Newbie? Road hunting Pheasant's in MN, legal or not?

[hanso612]

Many duck hunters float small rivers in canoes and hunt ducks adjacent to private property. Almost all birds land on private shoreline. In farm country many hunters hunt fence rows and property lines-often the only cover on the landscape. It is a very common practice to shoot at deer on either side of the property line and even if one strictly held their shooting to only those animals clearly on one's own side of the line -very rarely does the deer run toward the shooter and almost always dies on the neighbors property. With archery and mussle loading this is more likely.

My point has never been to hunt within 500 feet of houses or livestock. My point has always been that there are ditches where the easment was purchased by the county outrite and these ditches should be easily identifiable and the rules to hunt them should be clearly stated. I am also pushing for the the rest of the ditches (not in areas where it is clearly defined as illegal to discharge a firearm) to be clasified as public to avoid confusion and allow fair use among the berry pickers, wild asperagis and horseradish collecters, snowmobilers and ATV riders, farmers and hunters. I know it is a very controversial subject. One thing that continues to be clear is there is massive confusion over the details of this issue. Interpretation often is divided along the lines of haves and have nots- and there is no clear guidance from above. I also know if we don't secure large areas of set aside urban sprawl will ultimately win out, and our children -and only the rich ones -will be relegated to canned hunts. Hans

[Jameson]

 Originally Posted By: hanso612

...My point has always been that there are ditches where the easment was purchased by the county outrite...

When a county purchases an easement on land they DO NOT own that land outright. With an easement purchase the county has purchased the right from the landowner to do only certain things on the landowners property. Usually the things done on the land are vehicle traffic, and water ditches. This does not allow for outright public use of the land. I would think most counties have maps of county owned land.

I think the rules to hunt ditches is clearly stated. If you don't own it, ask permission from who does. If you aren't sure who owns it, then don't hunt it.

[ScoutII]

You will end up checking county land records for each parcel of land individually. The only way to find out if the land under a road or the land next to the road is public owned is to go to each county records office for each road you want to know about. Alot of work to search land records back to the first land owners of each parcel, basically doing title seaches.

Not very many houses or animal shelters right next to small rivers when compared to homes and loafing sheds next to roads. I think it has to do with flood planes.

When an animal is legally shot on a neighbors property and happens to cross the line to expire, it is very seldom a problem to legally retrieve the animal. It is ussually a good idea not to be carrying a loaded weapon during the retrieval. Respect of other peoples rights is important when engaged in such acctivities. Agree? One reason being you are really hoping someone will allow you to complete your hunt. The other party you need permission from has no legal obligation to allow your entrance just because you tell them they have to. They have rights too.

So if you get permision to hunt private land you seem to believe that it is all right to hunt ALL the lands that surround that property also? Permission from other owrners or not just because you want to? What if the other neighbor's also hunt the day you are hunting? Just because someone may believe something to be common practice doesn't mean it is LEGAL.

I am still wondering where in the rules that it states it is LEGAL to shoot across Township roads in Minnesta? I have asked the question and local Board members have never heard of such an exception. Now a logging road in Northern Minnesta I can see. Very low population density areas it may be allowed, but I do not see it happening anywhere within an hour drive of a more major metropolitan area.

I was also curious if there is some particular reason you live next to a WMA area and want to be hunting road right-of-ways? Other than you believe right-of-ways are more productive and easier to hunt.

[ScoutII]

Very well put, and seams to hit the nail on the head.

[hanso612]

Scout, you make some very good points. Respecting private property is of the utmost importance. If given the opportunity one should always ask. My family purchased property adjacent to a WMA with no upland cover. Until the slew is frozen over it is impossible to walk all the way around the WMA without going on private property. During deer season I sit and watch, hunting party after hunting party, tresspass. So when the opportunity came up to buy hunting land-I don't live on the land- I jumped at the opportunity to add 22 Acres of CRP to buffer the slew. I hate no tresspassing signs but was forced to put them up after my land began to get pounded. I called the warden during deer season as a group of hunters not only lined up a drive across my property but dropped posters of on the corners all with no cased loaded guns and proceeded to us the truck to drive over my farm in concentric circles. The co responsed by saying it's "

really more of a roundup down here" I sit in a camo ground blind and have slob hunters shoot at deer feet from me. Last year I had a hunter crawl on his belly dressed all in black across tilled soil to shoot at a buck on our side of the fence. I also had duck hunters dive a boat across private property into the WMA and use their engine to run the boat onto the ice then jump up and down until the ice broke. They continued this usless pursuit most of the morning.I offered up the use of my ground blind to the Co during mussle loading season but got no takers.

