19.03.2016 Views

1LwjabT

1LwjabT

1LwjabT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!