Contact your delegates please! HoCo May reduce safety zones for archery SB96

[lazarus]

Contact and support SB96 reduce archery safety zones in HoCo

Please contact your reps that you support senate bill 96. Filed by senator Katie Hester. It puts HoCo’s archery safety zones in line with most other Maryland counties, 50yds rather than 150. Let’s try to convince them to get this across the finish line...

www.mdshooters.com

SB96 is currently sponsored by Senator Hester. It puts HoCo safety zones for archery in line for most counties. 100yds from the ground, 50yds from an elevated position.

Please show your support, especially if you live in howard county. It sounds like the 9a delegates and senator would like to see this passed. It is being filed in the house, pending further discussion during the HoCo delegations meetings tomorrow at 10am and next week and will likely be withdrawn from the senate. I was told that will make it easier to advance and avoid a duplicative effort from the delegation.

 

[smokey]

Contact and support SB96 reduce archery safety zones in HoCo

Please contact your reps that you support senate bill 96. Filed by senator Katie Hester. It puts HoCo’s archery safety zones in line with most other Maryland counties, 50yds rather than 150. Let’s try to convince them to get this across the finish line...

www.mdshooters.com

SB96 is currently sponsored by Senator Hester. It puts HoCo safety zones for archery in line for most counties. 100yds from the ground, 50yds from an elevated position.

Please show your support, especially if you live in howard county. It sounds like the 9a delegates and senator would like to see this passed. It is being filed in the house, pending further discussion during the HoCo delegations meetings tomorrow at 10am and next week and will likely be withdrawn from the senate. I was told that will make it easier to advance and avoid a duplicative effort from the delegation.

I remember arguing against these huge zones way back when they were expanded. I printed off packets for everyone on the council and spoke directly with Jen terasa, as I taught her kids at the time. The larger the safety zones, the more it forces a hunter to sit in the middle of a property and shoot outward TOWARDS the surrounding areas. The smaller, the easier it is for a hunter to sit on the perimeter and shoot towards the middle of the hunting land. Expanded safety zones are anything but safer.

 

[Slackdaddy]

I remember arguing against these huge zones way back when they were expanded. I printed off packets for everyone on the council and spoke directly with Jen terasa, as I taught her kids at the time. The larger the safety zones, the more it forces a hunter to sit in the middle of a property and shoot outward TOWARDS the surrounding areas. The smaller, the easier it is for a hunter to sit on the perimeter and shoot towards the middle of the hunting land. Expanded safety zones are anything but safer.

I had run into this.
I have a stand that is 140 yards from a house. Maybe 1-2 shots come from that stand Oct-Jan.
The stand faces away from the house and facing down into a bottom.
I was questioned about the distance,, I said I can move it down 15 yards into the bottom and turn it facing UP towards the neighborhood.

 

[lazarus]

I’ve gotten permission from neighbors. But if forced to 150yds, then I am basically sitting on my back deck and shooting towards my neighbors rather than near the property lines shooting back in towards my house, or at least “down the properties” along the creek not remotely towards any occupied dwelling.

I’d have to be pretty intentional to lob a crossbow bolt in to one of their houses, but it is still less safe.

As it is, my stand is near the creek bottom aimed downward, about 70 or 80yds from the closest neighbor up the other side of the creek bottom and maybe 120 from another neighbor. If one of them decides they no longer want me hunting there than I am to sitting on the ground on or by my back deck on the level with those houses shooting at deer just inside the tree line or on to the lawn. At deer just barely below the level of our houses.

So a new neighbor or one having a bad day and I am “stuck” hunting in a way that is at least theoretically less safe. Certainly less enjoyable. Likely less hunting which means fewer of the very over populated deer being removed.

This would definitely open up safer hunting for more people.

 

[lazarus]

Just an update. It looks like Guy Guzzone and Clarence Lam might be the ones to target to show our support. They appear to be on the fence/inclined towards status quo spending tax payer money on sharp shooters, rather than allowing hunters to control the deer population. So, sending thoughtful, supportive, emails to both would be helpful. Especially sooner rather than later as they meet in the morning and then next week to discuss.

Clarence Lam (clarence.lam@senate.state.md.us)
Guy Guzzone (guy.guzzone@senate.state.md.us)

 

[ohen cepel]

I wrote them both, we'll see. Some smart decisions in this state would be a welcomed change!

 

[lazarus]

If it helps anyone, this is what I wrote to all three of Howard County's state Senators.

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

I wanted to write to express my support for SB96. As a long time resident of Howard county, born and raised in Columbia, then Ellicott City, and now Sykesville, I wanted to pass along some of my thoughts in support of this bill.