You ask why I want to hunt ditches-I think it is like when the speed limit was 55 and everyone was safely driving 65. You looked like a fool and were often given the finger if you drove 55. In Southwestern MN there is still a large population of ditch hunters who are convinced that it is legal and encouraged. I just don't want to play the fool. Rather than do like the rest of the crowd and hope that it is legal or that I won't get caught, I hope to get some clarification on the rule.

Near as I can tell roughly 2 percent of ditches in rural Dakota Co. are public-If that number holds true across the state it would dwarf the WMA acreage. Even with the large number of WMA's in our area opening weekend is packed on public land. Big public additions are expensive and will do little to provide more space. Many small parcells would help more, and thats just what labeling the public ditches will do.

I push this issue because if dictch hunting is made clearly illegal I win- but many uninfranchised hunters lose. If it is legal I give up a little private land and many others benifit. I jus want to be remembered as a landowner that fought for the masses once I got my own piece- not the other way around.

[ScoutII]

One thing I still here from local hunters is, "I always was able to hunt there before."The one thing we all need to think of is that the land areas have not increased, but the hunter population has increased. Game is losing habitat to development, and are adapting the best they can to survive.

Hunters are the predators most species must fear now.So yes the game will learn what or who to avoid if they get the chance. One reason the DNR has bag limits is so hunters can learn to SHARE in the bounty and hopefuly not hoard limit on top of limit of game. That way other hunters also might get a chance at their share per say. We need to use what resources we have left wisely, not just look at what we can PLUNDER next.

GOOD discussions is what it will take to make SMART decisions for the future of hunting.

If the affective KILL range of you weapon is 30 yards(150 feet), shouldn't the smallest dimension of a field be at least equal to or greater than that lenght?

[hanso612]

Scout, in Murray Co there are many small WMA's most of them untillable land and small ponds with very litttle upland cover. If forced to only shoot inward we would often be shooting each other or dropping pheasants over water, deep in cattails,or on thin ice. Most good pheasant hunters drive pheasants toward natural blocks-field edges, roads etc. Most pheasant run toward the end of good cover then flush often at the fenceline or road. If the airspace over adjacent land is off limits most of these WMA's are unhuntable. With public land in the pheasant range so limited as a hunter(even if you are landowner) you should be able to see how important it is to fight for our rights to shoot over section roads and fencelines into airspace over private property. Join us in our fight to buffer existing WMA's

The biggest hurdle I see in making new hunting opportunities is fighting the counties fear of lost tax revinue. Murray Co has bitten the bullet and appears to value the multiplier effect hunting brings to the area-many new areas in the last few years. I challenge other counties, especially Rock to try to match Murray in the number of WMA's. Taking these pieces off the tax roles all toghether is one way to get everyone to pay for these natural areas we ALL benifit from.

[ScoutII]

Let us see, on the PRIM map I have, it shows only 1 WMA that has only 9AC, in Murry Co. Alot of WMA listed contain 30-80 Ac.

HUNT: to pursue for food or in sport, to try to find or seek, to drive or chase ;esp. by harrying, to traverse in the search of prey.

HARRY: pillage, to torment by or as if by constant attack. syn. worry, annoy, plauge, pester.

I see 1 WMA area in Grant Co. near Herman,MN listing 0 Ac.And I see another few that list 2-5 Ac elswere in the state. Pretty obvious safe hunting is not going to happen on these parcels. I even see 2 gravel pits listed elsewhere in the state.

Does it make any sense try and book a party of 20 at restaurant that can only seat 12? Do a little home work here.

I sure hope that our elected officials never deem it safe to shoot across a roadway. If a bird finds a way to dodge me using a roadway, it has EARNED its FREEDOM.

The way I read what you are asking for, you will be disrespecting others rights to obtain your goal. What have we gained, by alienating our neighbors?

We need to be better stewards of what we do have.Build good relationships with our neighbors and we will get access to more areas. Work with the DNR to fund more purchases of land for WMA's.

Hunting is not an activity that can safely be done where other activities take place. Hunting to be done safely takes alot of concentration and focus, just ask the Vice President.

As I remember a statement of one person JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Good luck with your hunting in the future. I hope you can find enough land to HUNT on, finding enough birds to SHOOT at is the real challenge.

[_FearNoFish4:20_]

road hunting can be a lot of fun there is no doubt about that! depending on the situation a lot more sucessful than pushing cover!

[Tom7227]

97B.055 DISCHARGING FIREARMS AND BOWS AND ARROWS.

