Hunting In the City Limits….Are you serious?
First of all, we need to set the stage right up front that our decision is NOT about whether to hunt or not to hunt. Hunting is allowed by the state at certain times of the year. It's not even a question whether or not to allow bow and arrow hunting in the city limits. The Police Chief has the authority to grant this today.
Rochester's growth has caused us to expand into our designated urban use area and so we've been annexing more and more outlying land that had once been farmland and wooded area used by generations of hunters. This land will be developed sooner or later but because it is now in the city limits it is off limits to hunting except if requested to, reviewed, and approved by the chief of police.
The Chief raised a concern over the lack of criteria needed to make his "go/no-go" decision. He made several suggested additions to the present ordinance to make hunting safer and a less subjective decision therefore our discussion scheduled for our May 2nd council meeting.
You may have noticed the evidence of the overpopulation of deer by seeing increasing numbers of them in your backyards ... eating your tulips, your garden, young saplings or perhaps lying on the street or road near you after being hit by a vehicle. I'd even been told of an instance of a bicyclist nearly run over by a deer and had a similar experience on the Douglas Trail. I get numerous requests about having "the city" do something to reduce their number.
The proposed "city limit" bow and arrow hunt is not a direct response to getting rid of those pesky deer in your backyard. (I happen to enjoy watching them walk through the yard but that's me.) We aren't talking about having "bounty hunters" walking down Wilshire Drive or Broadway. However, by allowing the thining of the herd in and around the outlying city limits in a safe manner less deer will need to forage in our backyards, cross our streets, and cause damage and injury by vehicle accidents and the like.
What is proposed for council action is simply the addition of text to the existing ordinance to better define hunting conditions taking out the guess work for our police.
Here are the suggested changes:
1) The shooting occurs on property the person owns or on another person's property
2) The arrow does not travel beyond the boundaries of that property (and that's easier to control than you would think especially with something I want to add).
3) Unless otherwise specified by written permission of the property owner, any shooting must occur at least 500 feet from any building and from any land not owned by the landowner .
4) The shooting does not endanger anyone else. (Well of course! I searched the internet for safety statistics and there has not been a reported bow hunting injury in the whole state .. period. I'd not heard of an injury in my experience back in Illinois at our Archery Club and we'd have a hundred or more members on the course in the woods firing at targets on the range summer and winter.)
I do see a couple of items I think are missing that were in other city's hunting rules that I think should be added and have suggested the same:
5) The applicant must purchase a Regular Archery License or All Season Deer Liciense (a state law anyway but might as well make sure someone doesn't read more into the ordinance than we mean)
6) The applicant must complete an Archery Proficiency Test and be prepared to show proof of this proficiency as granted and administered by a certified Archery Instuctor.
7) Hunting must make use of a tree stand at least 5 feet from ground level. (99.9% of archers use these stand today.) This forces downward shooting and makes travel to 500 feet impossible. Arrows don't ricochet very well. They stick in the ground or in trees or break on rocks but don't go flying all over the place.
A recent Post Bulletin “BackTalk” survery resulted in 197 votes for the hunt and 94 against.
For those of you completely against any kind of hunting, I understand and respect your position. Again, I repeat, our May 2nd discussion is NOT whether to allow huntng or no hunting but simply changes the ordinance to help the police with guidelines that will make it safer for those who chose to participate.
As always, I welcome your questions, comments, or suggestions.
Rochester's growth has caused us to expand into our designated urban use area and so we've been annexing more and more outlying land that had once been farmland and wooded area used by generations of hunters. This land will be developed sooner or later but because it is now in the city limits it is off limits to hunting except if requested to, reviewed, and approved by the chief of police.
The Chief raised a concern over the lack of criteria needed to make his "go/no-go" decision. He made several suggested additions to the present ordinance to make hunting safer and a less subjective decision therefore our discussion scheduled for our May 2nd council meeting.
You may have noticed the evidence of the overpopulation of deer by seeing increasing numbers of them in your backyards ... eating your tulips, your garden, young saplings or perhaps lying on the street or road near you after being hit by a vehicle. I'd even been told of an instance of a bicyclist nearly run over by a deer and had a similar experience on the Douglas Trail. I get numerous requests about having "the city" do something to reduce their number.
The proposed "city limit" bow and arrow hunt is not a direct response to getting rid of those pesky deer in your backyard. (I happen to enjoy watching them walk through the yard but that's me.) We aren't talking about having "bounty hunters" walking down Wilshire Drive or Broadway. However, by allowing the thining of the herd in and around the outlying city limits in a safe manner less deer will need to forage in our backyards, cross our streets, and cause damage and injury by vehicle accidents and the like.
What is proposed for council action is simply the addition of text to the existing ordinance to better define hunting conditions taking out the guess work for our police.
Here are the suggested changes:
1) The shooting occurs on property the person owns or on another person's property
2) The arrow does not travel beyond the boundaries of that property (and that's easier to control than you would think especially with something I want to add).
3) Unless otherwise specified by written permission of the property owner, any shooting must occur at least 500 feet from any building and from any land not owned by the landowner .
4) The shooting does not endanger anyone else. (Well of course! I searched the internet for safety statistics and there has not been a reported bow hunting injury in the whole state .. period. I'd not heard of an injury in my experience back in Illinois at our Archery Club and we'd have a hundred or more members on the course in the woods firing at targets on the range summer and winter.)
I do see a couple of items I think are missing that were in other city's hunting rules that I think should be added and have suggested the same:
5) The applicant must purchase a Regular Archery License or All Season Deer Liciense (a state law anyway but might as well make sure someone doesn't read more into the ordinance than we mean)
6) The applicant must complete an Archery Proficiency Test and be prepared to show proof of this proficiency as granted and administered by a certified Archery Instuctor.
7) Hunting must make use of a tree stand at least 5 feet from ground level. (99.9% of archers use these stand today.) This forces downward shooting and makes travel to 500 feet impossible. Arrows don't ricochet very well. They stick in the ground or in trees or break on rocks but don't go flying all over the place.
A recent Post Bulletin “BackTalk” survery resulted in 197 votes for the hunt and 94 against.
For those of you completely against any kind of hunting, I understand and respect your position. Again, I repeat, our May 2nd discussion is NOT whether to allow huntng or no hunting but simply changes the ordinance to help the police with guidelines that will make it safer for those who chose to participate.
As always, I welcome your questions, comments, or suggestions.
posted by Bob Nowicki | 4:14 PM
2 Comments:
this is a reasonable and prudent approach. the deer problem is getting out of hand. ask the landscape folks how much of their business is replacing plants destroyed by the deer. i don't want them in my yard or neighborhood either. (lime disease etc).
Jon Peterson
Thanks. We will give it another attempt at our next council meeting as it was tabled until all council members could be present.
Bob
Post a Comment
<< Home