1LwjabT
1LwjabT
1LwjabT
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
18<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
28<br />
29<br />
30<br />
31<br />
32<br />
33<br />
34<br />
35<br />
36<br />
37<br />
38<br />
39<br />
40<br />
41<br />
42<br />
43<br />
44<br />
45<br />
46<br />
47<br />
48<br />
49<br />
50<br />
Now, I see the insertion of the backstop rule is intended to address this by providing options to<br />
landowners, yet again, this is quite a burden for the average person. To install such a backstop<br />
is not only very expensive, but restrictive. You now have created a situation where a person will<br />
definitely incur significant expenses as well as the requirement of at least one permit to erect<br />
such a structure, regardless of the type of material selected to construct said backstop. Current<br />
county permitting and site plan ordinances affect the erection of such a structure. In turn, surely<br />
at some point in time in the future, there will be a “need” for a new inspection process to now<br />
come and inspect shooting backstops to ensure proper construction and maintenance, again at<br />
a cost to the private landowner and tax payers alike. Not to mention, the requirement of such a<br />
structure affects an owners rights of enjoyment of use and perceived property value, not only<br />
the property on which the structure resides, but the surrounding properties as well (who wants<br />
to look at a big mound of something whether on their own property or their neighbors?).<br />
Addressing the “allowed shooting hours;” again burdensome, for several reasons. Being fully<br />
aware that the amount of shooters who engage in shooting after sunlight hours is limited, there<br />
are those of us that do just that. Current State and State WRC regulations allowing for the<br />
hunting of Coyotes at night. To the best of my knowledge, Orange County does not have an<br />
ordinance preventing this. To be able to effectively hunt at night, one must have the right<br />
equipment and said equipment must be calibrated in the conditions in which it will be used (i.e.<br />
after daylight hours). This would effectively give me, and those like me, approximately less than<br />
60 minutes, for only several months out of the year to calibrate our night hunting equipment<br />
properly, with the hope that it remains calibrated throughout the remainder of the year. Let me<br />
add that, the coyote problem in Orange County, and the State, is an ongoing issue and by the<br />
accounts of many sportsman and land owners alike, is continually worsening. It has been show<br />
in other states, and likely one of the main reasons the hunting of coyotes at night has been<br />
allowed in North Carolina, that night hunting of coyotes is a very effective tool in controlling the<br />
population of such a nuisance predator. I do not see how this amendment will not directly affect<br />
those of us who participate in the hunting coyotes (and other game) at night. While I am aware<br />
that there is a clause in this amendment that explicitly states that it is does not impact or<br />
regulate hunting activities, it does not permit me to calibrate my hunting equipment as needed<br />
for said activities. In essence, my neighbor calls law enforcement, because I am calibrating my<br />
equipment at night, I am fined because I am not technically involved in a hunting activity at the<br />
time.<br />
Now, I do see the inserted clause allowing for land owners to target shoot two or fewer days per<br />
month……simply not enough. Although, again, I am likely in the minority of shooters, I enjoy<br />
target shooting quite regularly, much more often than two days of the month which this<br />
amendment would restrict me to. Avid shooters and sportsmen such as myself are regularly<br />
calibrating our equipment and shoot regularly to better our skills as enjoyment shooters and<br />
sportsmen. A large reason for the ownership of my property is so that I can shoot, at distance,<br />
on a regular basis. In addition, while I have never owned, shot, or even know where to acquire<br />
“explosive shells,” I do occasionally shoot, what may be referred to as an “explosive target.”<br />
Tannerite is a completely legal, two part compound, commonly sold at sporting goods stores<br />
throughout the state and country. I see no reason why I should not be able to shoot at these<br />
sorts of targets on my own property, provided that I am not endangering anyone around me.<br />
These types of targets do not expel fireballs, harmful/hazardous substances, secondary<br />
projectiles, and are not designed to be destructive. They simple “go ‘bang’” when struck with<br />
any standard centerfire rifle bullet. Again, I do not see any reason why I would not be allowed to<br />
do this on my own private property, given that no one and nothing is being put in danger – a<br />
hard thing to do with something that does nothing more than make a noise when hit.