Suburban deer populations in Maryland have been a problem for years. When their populations are unchecked, it leads to dangerous and expensive vehicle collisions. Excessive herd sizes contribute to small farmers’ losses from crop and orchard damage. Which makes it harder for them to sustain a livelihood in our county. Much of the metropolitan, and some of the rural, part of the county is currently excluded from hunting because of the current archery safety zones. Sharp Shooters have generally not been shown to be nearly as effective, in any county that has employed them, as allowing archery hunters the safe and effective choice to hunt private, and public, property. The vast majority of counties in Maryland for years have allowed a 50 yd archery safety zone from occupied buildings if hunting from an elevated stand, or 100yds if hunting from the ground. Maryland Department of Natural Resources has registered no accidental injuries as a result of these smaller safety zones, proving that they are in fact sufficient for safety. Montgomery county several years ago changed their safety zones at the urging of former Delegate Luedtke, who sponsored Montgomery County’s bill after listening to his constituents needs. From everything I have heard, the change has been successful in safely increasing deer harvests in Montgomery county and reducing the deer population pressures. Montgomery county is, if anything, even more populated than Howard County is. If Montgomery county can show it can be done safely and effectively, then I believe that Howard County certainly can too.

The passage of this bill would allow sportsmen and women to be a greater part of the solution to deer overpopulation in our county in a way that has been proven across Maryland to be safe, and effective. Sharpshooters currently cost the county tax payers not insignificant amounts of money and are limited only to county owned property for depredation efforts. This further limits the impact they have on deer population control as the sharpshooters do not have access to private property. Allowing greater hunter access on their own properties and public property through the change in archery safety zones that SB96 promises, would offer additional economic activity to the county and state and lead to the sales of additional hunting licenses, stamps, and investment of more residents in the environmental well being of their county.

I urge your support of this bill. It will help Howard County’s environment. It can lead to reduced tax payer spending while likely increasing county and state revenues. It will help improve road safety in Howard County. It will help Howard County’s small farmers. It has been proven to be safe and effective in every county in Maryland that has implemented these reduced archery safety zones, including in Maryland’s most populated and most densely populated county. For all of these reasons I urge your support of this bill.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration.

 

[lazarus]

And before you nit-pick, I realized after hitting send it isn't the vast majority of counties. It is effective half of the counties allow it.

 

[lazarus]

Delegate Terrasa SMH

Talking about one of her constituents said she was told their dog got shot by a hunter and was told by their vet it was VERY common.

DNR and county basically replied and said "we have never heard of anything like that happening and it wouldn't be a safety matter. It would be an intentional criminal act. It certainly isn't something common".

Senator Hester basically shut down Delegate Terrasa talking about it too after a minute.

From the county delegation meeting.

Delegate Terrasa is definitely 100% against it citing imaginary events and her mind won't be changed. "Just because there is no data tracking domestic animals getting shot doesn't mean it isn't happening all the time!"

 

[lazarus]

If you haven't please reach out to the county delegates about how both important this is, and safe. It sounds like a majority of the senators may be onboard. We need a majority of the delegates now!

PLEASE! Reach out. If you live in HoCo, if you hunt in HoCo, then you know how overpopulated the deer are. Heck, if you happen to just DRIVE THROUGH, reduced deer herds, especially in the eastern part of the county is important ecologically and for motorist safety.

Please let them know.

Here are the contact emails of the county delegates.

chao.wu@house.state.md.us
natalie.ziegler@house.state.md.us
courtney.watson@house.state.md.us
pam.guzzone@house.state.md.us
terri.hill@house.state.md.us
jessica.feldmark@house.state.md.us
vanessa.atterbeary@house.state.md.us
jen.terrasa@house.state.md.us

 

[lazarus]

Just bumping this. I just listened to the latest round. DNR had excellent data and hit back against the more shrill delegates, but it sounds like the bill may get amended away or just not approved.

They want to potentially only allow managed hunts or sharpshooters to have reduced safety zones or maybe also include crop damage permits. They don't care that Montgomery county has seen wide success and are still safe with this (I am speaking to a few delegates). So no idea if the amendments will get forced in or if it'll get a clean vote from the HoCo delegation.

It was obvious Terrasa and Feldmark are 100% against any kind of hunting whatsoever. Their best solution is shut down public parks more to allow more managed hunting and sharpshooters and that will solve everything.

 

[lazarus]

So please contact them all and share your support for 15-23/sb96 as written and not to amend it away in to nothingness.

 

[lazarus]

Contacts in one easy please. Please send something supportive. Let’s have the MDS community help support actual common sense legislation!

Katie Fry Hester
(Katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us)
Clarence Lam (clarence.lam@senate.state.md.us)
Guy Guzzone (guy.guzzone@senate.state.md.us)

chao.wu@house.state.md.us
natalie.ziegler@house.state.md.us
courtney.watson@house.state.md.us
pam.guzzone@house.state.md.us
terri.hill@house.state.md.us
jessica.feldmark@house.state.md.us
vanessa.atterbeary@house.state.md.us
jen.terrasa@house.state.md.us

 

[lazarus]

Sounds like they are kicking the can till at least the next meeting. Some amendments proposed.

Limit the archery safety zone reduction to only HoCo managed hunt program
One to limit it just to county sharpshooters
One to limit it only to crop damage permit holders

It sounds like possibly some or all of those will get adopted. It might just pass clean (or just get defeated).

