Why's that? Isn't a bow and crossbow considered a deadly weapon? So what your saying is a convicted felon can own a crossbow or a bow.

Isn't a knife?

I have yet to see a Fish and Wildlife officer here in this city regulating the hunt. The city police are the ones taking care of it. They are the ones running the hunters out of the areas where they are not supposed to be and keeping count of the kills.

 

Let me assure you that he has been in the city a lot.

If you mean tracking the sell of bows or crossbows then no, there isn't any tracking. If you mean tracking hunting with bows or crossbows then yes. You have to have a hunting licenses and anyone born after 01/01/75 must attend a hunter saftey class to hunt regardless of weapon.

 

Do they do background checks for hunting licenses?

If you mean tracking the sell of bows or crossbows then no, there isn't any tracking. If you mean tracking hunting with bows or crossbows then yes. You have to have a hunting licenses and anyone born after 01/01/75 must attend a hunter saftey class to hunt regardless of weapon.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

Why's that? Isn't a bow and crossbow considered a deadly weapon? So what your saying is a convicted felon can own a crossbow or a bow.

 

A convicted felon can purchase a hunting licence too.

A convicted felon can purchase a hunting licence too.

 

Now that is messed up. If they can't own a weapon and can't vote why would they be allowed to have a hunting license.

Kentucky cities are not permitted to regulate hunting. The ordinance that was passed by Fort Thomas is regulating the discharge of arrows from bows or crossbows. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources are responsible for regulating hunting.

The city can set the regulations for hunting on city property as long as they are within the state regulations. This would be no different then Peabody regulating the public hunting on their property.

 

Fort Thomas should require a permit to be purchased to hunt in the city limits as well. This would take care of at least some of the costs they may be incurring. I know to hunt Peabody property you have to buy a Peabody permit. Not sure of the cost but Reynolds has property in Henderson County you can hunt if you buy a $50 permit. If Fort Thomas required this they could at least keep track of who is hunting in the city.

Do they do background checks for hunting licenses?

No and I don't believe they should.

Now that is messed up.

What about the Duke boys?

Now that is messed up. If they can't own a weapon and can't vote why would they be allowed to have a hunting license.

A conficted felony can't own a fire arm but nothing says they can't own a bow or crossbow.

The city can set the regulations for hunting on city property as long as they are within the state regulations. This would be no different then Peabody regulating the public hunting on their property.

 

Fort Thomas should require a permit to be purchased to hunt in the city limits as well. This would take care of at least some of the costs they may be incurring. I know to hunt Peabody property you have to buy a Peabody permit. Not sure of the cost but Reynolds has property in Henderson County you can hunt if you buy a $50 permit. If Fort Thomas required this they could at least keep track of who is hunting in the city.

 

The city should've required a permit but failed to do so. So what is happening is anyone can hunt as long as they get permission from the property owner and from my understanding that is not happening.

What about the Duke boys?

 

Forgot about them.

The city can set the regulations for hunting on city property as long as they are within the state regulations. This would be no different then Peabody regulating the public hunting on their property.

 

Fort Thomas should require a permit to be purchased to hunt in the city limits as well. This would take care of at least some of the costs they may be incurring. I know to hunt Peabody property you have to buy a Peabody permit. Not sure of the cost but Reynolds has property in Henderson County you can hunt if you buy a $50 permit. If Fort Thomas required this they could at least keep track of who is hunting in the city.

 

Peabody is owned and operated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, different situation. A City can’t regulate hunting; the only thing they can regulate is the discharge of weapons for the purpose of hunting.

The city should've required a permit but failed to do so. So what is happening is anyone can hunt as long as they get permission from the property owner and from my understanding that is not happening.

It shouldn't matter where someone's property is. If you want to hunt it you should obtain permission. Has this become a big problem or just few bad apples type problem?

 

Also, how big of a deer problem is there in the city limits?

The city should've required a permit but failed to do so. So what is happening is anyone can hunt as long as they get permission from the property owner and from my understanding that is not happening.

 

If they don’t have permission and they are caught they will be fined. Also, the kind of people that will trespass on others property to hunt would probably be hunting deer even if Ft. Thomas didn’t permit the use of bows or crossbows.