Tonka's bill back in current bill session - A2362

[JHbowhunter]

I seriously doubt Parker Space would support this  - big hunting family in the Sussex area.   They pick up roadkill deer to feed their zoo animals - he is well aware of population control .

[JHbowhunter]

Excellent letter NJMarine, and TFS...

[jakesbeard]

NJMarine,

Your letter hits all the bumpers and bells very well done and put it even hi lights the fact that this bill is providing support for large unsupervised dogs to run at large is that something that is needed in NJ?

[Lady Bird]

Emails sent.  

[MGHunter66]

Good letter, i sent a pretty legnthy one as well. I also pointed out the fact that this incident could have also happened 450’ from a house. A dog running deer doesn’t know when it’s 150’ or 450’ from a house. This is the responce I received

 

I wanted to thank you for emailing me regarding A2362, which changes perimeter for bow and arrow hunting around certain buildings. It is critically important that I hear from as many constituents as possible on issues like this, and so I appreciate you taking the time to contact our office.

 

 

 

As of February 1st 2018, this bill has been introduced in the Assembly and referred to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. I have passed your message along to my policy advisor for further review, and I will continue studying this legislation as it progresses through the Assembly.

 

 

 

Please don’t hesitate to reach out again if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. I’m always here to help.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Eric Houghtaling

 

Assemblyman

 

District 11

[Bubblehead]

Can anyone provide info on amount of human injuries and deaths from vehicle collisions with deer in this state? May be a worth while angle to bring up to thesee legislators since this bill is being presented under the obviously false pretense of public safety. Less deer around roadways is a far better way to make the public safer and houses are often located near roadways

[JHbowhunter]

I emailed all the assemblymen. Only 459 views on this thread so far, lets keep this going and get those emails out!

[Bonefreak]

Great letter NJMarine!! You effectively and efficiently hit all major points in a polite, concise letter. I'm guna bite some of yours and send in my own. I may expand a little bit about what Conservation Officers do and how this law will affect them, because I have no faith that the D's on the committee even know what a CO is. I may also add some info about the ripple effect that hunting contributes to local economies. And maybe some info explaining that the tragic accident was the result of the hunter misidentifying the dog as a coyote.....and maybe a more reasonable regulation the D's should be asking for, if they have to ask for anything to begin with...being they turned this into another political "feel good, vote for me" circle jerk, would be to prohibit coyote hunting within the archery safety zone.

[Livesintrees]

I would never notify anyone of anything that I do on my property. Not in person. Not by mail. Not a chance. It’s nobody’s damn business what I do on my property. That I own. And that I pay taxes on. Period. All of my letters will lost in the mail. All that would do is have people looking out their windows for a guy with a gun. More complaints that would be unfounded. Not enough CO’s to enforce it all anyway. People who may have otherwise been for the most part oblivious to hunting would now have another thing to be “worried” or “offended” about. Not to mention higher probability of antis damaging property, sabotaging hunts and KNOWING WHERE YOU LIVE. If it does pass which it won’t I foresee major headaches for law enforcement as well as individual lawsuits arising as this is a blatant infringement on privacy. So now if this passes does that strengthen our right to prosecute for trespassing? Meaning you know I’m hunting, you know it’s posted so do you get a MANDATORY fine (like you should anyway)?

 

Do I get notified when my neighbors have a barbecue? How’s about when they get a new dog? The next thing that comes from this is notification when you buy a new gun. Let the neighbors know.

 

If I wanna put my boots on and a leather banana hammock, and sit in my tree stand that’s what I’ll do. If you don’t like it. Deal with it. If I wanna carry a gun in the same outfit in June while picking wildflowers that’s what I’ll do. Deal with it. Enough is enough.

[JHbowhunter]

I would never notify anyone of anything that I do on my property. Not in person. Not by mail. Not a chance. It’s nobody’s damn business what I do on my property. That I own. And that I pay taxes on. Period. All of my letters will lost in the mail. All that would do is have people looking out their windows for a guy with a gun. More complaints that would be unfounded. Not enough CO’s to enforce it all anyway. People who may have otherwise been for the most part oblivious to hunting would now have another thing to be “worried” or “offended” about. Not to mention higher probability of antis damaging property, sabotaging hunts and KNOWING WHERE YOU LIVE. If it does pass which it won’t I foresee major headaches for law enforcement as well as individual lawsuits arising as this is a blatant infringement on privacy. So now if this passes does that strengthen our right to prosecute for trespassing? Meaning you know I’m hunting, you know it’s posted so do you get a MANDATORY fine (like you should anyway)?