They were struggling to figure out what the heck the law today means. Some thought you didn't need permission from other people if you have permission of the landowner. Delegate Feldmark of all people pointed out that it is from anyone in that radius who is the owner/occupant of a dwelling. Not just the owner of the land. Delegate Hill put forward that the amendments really seemed to dilute the impact of the bill on actually controlling deer populations.

So I don't know. They are waiting for final language on those amendments and a couple delegates had asked for amendments that combined the managed hunt and sharpshooter program and county managed hunt and crop damage. They are waiting to get that, probably discuss the bill again at their next weekly session.

So no idea where this one is going. Sounds like it'll likely pass in some form. I hope clean, might not be.

They didn't share specific text, but most of the conversation on the amendments was "the closer 50yd" on the amendment. So I don't know if the amendments are only going to target the 50-100yd range being limited to possibly managed hunts, sharshooters, and crop damage permit holders and that they would allow the 150 to 100yd reduction to stand without dicking with it. That would at least be some win if they do that. But I am hoping it passes clean as written.

Doesn't hurt to reach out again and encourage them to pass it clean...

The bill draft deadline is February 9th. So if they don't vote it to move forward by then, it doesn't move this year. Watson did encourage the bill sponsors of these last 4 bills to work with delegates to answer questions ahead of next weeks meeting so they can move on these quickly, rather than spending 20, 30, 40 minutes just answering more questions.

 

[lazarus]

Deer management permits or county managed hunts only for the change in safety bill.

It had originally sounded like they'd reduce it to 100 for all and 50 for the crop permits and managed hunts.

Looks like it is 150 for all, except for only the crop permits and managed hunts. So basically it does almost nothing either to manage the deer or actually reasonably allow bow hunting in the county.

 

[lazarus]

Yup, amendment to gut the change passed.

Passed with just Senator Lam voting against it even as amended. He heard a lot of constituents with concerns against the bill.

I guess waiting to see the language as amended (I am guessing will be filed today or tomorrow on the website), but pretty sure there is NO reduction of the zone from 150 to 100yds for everyone else.

I'd say let's push next year, but I don't think the county delegation as currently composed will ever do anything more. Especially not after the feel good of doing something, that doesn't really do much of anything. But maybe next year we can try to push moving it to 100yds for everyone else next year if that wasn't changed.

 

[lazarus]

It for sure won't do a lick of good this year, but I fired this one off. Maybe next year they'll do SOMETHING.

Dear Senators and Delegates,

I am disappointed that proposed bill 15-23 did not pass as originally written. Many counties in Maryland, including Montgomery county, have proven that 50yd archery hunting safety zones are safe and effective for deer management. The bill as amended to only allow those hunting in the county managed hunt program and crop damage permit holders a reduced safety zone does nothing to actually improve safety, as a 50yd safety zone is already proved to be 100% effective at keeping others safe. The Department of Natural Resources director shared unequivocal evidence with the Howard County delegation that there is never, not once, in Maryland since statistics have started being collected in the 1970s of a single incident where another person was injured or killed by an archery hunter in the state of Maryland. This includes counties much more densely populated than Howard county that have 50 yard safety zones. Not once in hundreds of thousands of hunts over 50+ years.

The bill as amended will do little to reduce the deer herd in Howard county, and thus have little impact on the safety of residents from increasing Lyme disease and traffic accidents from collisions with deer. Deer don’t stay put, and just because a farmer or their agent has some more breathing room to hunt with a bow, doesn’t mean their neighbor where the deer are spending their day and then coming out at night to eat the farmer’s crops can now hunt their 5 acre property, because their next door neighbor 140yds away on their own 5 acres, doesn’t want them hunting. The county managed hunt program has little impact on deer numbers, because it can only be run on county property. Not on private property near any of the parks, where most of the deer are located. Nor does it reduce safety zones for state controlled land, such as Hugg Thomas WMA, Patuxent or Potapsco parks. Keeping the areas where deer can be hunted limited.

I urge you in the next session, to please refile and take up 15-23 as it was originally written for consideration. People’s concerns that the bill would be unsafe are not grounded in the actual 50 years of data proving the bill would be safe. If those concerns cannot be overcome, then I would at least urge the delegation to consider a bill reducing the safety zone to 75 or 100yds for those not holding a crop damage permit or participating in the county managed hunt program. That would make a much greater impact than 15-23 as amended today will make and not reduce safety any, as even 50yds has proven safe.

 

[lazarus]

As a heads up, PG county appears to be advancing a change to 50yds for their archery safety zone. No elevated position required. Seems their delegation has moved it.

Wicomico may be as well. No texted, it only had its first reading yesterday.

So PG of all places is moving forward and HoCo is doing basically nothing.

I guess if they pass, another thing to point out to the delegation next year is "now PG AND Wicomico allow reduced safety zones and HoCo won't move off 150yds for regular archery hunters"

I wish someone would just get their crap together and push a 50yd safety zone from an elevated position for archery statewide like there is a state wide 150yd firearm/muzzleloader safety zone.