no intentions of starting up letter-writing campaigns or trying to influence the issue one way or the other.

I do feel the safety aspect of this change is totally being lost on you in favor of what you have convinced yourself that you need. That's ok, everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

[Doc]

Doc, how would the law be applied by a warden if a shooter was 500' from a house but shot a deer within 20 feet of the house? The term "discharge" is interpreted to mean not only where the gun is, but also where the bullet goes. Same applies to archery equipment.

Well, I'm no legal scholar .... lol.... but my interpretation of discharging a gun relates to the pulling of the trigger and causing the physical explosion inside the gun regardless of where the projectile winds up. As far as how the actual legal interpretation of all that goes, I suppose you would have to consult a warden or other judicial administrator. Short answer ...... I don't know.

Look I hope you are right and everything is just wonderful with this proposed legal change. But there certainly are enough questions about it so that there is no way any of it gets any of my support.

[nyantler]

"I do feel the safety aspect of this change is totally being lost on you in favor of what you have convinced yourself that you need."

Thats pretty much it... in a nut shell.. and likewise I wouldn't be starting any campaign for or against either... I would rather leave it to those that think it affects them... the law does not affect me and my opinion is it doesn't (or shouldn't) affect hunters enough to make a big stink about it...

[njg0621]

I don't pretend to understand the distance difficulties for urban hunters. I have never even thought about hunting within 500' of somebody's house, and never will. Urban hunting is outside my idea of a quality hunt, so I guess I probably never will be concerned with whatever difficulties that are involved in such a thing.

So, I guess I don't have a proper perspective on requests to cut that distance down. I do think I understand how it might be a problem controlling urban and even suburban populations without the ability to hunker down uncomfortably close to a residence. But I also understand landowner concerns. The idea of looking over in my hedgerow and seeing some goof sitting there staking out my yard is not very appealing ..... lol. That might not be the best thing for hunter/resident relations. From purely a safety standpoint, I can't see that being much of a real issue, but again there might be a perception issue even on that point that wouldn't exactly help out hunter/landowner relations.

So what do you do with problem herds in tight urban areas. I would leave it up to local municipal control. If an urban area had a problem that was sufficient to warrant some cozy hunting situations, then perhaps they should be permitted in special cases, which would include written permission from the residents affected. If you truly have a problem herd, getting permision from residents that have experienced property damage should be no particular problem.

Even with those safeguards, I would hate to be the hunter tracking my shot deer and soming upon a group of crying hysterical children watching Bambi in the final bloody death-throes.....lol. That would be just one possible scenario of many uncomfortable situations that could arise when you are hunting on the doorstep of so many potential anti-hunters.

Doc

Just consider yourself lucky that you don't have to worry about it! Alot of people dont have that luxury!

[Doc]

Just consider yourself lucky that you don't have to worry about it! Alot of people dont have that luxury!

Luck has nothing to do with where I chose to live. However, I have noted that I hunt along-side of a whole lot of city folks who hunt the very same state land that I do and apparently don't consider it that much of an imposition to hop in their car and drive out here. Another great thing is that none of them feel it is necessary to set up their stand in my hedgerow, 50 yards away from my home ...... lol.

[nyantler]

Just consider yourself lucky that you don't have to worry about it! Alot of people dont have that luxury!

Worry about what? Hunting in my neighbors back yard? I don't see where it is remotely necessary for any hunter to have to hunt in a residential area... especially with all the access to state land... like Doc says.. there may be isolated situations where something drastic might have to be done if deer are taking over the neighborhood... but I would never move into a neighborhood with the intention it being my new hunting spot just because there are deer there... what's next?.. fishing in my neighbors fish tank because there are too many fish in it?

[FletchLives]

Actually, the New York firearms penal code (265) defines a "firearm" as follows: "3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm."

The DEC "regulations" for "hunting" are clear, but the for a non-hunting target shooting situation, the NY penal code "law" does not appear to preclude the bow discharge within any distance from anything. Does anyone have experience with this distinction?

For me personally, hunting in my backyard would be a stretch. But target shooting is a different story. If someone can shoot a .30-06 within 501 feet of a dwelling, then shooting a compound bow within 51 feet is just as safe...or unsafe depending on your viewpoint. As in most situations, common sense still needs to apply. Know what's beyond your target. Don't setup your bag target in front of your neighbor's swing set.

[Doc]

The DEC "regulations" for "hunting" are clear, but the for a non-hunting target shooting situation, the NY penal code "law" does not appear to preclude the bow discharge within any distance from anything. Does anyone have experience with this distinction?

Actually, I have always assumed that laws dealing with releasing an arrow (hunting or otherwise) mirrored the laws dealing with the discharge of firearms. Ah but, that is an assumption. I have never seen it written ...... and you know what they say about "assume" .... lol.

[msbhavn]

I hunt in people's backyards and over fence's that I have permission to hunt. With one neighbor who lives within three hundred feet of my blind (I don't shoot towards his house, but away from it) he has given me permission to hunt within the five hundred foot rule but I must call him ahead of time to tell him where and when I will be hunting. He also gets a quart of venison chili if I suceed on the property.