Bowsite.com

For instance: "less land is now available due to encroaching development". That is a good reason to open other currently restricted town-owned lands. Or to post public awareness at the head of trails for "hunting season safety". IE: Dates . Stay on the path. Do not be excessively loud. Dogs leashed. Bright colors during hunting dates. etc.

Why is the burden on one use (Hunters) and not equally shared by other users? Sounds discriminatory. Sunday there is no hunting. It's already divided equally on weekends when most are using the public land.

What statistics can they show that would justify the claim of "increased danger" to the public? Knowing/ sharing the nature of Deer is helpful in this reasoning/defense. A pedestrian is not likely to be close to deer. They are very sensitive and move away from people. It is not logical to think a deer would be close to people.

Why not share the woods and place some reasonable restrictions on everyone, equally. Others have the majority of the year to use the woods and the hunting season is a limited time frame. Why not restrict the public from walking during hunting season instead. (Hunting long predates recreational walking.)

It is the right and burden of private land ownership to enforce their own boundaries. It is an abuse of governmental power to take on that burden when in fact it benefits the few over the many. Such a restriction on behalf of the few is playing favoritism of those few and prejudicial to the majority it represents.

The claim of trespassing may not be factual and may be fabricated. Proof?

Vandalism happens: but the assumption that it is licensed hunters and not other (unknown ) people is slanderous and presumptuous. No action should be taken based on someone's guess or prejudicial opinion. It should be based on verifiable facts and not opinions of the few landowners who are stating issues. Furthermore, there is law enforcement avenues for them already. They need to take it up with the appropriate authorities.

State the above: The press is shaping public opinion ( have articles on hand) . Not based in Facts but simply unverified statements. There should not be any decisions made hastily by the town elected or by vote which infringe on current legal use. Not until facts are presented and fair dialogue has been submitted and facts verified. Furthermore, enough time should be allotted to counter the claims publicly in the newspapers and other forums for the public sake.

Your link states they are not against hunting "in general" ... Well, that seems a contradiction if shutting it down is the goal. Add more town controlled land to hunt and the problems will be diminished.

I'll keep kicking it around.

If you have access to Amazon Prime look up American Hunter, Season 1 Episode 4. It talks about the history of American Conservation. It was started by Teddy Roosevelt and fellow hunters. Great video that could help with understanding how this all started and how hunters are still one of the true great conservationists in this country. Without us, there would be no protected land left in this state as far as I am concerned, other than the small acreage some non-profits have pulled together.

Also, click the link I put up. There are a bunch of articles here talking about deer management in our state. In particular, read the stuff pertaining to the Town of Weston. Their anti hunting tactics caused a lot of problems, forcing them to rethink their strategies.

Pete

Pi, laid out some great points above. You might also consider reaching out to the New England chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. I'll post the link in a minute.

With the hearing set for February 5th, there should be time to have an article, or at least an opinion piece written in a local paper. You could also post your points, in a straight forward, non-attacking fashion on the town Facebook pages, so more people have an opportunity to hear our side before the hearing.

I have made a call to the police department to request statistics on trespass involving persons involved in hunting activities. If any, I will be sure to inquire if they were in fact licensed to hunt.

A recent article (linked) this past fall in local paper also pointed out safety on the roads due to increased accidents involving deer. I will ask police for these statistics as well. Do you think presenting responsible management of the deer population as means to reduce safety risk of collision with deer is a worthwhile point to make?

I will study and digest the information you’ve all provided, and reach out to the reporter. Hopefully he will allow my voice to be heard.

Thanks again, and please keep the suggestions coming.

Great points have been raised. I'm going to add an "image" component.

Correct or incorrect, a lot (IE, many) people envision total slobs as hunters. They envision someone spitting dip on the road, shooting at noise, drinking a beer in the woods, illiterate, disrespectful to all, etc.