 

Do I get notified when my neighbors have a barbecue? How’s about when they get a new dog? The next thing that comes from this is notification when you buy a new gun. Let the neighbors know.

 

If I wanna put my boots on and a leather banana hammock, and sit in my tree stand that’s what I’ll do. If you don’t like it. Deal with it. If I wanna carry a gun in the same outfit in June while picking wildflowers that’s what I’ll do. Deal with it. Enough is enough.

 

I think we all agree with that sentiment, but unfortunately that is not how to win... We gotta suck it up and send letters similar to NJMarine's, just stick to the facts and remove all emotion 

[SlugsnArrows]

“Tonka’s family was unaware that hunting was occurring on the adjacent property and, therefore, was unable to take extra precautions to protect him from harm.”

 

Extra Protection? How about just have the dog on a leash as per the law, no extra protection would then of been needed and this wouldn’t be a conversation!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited February 14, 2018 by SlugsnArrows

[JHbowhunter]

“Tonka’s family was unaware that hunting was occurring on the adjacent property and, therefore, was unable to take extra precautions to protect him from harm.”

 

Extra Protection? How about just have the dog on a leash as per the law, no extra protection would then of been needed and this wouldn’t be a conversation!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

and the dog was past 150' for sure.  And realistically - even IF there was notification, she might say she would do things differently, but how do we know that?    Monday morning quarterback comment, IMHO.  It's a total BS law. 

[NJMarine]

Feel free to use any/all of my letter.  In my opinion though when a politician gets the same exact letter x1000 it kinda makes it easier to ignore.  Put some of your own into it, make it personal.

[Mikelodeon]

Ok.

Let me steal that email, I will send it tonight

[Swampy]

This is the "meat" of my letter sent to the Ag/Nat resource committee...keep up the fight 

 

"I am reaching out today regarding a bill that is currently in the Agriculture and Natural Resources committee that you are all members of.  A2362, aka Tonka's Law, is in my opinion is nothing more than an anti-hunting bill disguised as public safety.  The incident that resulted in the tragic death of a pet dog this past September is very upsetting, however it was an isolated incident that is the first of its kind since the safety buffer for elevated archery hunting was reduced from 450 feet to 150 feet (from an occupiable dwelling) nearly 10 years ago.  It is also upsetting to me that such an incident became political in nature almost immediately.  With the consistently increasing development of land in NJ I believe the current safety buffer is adequate and poses no additional risk to residents/pets as it stands.  This truly was a lack of good judgement by the hunter involved in this incident.  Luckily this is the only incident of this nature that I can find record of in NJ

 

The other part of this bill that I do not agree with is the mandating of written notification to adjacent property owners regarding any hunting activities on that property.  Aside from an invasion of privacy regarding legal activities on private property some properties potentially have an extraordinary number of adjacent property owners.  This would incur a significant burden to lawful hunters as well as being impossible to effectively enforce by our hardworking Conservation Officers.

 

The incident with Tonka, while tragic, could also have been avoided by its owner not allowing their pet to run onto someone else's private property without permission.  Simply creating and throwing more laws will not solve an issue such as this, especially when there are already "leash" laws in effect that were clearly not observed in this case.  What it will do however is discourage hunting in NJ, which is the single most effective form of deer population control that we have.  Farmers profit marginsspecifically and anyone who drives a vehicle in the state of NJ is at risk when these populations are left unchecked/over-regulated.  In addition to the need for deer population control, hunting in NJ is self-sustaining, costing nothing to taxpayers and also contributes funds for important conservation efforts statewide."

I think the bulk of what you’re saying is on point. However, I disagree with bringing deer herd management into the equation it has nothing to do With the issue here.

 

The main talking points should be very simple

 

1) The proposed legislation would not have prevented the Incident.

 

2) Requiring landowners to notify adjacent properties owners of hunting activity while also requiring to divulge personal information on those Individuals whom are participating in said hunting activities is an absolute invasion of privacy and almost comparable to treating hunters like they are sex offenders or pose a danger to the community. This is also an obvious passive aggressive Attempt to discourage property owners from allowing legal hunting activity on their property. Furthermore, what a property owner does legally and lawfully on his or her property is nobody’s business but their own. What’s next will you be required to notify your neighbor if you purchase a firearm? What about if you are on certain medications? The proposed Legislation would set a dangerous precedent.

 

3) The Proposed legislation Is one sided and biased. It assumes all culpability rests on the hunter.

 

Keep the argument simple and on point.