: [cayugabirds-l] DEC Mixed messages?
Hi John, Gary, David and all,
Then every municipality, village, town, city, county, borough, etcetera that
wanted to get out from under the state's exclusive authority to regulate
hunting could easily do so, because even though local "no hunting&q
Hi John, Gary, David and all,
Then every municipality, village, town, city, county, borough, etcetera that
wanted to get out from under the state's exclusive authority to regulate
hunting could easily do so, because even though local "no hunting" ordinances
are not valid, local "no discharge" o
I don't think it's a mixed message because no hunting and no discharge are
different. No discharge would include target shooting.
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Geo Kloppel wrote:
> I was curious to know if DEC had made revisions to hunting regulations
> with respect to jurisdictional conflicts
Kohlenberg
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:26 AM
To: geoklop...@gmail.com; CAYUGABIRDS-L
Subject: RE: [cayugabirds-l] DEC Mixed messages?
As I pointed out, in the email I bounced to the list, the 2005 city court
challenge upheld the right of NYS to regulate lakeshore activity irrespective
of any
As I pointed out, in the email I bounced to the list, the 2005 city court
challenge upheld the right of NYS to regulate lakeshore activity irrespective
of any local ordinance. It concerned dog walkers, but presumably would apply
equally to anyone ticketed for hunting.
I appreciate the clarity of