"We", like it or not, have to be the more patient, more eloquent, better prepared, calmer/less emotional, honest - with compassion... IE, Ted Nugent is often honest, but comes off like a raging lunatic A-Hole to a LOT of folks - that approach feels appealing if it backs up ones own beliefs, but pushes others further away. When you are there, really go in prepared with all the info you can have. View it like the best job interview you ever had! Wow them. Show legit empathy for those with different views, and compassionately explain why other views are as valid or more so.

That does NOT suggest not telling the truth or being factual - not at all. You have to be those things. Just dont present it defensively, etc. Go Viktor Frankl on em:

Good luck man!

Or to splice in some mixed movie quotes ... " I'm just gettin' warmed up"

( please be advised that the above implication of Movie violence is just humor and in no way is it a directive to imitate in kind, said violence or threats)

Figuratively speaking ... blast away with your word-machine gun. " You Fug with me ... Your Fugn' with the best"

(Again, not using actual violence but simply metaphorical carnage, to the point)

Splice in "He's no snitch" which is unlikely to have any place in the argument but its a good line ... And "In my younger days ...Ide put a flamethrower to this place " Be sure to say those days are long past and there will be no flame throwing today or ever for we do not condone violence... ( Do not actually have any weapons or torches)

Pass out a flyer in advance and make posters that say this is a dramatic artistic recreation and for entertainment purposes only ... No harm is implied or threatened. Have everyone verbally acknowledge they have received said notice and sign on the dotted line ... Pass forward and collect. ( secretly this is written permission to hunt their land)

If all else fails and people run for their lives: say, " I was only kidding" ( accent is important)

The reception was unexpectedly pleasant, and he mentioned it was refreshing to hear someone willing to collect the facts. He was genuinely interested in helping me. He mentioned that he needed the Chief’s permission to conduct the research into trespass and vandalism related to hunting activity, but seemed willing to push for it. He also directed me to the police website where statistics on deer strikes are available which shows a steady increase in the last several years.

2013 6 strikes... 2014 19 strikes... 2015 16 strikes... 2016 21 strikes... 2017 23 strikes... 2018 not yet reported

If the residents of Attleboro are concerned about the safety of their loved ones on the road and damage to their personal property (I suspect they are), I will suggest that law abiding hunters are providing a valuable service to the community as deer strikes are increasing.

If any of you on this forum know someone living in Attleboro that would like to help me organize a large turnout in opposition to this proposed ban on hunting, please pass along my contact information.

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 774-406-0125

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.askmen.com/news/entertainment/deers-kill-more-people-in-america-than-any-other-animal.html%3famp

Deer are literally the most dangerous animal in the USA. Not kidding, see link.

If anyone wants to read the draft of the proposed ordinance change, I’ve added the link.

I’ve received some help over at SaddleHunter.com, and one of the forum members has close ties with district managers at MassWildlife. They are looking into the matter, and I think they will send a representative to address the council and public in attendance.

Stay Strong be peaceful and make a better case. Best of luck, we are all pulling for your victory.

PS. they are all happy that I moved and left them a few deer to fight over...

Uhh Mr Kraft. I have a favor to ask...

Dale I saw a big thing on the Boston Bowhunter FB page on this yesterday, did you connect or was that another person that brought it to attention?

