# Safety zone eliminated?



## kdogger (Jan 10, 2005)

Is it true that there is no longer a safety zone applied to bow hunting?


----------



## kdogger (Jan 10, 2005)

I found my own answer. Yes it is true, the law was changed on November 12. The safety zone only apples to firearms now.

7) An individual shall not hunt with a firearm within 150 yards of an occupied building, dwelling, house, residence, or cabin, or any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation, without obtaining the written permission of the owner, renter, or occupant of the property.


----------



## Downriver Tackle (Dec 24, 2004)

Side question(s). Does "occupied" by the law mean a person actually in the house or building? I've been pondering taking a doe out back by rifle, but where she usually is, there is a vacation home within 150 yards that nobody has been to in at least 5 or 6 years. Permission needed or not?


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

I would say YES. I am not a lawyer but I read it to mean you do.


----------



## kdogger (Jan 10, 2005)

Occupied means not in construction or abandoned. Has a certificate of occupancy after building inspection.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Downriver Tackle said:


> Side question(s). Does "occupied" by the law mean a person actually in the house or building? I've been pondering taking a doe out back by rifle, but where she usually is, there is a vacation home within 150 yards that nobody has been to in at least 5 or 6 years. Permission needed or not?


I'm sure it would fall under dwelling , house or cabin.


----------



## Downriver Tackle (Dec 24, 2004)

kdogger said:


> Occupied means not in construction or abandoned. Has a certificate of occupancy after building inspection.


 What's funny is that the house was "orange tagged" with something about it being unoccupyable, they removed the electric meter and tagged that also. Hmmmmmmm???? lol I guess I won't mess with it and press my luck. Big doe lives on.


----------



## Downriver Tackle (Dec 24, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I'm sure it would fall under dwelling , house or cabin.


That's one thing that seemed a little unclear. Does "occupied" apply to all the different descriptions, or just the first of a "building". Closest structure is a pole barn, definitely within 150 yards. The house itself is questionable on distance. Probably within the 150 also though. 
*
occupied building*, dwelling, house, residence, or cabin, or any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

Downriver Tackle said:


> What's funny is that the house was "orange tagged" with something about it being unoccupyable, they removed the electric meter and tagged that also. Hmmmmmmm???? lol I guess I won't mess with it and press my luck. Big doe lives on.


If it is tagged, it is not occupiable, therefore, how could it count as a dwelling within the 150 yard rule?


----------



## roo (Mar 30, 2011)

kdogger said:


> I found my own answer. Yes it is true, the law was changed on November 12. The safety zone only apples to firearms now.
> 
> 7) An individual shall not hunt with a firearm within 150 yards of an occupied building, dwelling, house, residence, or cabin, or any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation, without obtaining the written permission of the owner, renter, or occupant of the property.




Where did you find this can't seem to find it anywhere.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

roo said:


> Where did you find this can't seem to find it anywhere.


http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141-120756--,00.html


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

It's in the Michigan Compiled Laws, not the Wildlife Conservation Order.


----------



## ART (Jul 7, 2004)

I think it takes effect Jan 1


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

I thought the law always said "firearm" and that a bow was considered a firearm?

Just going from memory and its been a while since I looked it up so I could be wrong.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

hypox said:


> I thought the law always said "firearm" and that a bow was considered a firearm?
> 
> Just going from memory and its been a while since I looked it up so I could be wrong.


Bow does not meet the definition of a firearm.

The 150 yard safety zone for bow and crossbow is still in the Hunting and Trapping Digest online. Must not have been updated yet.


----------



## Downriver Tackle (Dec 24, 2004)

petronius said:


> If it is tagged, it is not occupiable, therefore, *how could it count as a dwelling within the 150 yard rule?*


 I'd rather not find out! lol


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

occupied building is just that. Then the comma and all the others. The others do not need to be occupied.


----------



## Downriver Tackle (Dec 24, 2004)

malainse said:


> occupied building is just that. Then the comma and all the others. The others do not need to be occupied.


 Thanks for the clarification. One last question, if you don't mind. I assume structures that you own on your land that you're hunting on don't count in that???


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

Downriver Tackle said:


> Thanks for the clarification. One last question, if you don't mind. I assume structures that you own on your land that you're hunting on don't count in that???


You would have to give yourself permission to hunt your land within your safety zone. :lol:


----------



## Downriver Tackle (Dec 24, 2004)

petronius said:


> You would have to give yourself permission to hunt your land within your safety zone. :lol:


lol, true. Forgot about the permission part. Got a little paranoid after the response. lol


----------



## MossyHorns (Apr 14, 2011)

petronius said:


> The barn would have to be part of the farm operation. There is no comma between any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation that would separate any barn from other building used in connection with a farm operation. Therefore, the barn would have to be used in connection with a farm operation. A comma or lack of one makes a big difference in the meaning.


That's the way I read it.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

petronius said:


> The barn would have to be part of the farm operation. There is no comma between any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation that would separate any barn from other building used in connection with a farm operation. Therefore, the barn would have to be used in connection with a farm operation. A comma or lack of one makes a big difference in the meaning.


Ask any CO If a barn not part of a farming operation is included in the safety zone requirement. He will tell you it counts.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> Ask any CO If a barn not part of a farming operation is included in the safety zone requirement. He will tell you it counts.


That is the problem with the way the rule is written and the way it is interpreted.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

petronius said:


> That is the problem with the way the rule is written and the way it is interpreted.


I don't think there is a problem with this one. A barn could be considered building or dwelling. How many more words would they have to add to cover all scenarios of buildings? 

I don't think your interpretation of the wording is completely accurate. If they wanted to exclude barns that are not part of farms I think they would have been specific to that. What sense would it make to exclude a barn on my 3 acres at my residence but include one on the farm next door? Shooting near mine would be more dangerous than the hay barn next door for sure. 

I am going to stand by my interpretation that they just wanted to include all farm structures that farmers often frequent and not exclude residential barns. It says a barn or any structure included in a farming operation....not a farm barn or any structure including in a farming operation. A barn is a barn.


----------