Subdivision 1. Restrictions related to highways. (a) A person may not discharge a firearm

or an arrow from a bow on, over, or across an improved public highway at a big game animal. A

person may not discharge a firearm or bow and arrow within the right-of-way of an improved

public highway at a big game animal. The commissioner may by rule extend the application of

this subdivision to the taking of migratory waterfowl in designated locations.

( A person may not discharge a firearm or an arrow from a bow on, over, across, or within

the right-of-way of an improved public highway at a decoy of a big game animal that has been

set out by a licensed peace officer.

[Jameson]

 Originally Posted By: Tom7227

97B.055 DISCHARGING FIREARMS AND BOWS AND ARROWS.

Subdivision 1. Restrictions related to highways. (a) A person may not discharge a firearm

or an arrow from a bow on, over, or across an improved public highway at a big game animal. A

person may not discharge a firearm or bow and arrow within the right-of-way of an improved

public highway at a big game animal. The commissioner may by rule extend the application of

this subdivision to the taking of migratory waterfowl in designated locations.

( A person may not discharge a firearm or an arrow from a bow on, over, across, or within

the right-of-way of an improved public highway at a decoy of a big game animal that has been

set out by a licensed peace officer.

This is great info....pertaining to big game ONLY. Different rules for small game.

[Hammer Handle]

If the law is too confusing, I propose the opposite...make ALL road hunting illegal.

I was nearly shot by a turkey hunter road hunting last year. I had already shot my turkey, but was sitting in a deer stand at the end of our woods near a road calling them in to take pictures. A road hunter drives up...uncases his gun...and shoots at the flying turkey. I dove out of the stand as BBs hit all around me. I yelled and he took off. And, my ditch is illegal to hunt, drive in with a snowmobile, pick berries, etc. And you want to make this legal? I was stupid and didn't take a picture of the truck. I will know next time.

Shooting game across the property line is illegal. It is trespassing. If you hit it on your side and it runs over, you can retrieve it with no firearm. Even if wounded, once it crosses the line you CANNOT shoot. You MUST get permission first. If flight, I think the rule applies. I don't see it in black and white, but I am sure this has to apply. I will have to check....

hanso612, sounds like you have some terrible and unsafe neighbors and experiences. I feel for you. My neighbors are fantastic. It is the "other" people we have to watch for.

I should have the right to walk anywhere on my land and feel safe, no matter if it is hunting season or not. I also pay taxes on the ditch and the acreage of the road on my land. If they wish to change this law...they better find some other place to build this road. Hunters need to educate themselves on the law. If they don't, be prepared to pay the fine if caught. And, if your CO did nothing for something that was illegal...I would sure make a stink about that.

[hanso612]

Hammer Handle, I think you possition on this issue is easily argued for. I could live with an all out ban, but I think you are missing the point. Some ditches are owned outright by the county and are public in all legal senses of the word. We had a corner of our farm in Lake Wilson taken through immenent domain to round a corner. We had no choice but to accept the less than market value of the land and no longer pay taxes on it. This land is open to the public. It is just very difficult to tell what pieces belong to the people and those that are just easments.

I too have great neighbors, and helped on two ocassions this year as youngsters harvested their first deer from fenclines along our properties.(incidently they hunted on chisel plowed ground with the hope deer would come out of my CRP, but thats another issue.) People with land have very little reason to push the limits of the law, but the vast majority of people can bearly afford a house and to send their kids to college, let alone, buy their own piece of hunting land. As landowners if we fail to help the city kids find the outdoors by providing a place for them to hunt, they will undoubtedly be doing other things much worse(meth labs, dumping toxic trash) on our open land. Hunters brought up right are stewards of the land and have a vested interest in it.

The reason I started this push was, like hammer handle, I had three close calls hunting in a camo ground blind own my own property. I think if hunters where given the oppurtuntity to hunt ditches next to agriculural land they would be less likely to shoot at us in our woodlots and CRP fields. As it is now this is the only cover down in the section grid. Farmers could be incented to plant cover in ditches away from the homestead and mow within 500 feet.

My mind is not made up on this issue and I value input from all sides. I just hope I don't stir up alot of slob hunting stories that make us all look bad to others. Thanks, Hans.

[ScoutII]

Permission to hunt is the key to a good landowner-hunter relationship. If a hunter will not even take the time to ask or find out who's land he or she is ON I think they really do not have the time to REALLY ENJOY hunting.

Many of the things you suggest require people to do all the work so someone else can reap the harvest. If someone is looking for a privilege, wouldn't it make sense that some kind of effort on their part should be expected.

We have County and Township boards who help us with what is safe and proper use of the lands in their jurisdiction, they are the governing body elected buy the people of the area.