"Hi my name is _____ and I am a local bowhunter. Many people mistakenly think that hunting and urban sprawl can't safely coexist. I feel that the public lands in this city are meant to be shared amongst all citizens including weekend hikers and outdoors enthusiasts. Massachusetts is a beautiful state and Attleboro is a beautiful city. One of the reasons this change is being proposed is that there are fewer open spaces to walk dogs or enjoy the outdoors. While there may be more people who like to hike or walk dogs than who like to bow hunt, we still have right to enjoy our forests and pursue wild game which in the United States is owned equally by all citizens. The state of Massachusetts has enacted laws that make bow hunting very safe. You need to be 500 ft from a building in use. You need to be 150 ft from a road. Deer naturally do not like foot traffic and avoid human foot paths so bow hunters will go deeper into the forest than a hiker or dog walker who remain on the trails. Most bow hunters use an elevated tree stand and have a typical range of 25-30 yards. A "miss," which is rare, goes right into the ground. Bowhunters are quiet and peaceful and spend 99.99% of their time waiting quietly without success. I can tell you from experience you've probably been safely walking your dogs or hiking around bowhunters for years and never seen them. The process of releasing an arrow is safe and deliberate. You must identify the animal from tip to tail, draw back the string, align your sights, exhale and release. With a target within 25 yards during the legal hunting hours (daylight) and shooting from elevation this is a very safe activity. Hunters provide for their families with wild game and delicious venison but they also provide a valuable service to the community. While this proposal is modeled after the City of Framingham, a city which finds it necessary to outlaw unlicensed Fortune Tellers, other communities such as Weston, Dover, and Sherborn have found it necessary to allow bowhunting on public lands. Deer herd density has real consequences for humans, forests and animals. Wildlife Sanctuaries such as Mass Audubon and non-profit groups like Trustees of the Reservations have a bow hunting program on their properties to reduce forest over-grazing and promote wildlife diversity for ground shrubs and ground nesting birds. I bet all of us have heard of someone hitting a deer with a car and this area has many busy highways where a large deer population may cause increased loss of human life. How many of us know someone who's had Lyme disease? Deer carry ticks and spread them into our communities where they get on our dogs and people and into our homes. Some of these ticks are so small you can't see the legs on them with the naked eye, if you're ____ years old like me. Outlawing hunting will cause an increase in ticks and tick-borne illness which may affect children and the elderly more severely. For those not familiar with Lyme it can cause permanent neurological disorder if not treated properly. Some groups such as dog walkers or hikers would prefer to enjoy forests without the presence of hunters. For those who are not aware Mass Wildlife has purchased 2981 acres of land in 2018 for public enjoyment. Everyone is welcome on this public land. The land, which cost 4.6 million dollars was paid for by the money from hunting licenses and a tax on hunting equipment. For the lovers of wildlife these purchased areas preserve valuable habitat for our animal populations to live in happily without human interference (when compared to suburban sprawl.) Some arguments against hunting on public land may come from dog walkers who want to enjoy public land and not be nervous their dog will get injured by errant arrows. I will remind this group that dogs walked on public property must be on a leash pursuant to Attleboro 9.40.1 "Leashing of Dogs." The City of Attleboro is clear that all dogs not on leash on public property may be impounded at a cost of $25 a day and after 7 days the dog may be adopted to another family or euthanized by the City. I will argue that dog walkers who want to add this law to let their dog run free because they are nervous about hunters are trying to restrict the legal activity of hunters so they can perform their illegal act of allowing their dogs out of their control. As a reminder to all in Massachusetts hunting is illegal on Sundays so if anyone wants to walk their dog off-leash illegally they can do it on Sunday without any worry (except for the dog catcher.) Most people who are opposed to hunting do not understand what they are opposed to and want to ban it out of fear of safety. This proposed rule groups all hunting together: gun, bow, trapping. Hunting out of a tree with a bow is a safe activity and provides use to the community. In addition, it is a privilege appreciated by a small and shrinking group of citizens who still have a connection to our natural environment. The state of Massachusetts has laws in place that place hunters very far from houses, buildings and roads. Hunters will not set up close to human footpaths. Hunting is a safe activity and it is not fair to group all hunting, including archery, in a Firearms regulation. Any proposal regulating firearms should just include use of firearms.

My thought, correct me if I’m wrong, our statements should not be about taking something away from the sportsmen, but about the loss to the community if we are no longer permitted to hunt public lands. We need to raise awareness of our positive contribution to society...there are many ...this is only one of them.

We are bound as one, with the community! ... We always have been, and the loss of the sportsman would be a loss to the community as a whole.

