To the Editor:
I was very disappointed in your front page story in the Advertiser-News North I received today.
Reading the article, it was full of inconstancies. Let’s start with the inaccurate headline “Neighbors of Clove Spring gun range want buffer between them and ‘painful’ noise.”
Looking on the web at the “Clove Spring Clay Target Sports” is not a “gun range” it is in fact a clay range. Pistols are prohibited — I see no mention of any firearm other than shotguns and birdshot.
Then there is the picture on page 2. This picture appears to be a girl aiming what looks to be an air rifle — or pellet gun. It is absolutely not a shotgun of any form and target sights are clearly visible on the barrel, the rear sight in a position suggesting a break action pellet gun. So what is its relevance? To reinforce the inaccurate and misleading bias of the article?
Then there is the the possibly accurate testimony which is heavily itself flawed in almost ever fact presented:
1) Noise measurements require a distance from the source to have meaning — normally 1 meter — as sound energy follows the inverse square law — double the distance — quarter the energy.
2) Reference to high power rifle noise measurements are completely immaterial as they are not being used (.223 caliber) and as to the 22” barrel reference — this means nothing in this context.
3) The noise levels regarding the New Jersey statutes are at the position of recording not one meter from the source and as such are not comparable in any fashion.
4) Direction and topography are highly impactful of noise levels — not just distance — no reference or actual measurement by the complainant — if you have an ongoing noise complaint — wouldn’t it make sense to have it correctly measured? Isn’t that your first and main evidence for any noise complaint?
5) A sound or AV recording is not evidence of Sound Pressure Level without calibration of the recording and playback system.
On a personal note, while I have sympathy for the complainants in this matter — the reality is they bought the house when the range was there — it’s not somebody else’s fault when you don’t do your own research.
Regardless of the subject and facts — this was poorly reported, misleading and misrepresented — all of which represent a failure in your paper and staff.
Vince O’Hara
Barry Lakes/Vernon