Lower the legal shooting distance for bow????

[liberty]

I guess this kind of comes down to your definition of "hunting"... mine is definitely not slithering around neighborhood homes shooting deer foraging on house plants... if I can see a house or hear the kids waiting for the school bus.. I'm way too close to civilization... I suppose for those of you the long to hunt on your cul-de-sac or set up a blind near the neighbors swingset... maybe there needs to be a law change... but in fairness I realize that is not what we're talking about here really..

I think we're talking about some of you that purchased a home on 5 acres, with a few acres of woods behind the house, with the intent of having a forever bowhunting spot directly behind the house... and you were always fine with the 500' rule until the day you realized that nothing is forever... now you want NYS to rethink a long time law to accomodate your inconvenience even though NYS did absolutely nothing to create your new hunting problem...

Wrong. That is what is not being said. If you read the 20 previous posts you would clearly see that.

[Pistol Pete]

Kill anything you want and when a arrow hits a limb and goes into the next yard

you may have to look for a new place to kill . Good luck !! hunting is great in the woods where the wild things live!!!

[nyantler]

Wrong. That is what is not being said. If you read the 20 previous posts you would clearly see that.

LOL.. thats exactly what I get out of the last 20 posts... you don't have to agree.. which I already knew you wouldn't... I was trying to be nice, but what it really comes down to for you is that you want them to change the law strictly to help your personal situation... be honest.. that's really the only reason you care about lessoning the distance... It's always the same old crap here... guys making up feel good reasons why some law should be changed to justify their own personal agenda... personally I don't think there should be a distance law at all... hunters should be smart enough to keep a good buffer without a law, and if I want to build 400 BS sheds on my property to make sure nobody hunts within 500' of my property it would be my right to do so... it is not your neighbors fault that you don't own a big enough piece of land to keep that from happening.

[liberty]

LOL.. thats exactly what I get out of the last 20 posts... you don't have to agree.. which I already knew you wouldn't... I was trying to be nice, but what it really comes down to for you is that you want them to change the law strictly to help your personal situation... be honest.. that's really the only reason you care about lessoning the distance... It's always the same old crap here... guys making up feel good reasons why some law should be changed to justify their own personal agenda... personally I don't think there should be a distance law at all... hunters should be smart enough to keep a good buffer without a law, and if I want to build 400 BS sheds on my property to make sure nobody hunts within 500' of my property it would be my right to do so... it is not your neighbors fault that you don't own a big enough piece of land to keep that from happening.

It is quite obvious that someone that wants a law changed has a vested interest in it.Common sense there. If you do not feel there should be any law then why are you here in this forum debating it? I am sure the DEC is not looking to accomodate me personally. I do not think that I am that important to them. However there are thousands that would benefit and that is exactly why the DEC is looking to change it.

Edited March 3, 2012 by liberty

[Doc]

The DEC's stake in the argument is obvious. I have not seen a single move by them in recent years that was not aimed squarely at reducing herd sizes. That seems to be the only tenet of herd management that they are concerned with these days. I don't believe that they are even thinking about safety in this issue or about what is reasonable neighbor relationships when it comes to proximity issues. In fact, I seriously doubt they have even considered the non-hunting ramifications of such a law change as regards back-yard target practice. It seems that most discussions of this issue start off with a focus on hunting and never seem to get involved with the bigger picture around that. I frankly would not use their opinions as any kind of credible endorsement of the law change.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Well Doc, in alot of suburban areas, there is a big problem with deer numbers, and limited huntable areas under current laws. Would you rather see them use paid sharp shooters on your tax dime, or allow hunters to take some deer out of those areas? Everytime i see stories about the bait and shoot programs, i see hunters complaining that they dont have the opportunity to hunt the deer. Well, the DEC is trying to give that opportunity in some of those areas. Its quite apparent that the current herd control is not working for those places, and unless you guys want to see some of these wacky deer birth control ideas come to fruition, you should stop and think about what you arent supporting.

Again, seems to be alot of " thats not my way of hunting so i am against it" type attitude being displayed here.