Sportsman and the greater public is really one community. They are inseparable, mutually beneficial and long been in a relationship together. They share a history of reasonable interrelationship which, both fills a need of one and is regulated to preserve for others. That relationship began in our humble start at the Plymouth Bay Colony and has been sustained ever since, governed by sensible rules and sensitive to natures balance.

We have historically done our best when reasonable rules are followed. Such rules and amendments have often been modified to meet different goals and objectives, as the needs of our people and natural resources have changed but that relationship is an integral part of our balance throughout history and is our tradition as New Englanders.

Some of the original motivation of taking from nature is still appreciated today, though it can be argued that it is not as essential as it once was. It can also be argued that it is absolutely essential to our well being and the pursuit of our most fundamental happiness. Happiness, as stated, is a sense of well being, purpose and harmony with our living. Our stewardship is a lasting tradition that has benefited our mutual community needs from the start and still serves a function for the community and its individuals who keep this connection alive.

Man has been in constant relationship to the natural world since the beginning of our human history. It is only now that we threaten to sever that connection which grounds us to our natural world. As a society, we have almost extinguished the intimate relationship we once had to the basic staples of Life. That past human-fundamental is quickly dissolving into this new frontier. One that is threatened by disconnect and artificial substitutions for real-life struggles, natural interactions, and survival skills. It is a grand experiment but it's not without risk. That is, the greater threat of disconnecting from one of man's most basic pursuits.

Without it, I fear what our community will become.

I think the term Sportsman should often accompany a definition or a description as to what it covers or in our context, who we are talking about.

Sportsman, hunter, angler, or whatever we are labeled can be used in any context to frame a message for any message. I feel “sportsman” is our traditional reference, and I will claim it as my own. We will be labeled as “trophy takers” and “killers” by those that oppose our way of life regardless. The “butcher” that cares for and processes our harvest could also fall victim to the same bias of labels.

What we choose to call ourselves should not detract from our purpose of conservation and stewardship of the land we connect with, but “sportsman” in my opinion is the most benign.

In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, “Do what you can, with what you’ve got, where you are.”

Pulling for you all Dale!

The City and ALT both own land. The Conservation Commission DOES NOT!

The CC is responsible only for the administration of ordinances related to wetlands protection and stormwater management.

The ALT is a non-profit incorporated private organization that purchases land from the city for conservation purposes much like MassWildlife does at the state level, but they do not allow hunting.

The attached image from OnX Maps shows land clearly marked “City of Attleboro”.

Regardless of what may be implied in the reporting by the Sun Chronicle, there is NO current ordinance banning hunting on City owned land. The Conservation Commission does not have the authority to make restrictions on passive use...only ordinance can do that.

Read the attached letter from AG to Town of Westport. They were ordered to strike “written permission” from their bylaws.

I will politely share this information with Attleboro City Council in case this is a simple misunderstanding. I hate to see our elected representatives tied up on issues such as this when their time could be better served by addressing our escalating tax bills.

If your town or city has similar language in it’s bylaws or ordinances, raise a complaint with the attorney general’s office.

We all have friends at MassWildlife, and they are willing to point us towards the public records.

They are clearly being told to back off from regs that are in the jurisdiction of DFW, but they can disrupt our method of take.

If we slip one noose, there’s another one waiting.

The link is to a folder that includes letter, ordinance draft and all cases that I cited from the Attorney General ordering deletion of text relevant to Hunting and Trapping.

I as well as many others in our brotherhood are fighting hard to preserve our traditions. I believe strongly that we can hold the line, but it will take a cooperative effort by all of us.

Teddy Roosevelt said “Do what you can, with what you’ve got, where you are.”, so do what you can to get involved, and help preserve hunting and trapping in Massachusetts.

11-14.6 Whoever violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of three hundred ($300.00) dollars for the first offense and each offense thereafter.

