It's concerning to me that local governments are able to pass "work around" ordinances that appear to be regulating "firearm" discharge when the root is aimed at eliminating the practice of hunting. The mere fact that the revised ordinance is going to allow target shooting with archery equipment makes it clear that they are not completely concerned about public safety as they claim but more concerned about a couple citizens that have unfortunately witnessed some wounded deer running the neighborhood.

I believe that this is just one more example of how the anti-hunting movement continues to plague our sporting heritage and I can only hope that issues such as this never impact the areas that the rest of us are able to hunt.

I agree completely with the first comment

I too agree with the first comment, but I also see this as a solution in search of a problem. The original issue, deer being injured by arrows, was caused by people who were already breaking the law by hunting too close to buildings, etc. That issue can be addressed by enforcing the laws we already have. If there was a problem with bowhunting in Farmington Hills before this, I am not aware of it.

I think that the same can be said of the new fireworks restrictions. The reason there was an issue at first was because the law had changed and the new fireworks were a novelty. After the 4th of July, but before the new regs went into effect, it does not seem like there was much of an issue.

This was put into place because people were allowed to bow-and-arrow hunt in very limited areas of the city. The problem turned out to be that once someone shot a deer, they could not properly track it and kill it because the deer would quickly run into areas where hunting was not allowed. Several deer were found with arrows in them, and I don't think anyone would support the idea of wounded animals running around the city because people started to hunt them but could not complete the hunt. This is not anti-hunting, it just does not make sense to hunt in a city that is so dense as Farmington Hills where you cannot complete something that you start.
In regard to work around laws, the state legislature and Federal Governement have taken away local control on so many issues that we sometimes have to do what we can to have some ability to control what goes on in our city.

As stated earlier by djv71 this could have been resolved by enforcing the laws/ordinances that are already on the books. These new measures are very characteristic of any gun law that gets passed. At the end of the day the only ones that are affected are the law abiding citizens. The folks that were breaking the laws before the new legislation will be the same folks breaking the laws moving forward. I just don't see why that concept is so hard for our law makers to understand.
Another example....Hunting without a license. DNR takes away hunting privileges for 3 years...3 years these folks can not buy a license. Does anybody else see an issue with this? These folks were not buying licenses when they had hunting privileges. Why would one expect these people to stop hunting just because they can't purchase a license??

Mr. Bruce I think your assessment of "completing the hunt" is skewed. Trespassing on a neighbor's property was discussed but what Council failed to understand or completely disregarded was that adjoining property owners can give permission to access their property. This applies on any size parcel, whether it's 500 acres up north or an acre in suburbia.

I also fail to see how this is not an anti-hunting issue.

There were two major issues brought up during the study session and subsequent meetings concerning Public Safety ("errant arrows flying around") and the act of hunting ("Hunting belongs in Farmington Hills like a bowling alley belongs in a Library").
Even though I can make a case that archery is the safest means of harvesting game, clearly the new ordinance does not address the alleged public safety concern.
Being the proficient archer that I am, I can legally shoot 100 arrows a day, 365 days a year at an "artificial, stationary target" with no "razor tipped arrows". But if I was to shoot 1 arrow at an animal over the course of a 3 month legal hunting season that would become public endangerment. Once again I fail to see the thought process of Council.
Logically speaking, if discharging an arrow from a bow is a danger to the public, and under the new ordinance, discharging an arrow is still allowed...then one can conclude based on simple laws of logic that discharging an arrow is not a danger to the public.
This would lead us to the second of the two issues which is the "act of hunting".
Clearly "hunting" doesn't fit into the agenda for moving the community forward into 2020. I've seen presentations at Council meetings for being a "green" and "sustainable" community. Apparently putting lean, high protein food on the table is not something Council supports despite that 1 in 6 in our state suffer from hunger.

Liberals and anti's ( one and he same ), at it again. Kiss our country and it's heritage good-bye. The only folks truly protected anymore are the law breakers.