[liberty]

Well Doc, in alot of suburban areas, there is a big problem with deer numbers, and limited huntable areas under current laws. Would you rather see them use paid sharp shooters on your tax dime, or allow hunters to take some deer out of those areas? Everytime i see stories about the bait and shoot programs, i see hunters complaining that they dont have the opportunity to hunt the deer. Well, the DEC is trying to give that opportunity in some of those areas. Its quite apparent that the current herd control is not working for those places, and unless you guys want to see some of these wacky deer birth control ideas come to fruition, you should stop and think about what you arent supporting.

Again, seems to be alot of " thats not my way of hunting so i am against it" type attitude being displayed here.

Well said!!

[G-Man]

Yes!!! that is what this is about herd reduction in surburaban areas, getting away from the anti hunters banning all hunting in a lot of areas via 500' rule that was enacted for gun initailly and installing an appropriate distance for bow, that will allow these unmanaged areas to be managed thru bowhunting. THATS IT!!!. Whether or not the shot is ethical or should or shouldn't be taken is up to the individual. the distance law is that just for distance. not ethics,or i wouldn't do that so it should be law. Put put the power back into the hands of the resident/ those who seek permission to hunt in these area's and remove it from the general anti/indifferent popuation in these areas who don't car for or do not want hunting of bambi...

[Doc]

Well Doc, in alot of suburban areas, there is a big problem with deer numbers, and limited huntable areas under current laws. Would you rather see them use paid sharp shooters on your tax dime, or allow hunters to take some deer out of those areas? Everytime i see stories about the bait and shoot programs, i see hunters complaining that they dont have the opportunity to hunt the deer. Well, the DEC is trying to give that opportunity in some of those areas. Its quite apparent that the current herd control is not working for those places, and unless you guys want to see some of these wacky deer birth control ideas come to fruition, you should stop and think about what you arent supporting.

Again, seems to be alot of " thats not my way of hunting so i am against it" type attitude being displayed here.

My problem with lowering the shooting distance of a bow from structures is purely based on safety. I do think it is irresponsible to consider only how wonderful it is for deer management. Just as it is wrong for antis to consider the welfare of animals over humans, it is equally wrong for us to do the same. Whenever I hear this sort of thing being proposed, I never hear anyone recognizing the fact that the very same leeway that is being proposed for hunting also applies to backyard target practice. I have not heard what the proposed legal remedy is for the homeowner who feels uncomfortable about having his family use their own yard because of a neighbor's legal but dangerous target practice arrangement.

As far as suburbia not being my favorite place to hunt, that is absolutely true. I don't have any problem admitting that. I also have no problem with those who like that sort of hunting. However, my attitude on that is quite a different subject from what should be deemed safe or not.

[nyantler]

It is quite obvious that someone that wants a law changed has a vested interest in it.Common sense there. If you do not feel there should be any law then why are you here in this forum debating it? I am sure the DEC is not looking to accomodate me personally. I do not think that I am that important to them. However there are thousands that would benefit and that is exactly why the DEC is looking to change it.

What should be obvious to both you and the DEC is that although there are thousands of hunters that would benefit.. there are 100's of thousands of hunters... and I'm sure more non- hunting neighbors that would not like to see it changed... I didn't say there shouldn't be a law, I said there should be no NEED for a law if all hunters were capable of keeping a safe buffer on their own... but since we all know that is not possible... someone must protect the rest of the citizens... I also said the law has no impact on me as a hunter... but it does protect me from my yahoo neighbor that wants to plunk his butt next to my kid's playhouse that I built in my woods... on the land that I paid for... if in fact that is what I want to do.. it's just that simple... your wanting to shoot a weapon does not, and should not, take presidence over my right to erect any structure or use my property any way I want without fear of being hit by a projectile... period.

If your neighbor(s) gives you permission to do so then ok... but if not... sorry but thats how it goes sometimes... live with it.

Edited March 4, 2012 by nyantler

[G-Man]

The dec must feel that 150' is safe to be recomending that. if we listend to everyone's safest idea we wouldn't have any guns/bows/hunting in general. or sports for that matter or cars that can go faster than 5mph(bumper rating for safety). Again there are laws for reckless endangerment. This propoasal simple puts the distance at a reasonable commonsence distance instead of lumping it in with gun. which is what happend when this law was enacted in the firstplace. A bow is not the same as a firearm, it doesn't use fire to project its projectile its max range is much shorter than a gun and as such the "safe" distance should be reduced. If you drive to fast in a neighborhood or swerve in a car you can get a ticket for reckless endangerment, same as if you shoot toward an unsafe backstop even if your 500'or more away and hit someones house with an errant shot.. Your concerns are covered by different laws! you can't have and all encompassing law for distance,safety,ethics it wouldn't be possible. Take the proposal for what it is reducing the distance to allow managment in areas that are now overly restricted by an out-dated law meant for guns.