In the Commonwealth, trespassing is considered a property crime and the criminal statute prohibiting trespass has been codified in G.L. c 266 § 120. The penalty for trespassing in Massachusetts includes a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by up to 30 days in prison or by both fine and imprisonment.

* ( a valid argument for increasing huntable land )

*Is it true that available open space is diminishing? What open space are they talking about, public land, land trusts Conservation/preservation? I suspect that the net amount of public space is increasing but huntable space may have been diminished by new rules or laws.

*Is there any correlation between total land available and safety? (Setback laws are the standard we have for safety and they are already more burdensome than bordering states. ) . Please show the statistics of injury-to-land-availability. Its Non-existing I'm sure. Therefore, it is a false premise.

*What does one thing have to do with the other? Either it is a safety issue due to ( alleged ) less land available ( not proven) or a private property issue. I question the "safety" issue and believe they are using this to attain personal gain on the private property that they own. The burden of which is on the owner, not the town. Post it and fence it in and call the cops if you wish.

* How is it relevant that other towns have a town ordinance of written permission? Are those " other towns" ordinance based on the same claims and conditions or is their reasoning unknown? Is written permission a solution to the claim that one needs " improved safety"?

* How do we improve on safety when there is no safety violations or occurrences?

* This attempt is to end-around the laws as they are. Public action for personal gain.

Regarding trespass in Attleboro as it pertains to hunters, the attached link to a spreadsheet I received from the Attleboro Police Department's Crime Analyst compiles all incidents related to hunting or "heard" gunshots dating back to 2013. Interesting to note that all incidents received dispositions of "No Report Required", "Unfounded" or "Peace Restored". The additional notes also make for an entertaining read.

My conclusion is that our opponents are blowing smoke.

24 No report required (self-evident) 16 unfounded ( not real ) 1 peace restored ( whatever that means )

Not just smoke, it's delusional.

Keep at it Dom!

Thanks for your encouragement Will! Yes...we are fighting for Dom as well!

Or just Zip. ... your call.

It's ok if you break out in laughter that would keep it interesting. The other team will look like they are eating skunk. Bring positive, truth and joy.

PS. be sure to Zip up. That would not help.

I received a call from reporter at the Sun Chronicle today asking for a statement, and I gave him one. I’m hoping for some fair and balanced journalism leading up to this public hearing. I hope it doesn’t get buried in the fashion section.

THANK YOU... both for the work you are doing in Attleboro... But even more, for the image it paints for folks of all of us!

D minus 4

Hard for me to be unbiased, but I thought the 7 (edited) supporters that addressed the Council had poorly laid arguments and presentation. The leader of their charge attempted to present the ordinance change as an effort to prevent trespass, but she quickly went down the rabbit hole of “cruelty to animals”. At one point, she suggested there are no cases of Lyme Disease as a result of deer. She also refuted facts from wildlife biologists and experts in our State agency regarding hazards from deer population densities out of control. The usual claim was made of drunken buffoons running amok in the woods firing their guns. We expected that, but I believe the council saw it for what it was...rubbish!

The 19 (edited) speakers addressing the council in opposition did so with facts and passion. One young man said “I hunt to put food on my table for my family. I don’t want the chemicals that are in the meat at the supermarket. I put over 100 lbs of meat in my freezer every year. If you take hunting away from me, you are taking money out of my pocket.” Although I presented what I feel was a fact filled presentation, that young man carried the day.

The battle is not yet over. The council desires to acquire more information from the experts...good! They decided amongst themselves to bring MassWildlife into the discussion...a smart move in my opinion as they will be able to back up the many statements made by us tonight. Councilors I spoke with after the hearing suggested they will move that public meeting to a larger venue based on tonight’s turnout.

Stay tuned...Attleboro is the frontline.

Tonight, the Attleboro City Council voted “NO” to the proposed hunting ban in Attleboro! Vote was close 6-5.

We won the battle!

Thank you to all for your support.