[nyantler]

The dec must feel that 150' is safe to be recomending that. if we listend to everyone's safest idea we wouldn't have any guns/bows/hunting in general. or sports for that matter or cars that can go faster than 5mph(bumper rating for safety). Again there are laws for reckless endangerment. This propoasal simple puts the distance at a reasonable commonsence distance instead of lumping it in with gun. which is what happend when this law was enacted in the firstplace. A bow is not the same as a firearm, it doesn't use fire to project its projectile its max range is much shorter than a gun and as such the "safe" distance should be reduced. If you drive to fast in a neighborhood or swerve in a car you can get a ticket for reckless endangerment, same as if you shoot toward an unsafe backstop even if your 500'or more away and hit someones house with an errant shot.. Your concerns are covered by different laws! you can't have and all encompassing law for distance,safety,ethics it wouldn't be possible. Take the proposal for what it is reducing the distance to allow managment in areas that are now overly restricted by an out-dated law meant for guns.

G... the law wouldn't have to change to allow management in suburban areas... special hunting permits and other controls for specific areas based on there needs would work just fine without changing the entire distance law state wide... I am fine with that kind of solution... I'm really not trying to pick on Liberty... but to change the law to accomodate his kind of situation I think is not a good idea...

Edited March 4, 2012 by nyantler

[G-Man]

i think the dec just wants a uniform law to enforce rather than each township enacting different regs for each situation. this probably covers the majority and allows for easier less expensive enforcement. kind of like corning coming up with no xbow for regular season last year ..enforcement nightmare for them..

[liberty]

G... the law wouldn't have to change to allow management in suburban areas... special hunting permits and other controls for specific areas based on there needs would work just fine without changing the entire distance law state wide... I am fine with that kind of solution... I'm really not trying to pick on Liberty... but to change the law to accomodate his kind of situation I think is not a good idea...

Trust me, you are not going to hurt my feelings. However, you said it again. You make it sound like the DEC is my personal friend and they considering it just for me.. I believe the DEC who are the professionals here looked long and hard at this and feel that there are more positives than negatives. Look at NJ. Thay have done it with great success. Like G-man said there are numerous laws on the books to protect land owners from hunters who have no regard for the safety of others. That is the problem with this country today. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. Some of us feel another law or regulation is needed to make us responsible. Your freedoms are being rapidly diminished right under your nose. and you think it is ok. Your logic regarding 150ft being unsafe with a bow.should also apply to 500 ft with a rifle.. A rifle pointed in the wrong direction is unsafe wether it is 500 ft or 5000ft. It is up to the hunter to be safe iIndividual responsibility..is the issue here. Everyone forgets that.

[nyantler]

I am losing no freedom at all..lol... 5ft,1000ft, 5000 ft, 1 mile... makes no difference to me.. I don't hunt close to the rules... I hunt away from them... we are talking about an already existing law... which I think should never be needed... I'm not trying to add any new restrictions at all.. or change any restrictions... I'm not making any wave with those that don't share my love for hunting, or those that are completely against it... your cry for freedom at the cost of someones right to protection of their property.. speeks only for "YOUR" freedom not the FREEDOM of everyone... isn't that the freedom you're really talking about here.... you are mistaking freedom with privilege... hunting is a privilege, not a right... safety is a right.. and every person is entitle to it... therefore laws are created to protect those rights... whether you like them or not... in my eyes the only freedom I'm losing is when I can't use my own back yard for fear that my neighbor might accidently send an arrow sailing over my head.. not everyone is as safe with their weapons as you and me.

[Doc]

Take the proposal for what it is reducing the distance to allow managment in areas that are now overly restricted by an out-dated law meant for guns.

No, actually take the proposal for what it could wind up doing to the peace of mind of neighbors. reckless endangerment laws are great after an arrow is found stuck in the side of your house (or leg .... lol). If reckless endangerment laws were adequate to handle the situation, then there would have never been shooting proximity laws of any distance in the first place.

I have laid out the scenario quite a few times already and there is no need for me to repeat it. 50 yards is simply too close to be safe.

[Pistol Pete]

right on!!

[WNYBuckHunter]

My problem with lowering the shooting distance of a bow from structures is purely based on safety. I do think it is irresponsible to consider only how wonderful it is for deer management. Just as it is wrong for antis to consider the welfare of animals over humans, it is equally wrong for us to do the same. Whenever I hear this sort of thing being proposed, I never hear anyone recognizing the fact that the very same leeway that is being proposed for hunting also applies to backyard target practice. I have not heard what the proposed legal remedy is for the homeowner who feels uncomfortable about having his family use their own yard because of a neighbor's legal but dangerous target practice arrangement.

As far as suburbia not being my favorite place to hunt, that is absolutely true. I don't have any problem admitting that. I also have no problem with those who like that sort of hunting. However, my attitude on that is quite a different subject from what should be deemed safe or not.

So the easy answer to that is to prosecute people for doing reckless things. You cannot legislate common sense, but there are ways to prosecute for not using it. If you are shooting toward a nearby house, and do any type of damage, you pay the price. Most guys that i know that shoot in their suburb back yards, do so using a shed or something like that as a back stop. They could easilly put a clause about proper back stops for a target range within a certain distance from a home or business.

[WNYBuckHunter]

No, actually take the proposal for what it could wind up doing to the peace of mind of neighbors. reckless endangerment laws are great after an arrow is found stuck in the side of your house (or leg .... lol). If reckless endangerment laws were adequate to handle the situation, then there would have never been shooting proximity laws of any distance in the first place.

Last i knew, any bullet is capable of going more than 500 feet. How do they charge people when shooting accidents occur when the shooter is past the 500 foot mark?

[liberty]

No, actually take the proposal for what it could wind up doing to the peace of mind of neighbors. reckless endangerment laws are great after an arrow is found stuck in the side of your house (or leg .... lol). If reckless endangerment laws were adequate to handle the situation, then there would have never been shooting proximity laws of any distance in the first place.

I have laid out the scenario quite a few times already and there is no need for me to repeat it. 50 yards is simply too close to be safe.

Doc, if you feel that 50 yds is too close for a bow then how could you support 500 ft with a rifle.Is it not up to the individual to be safe?? A 30'06 pointed in the wrong direction at 500 ft is no different than a bow pointed in the wrong direction at 150FT. Besides man has been hunting lomg before the DEC came around. Do you see, that is the problem. Hunters like you feel that if does not affect me I do not want it.to change. You have the luxury of space where you hunt. This view is obviously skewed for your personal situation. Remember, the Dec is not here to only cater to people with large tracts of land. It is here for all hunters. I think you made a good point earlier.. We both agree on a directional requirement. This would do more for safety than any distance requirement. I think at this point in the debate we can agree to disagree. It has been fun.

Edited March 4, 2012 by liberty

[Grouse]

In NJ they lowered the distance for bow hunting to 50 yards, but they also stipulate you must be in a treestand if you are closer than 150 yards. The idea being your shots from a stand will hit the ground when you shoot at a deer.

The law was changed to allow the deer population in densely people populated areas, to be controlled without spending tax dollars on sharpshooters, who were hunting at night with semi-auto rifles, silencers, night vision and bait, and leaving a lot of dead deer in the woods to rot. The residents of those areas generally approve of the new regs, after they found out the problems and expense created by using sharp shooters. Weighing all of the advantages vs disadvantages of the two options, letting bowhunters take the deer is the better option.

I do not know if the NY law is proposing the hunter must be in a treestand if they are closer than 500' or not, but that would be a good idea.

I'm for allowing bowhunters within 150' of a structure if a treestand is required. It is working very well in NJ where it's been in effect for years now. The sale of bownunting licenses is on the rise there as well, especially since they now allow Sunday bowhunting too.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Grouse

[nyantler]

If we weren't trying to figure out a way to hunt closer to our neighbors shed.. maybe we could think more about getting back in the woods where hunting was intended... and G-man.. I know you are one of the few like myself that have a genuine interest in conservation and look at the rules and regs in those terms, but lets face it... the majority of hunters only care about getting closer to civilization by changing the law because they are too lazy or not adept enough to hunt in the the wilderness... for most hunters its a good thing the minimum isn't also 500ft from a roadway... or 80% of hunters would always be in violation. I hear all the justifications being spouted by fellas concerned all of a sudden about the "overpopulation of whitetail and the dire need to adjust those populations by hunting in the school yards and shopping malls parking lots!" All they really care about is finding the easiest way to be able to tell their hunting buddies they got a buck this year. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

[Doc]

So the easy answer to that is to prosecute people for doing reckless things. You cannot legislate common sense, but there are ways to prosecute for not using it. If you are shooting toward a nearby house, and do any type of damage, you pay the price. Most guys that i know that shoot in their suburb back yards, do so using a shed or something like that as a back stop. They could easilly put a clause about proper back stops for a target range within a certain distance from a home or business.

I don't want to rely on laws that only kick in when there are bodys laying on the ground. The idea of the current law is it serves a deterrent from creating an unsafe situation rather than waiting until someone is hurt or property damaged and then trying to figure out what laws to apply. I can't see revising a perfectly useful law just to legally put people in harms way.

As far as trying to legislate the use of common sense, there is no doubt that law cannot rely on individual common sense. And so, that is the purpose of such laws ...... So that we don't have to rely on our neighbors having things like common sense and responsible attitudes. That kind of goes along with the thought that if all people were honest, and always did the right thing, we wouldn't need any laws. But, we all know better than that, don't we?

[Grouse]

I agree some hunters are like that, but I don't like the idea of paying "mercenary" hunters to kill deer and reduce the deer population. If the whitetail deer population is out of control in densely populated suburban areas, let the licensed hunters be the ones who fix the problem. We pay for the privilege to hunt, we pass a test to be able to do so, we use the meat from the deer we kill and we are prosecuted if we do anything wrong. Besides, if that is where a trophy buck has chosen to live, why not allow a bow hunter to take it if it can be done safely?

I think, (and NJ's law proves this), that the majority of bow hunters can be trusted to hunt safely from a treestand within 50 yards of any occupied structure. I resent any opinion that suggests most hunters are bafoons and morons that are dangerous. I hear a lot of anti-hunters say that, but it angers me to hear another hunter say it. You align yourself with, and support, the anti-hunting argument when you air such views. Besides, we should all know by now, if we want to prevent any possibilty of danger in our lives, the government will be more than happy to restrict everything we might want to do, that it could deem dangerous to anyone.

Change the law to 50 yards. If it becomes a problem, it can always be reversed. Remember, shooting in the direction of the occupied dwelling onto property within 50 yards of it, is shooting into a safety zone and therefore illegal.

For one to complain about this law, seems to be a desire to control what is happening on property that is not owned by the complainer. I also have a real issue with opening up that Pandora's box. I have no desire to restrict a viable solution to excessive deer numbers, or greater bow hunting opportunity, if it can be done safely. I'll give the bowhunter the benefit of the doubt and deal with him only if he proves he cannot be trusted.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Grouse

[Doc]

Doc, if you feel that 50 yds is too close for a bow then how could you support 500 ft with a rifle.Is it not up to the individual to be safe?? A 30'06 pointed in the wrong direction at 500 ft is no different than a bow pointed in the wrong direction at 150FT. Besides man has been hunting lomg before the DEC came around. Do you see, that is the problem. Hunters like you feel that if does not affect me I do not want it.to change. You have the luxury of space where you hunt. This view is obviously skewed for your personal situation. Remember, the Dec is not here to only cater to people with large tracts of land. It is here for all hunters. I think you made a good point earlier.. We both agree on a directional requirement. This would do more for safety than any distance requirement. I think at this point in the debate we can agree to disagree. It has been fun.

I don't know that my opinion is based on the fact that I am not directly affected by this proposed change although I will say that I am glad that I am not. I only know that I have driven through housing developments, and there is nobody that will ever convince me that 50 yards is an adequate distance for people to be shooting bows in hunting or target situations. And I'm not just talking about distances to buildings, but even distances to people's occupied yards. Those people have the right to enjoy their property without worrying about arrows flying through their yard. I think anyone who has ever stood in the back yard of a typical suburban lot can not disagree with that assessment and still maintain a straight face.

I am not saying that clever people would be unable to add qualifiers to that law that might make it acceptable, but simply chopping the distance as is currently being proposed without any other restrictions is definitely not something that will ever get my support.