To try to FORCE some idea onto someone will not make any friends, what we need to do is work together. People use to help each other, but nowadays it seems people are so put out if they do not get what they want, when they want it, whether they deserve it or not. Remember owning a firearm is still a RIGHT, but hunting is all too often only a PRIVELAGE like driving.

As president JFK believed: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

[Hammer Handle]

Odds are, if someone asked me to hunt my land or ditches, I would let them.

But, to say anyone can go in and hunt the ditches without permission...no way. What happens if I just allowed someone to pick berries along the ditch? If they get shot...could I be sued?

Make it all illegal if it is confusing. Safer for all and drivers on the road.

Making it legal will make lands more unsafe and encourage more tresspassing.

[sparcebag]

Hammer no you cant be sued.In minnesota once permission is given all liabilities are void,now with a trespasser I'm not sure?But Id bet they could sue.Permission issue in in hunting rules hand book.

[Hammer Handle]

But, if the land was legal for all to go in...and a berry picker goes in (legally now) and I come along hunting and shoot the berry picker (accidentally)...can I be sued for he was there legally and I didn't know he was there?

That is why I say...you must get permission. Safer for all. No grey areas, no confusion. If private land or a ditch next to it...you MUST get permission.

[sparcebag]

I should hope so if thats how safe you are when hunting.Ya know....Know your suroundings,your target,if not sure dont fire.Ya ever been to firearms classes I was in 1959 and I yet remember that

lets say that berry picker was on a WMA

[hanso612]

I'm glad to see you guys are still arguing about this. It proves my point that it is very unclear in the books. Hammer Handle, I also want to make it clear, that some ditches in Minnesota belong entirely to all Minnesotans its Just a matter of finding out which ones. The landowner who chases one off these public lands is as rude as a hunter who hasn't done his homework or asked permission.

The beauty of what I am proposing is that it gets the disfranchised road hunters away from hunting ditches near farmsteads and CRP (where most of the cover is now)and out in the croplands where it is clear no one else is hiding in the grass. I was almost shot two years ago hunting out of a camo ground blind and would love to mow the ditch next to my CRP to show that there are no pheasants in the ditch. I would also love cost share to help plant native grass in my ditches out by the crop fields to help with nesting cover. I think farmers could be influenced by tying subsidies, crop insurance, and mailbox money to compliance with not mowing ditches.

There is a large number of hunters who are already hunting as if all ditches are legal. I just want to get them out of their cars and into safe ditches. I also want to help allieviate pressure on our WMA system. If you don't think I'm right, try finding an open WMA in Rock county on the opener.

p.s. In this argument, we are still looking for someone to step up with a definitive answer to question of weather it is legal to shoot over the fenceline at flying birds that left from public property.

Thanks for all the input-there is no right or wrong answers just persuasive arguments or not. Hans.

[ScoutII]

When it comes to State Owned property the Small parcels I SEE that are owned by the State {All of us}, I always see a NO TRESSPASSING sign. This sign is probably there because the State maybe trying to protect us from ourselves? Some of these parcels are 2-10 acres in size, huntable for maybe 2 people at most, but protected by being posted by the State {us}. So I maybe assume that the State {us} do not feel these parcels should be accessible for just anyone at just any time? Some parcels are just not appropriate to be used for hunting and some parcels the State is hoping to be able to prevent some people from dumping garbage on.

It is necassarry in some areas to clear the ditches of new growth in the fall so snow does not collect on the roadway. With the cost of everything going through the roof snow removal is no exception. If the ditch growth is taller than the road surface {works like a snow fence} snow will collect on the roadway costing our goverment agencies more for removal.

Page 12,TRESSPASS LAW[A person may not enter agricultural land for outdoor recreational purposes without permission,]

Quote [The beauty of what I am proposing is that it gets the disfranchised road hunters away from hunting ditches near farmsteads and CRP (where most of the cover is now)and out in the croplands where it is clear no one else is hiding in the grass.] Let us quit this jumping back and forth across the fence here. The rules are clear when it comes to cropland! CRP lands are also protected from tresspass. We can not HAVE our cake and EAT it, one or the other.

Page 13 Definitions [Hunters and Trappers:Always respect private lands. Ask first before entering lands not posted as being open to hunting and trapping. you will improve relationships between landowners and recreationists, and you will have a more enjoyable time in the field.] Assuming the land along a road is public land or not is only guessing. More often than not the land is private. Is it worth looking for that very small percentage of land that may be as you believe public owned? I do not think there is enough of this land in exsistence to even be worth looking for.

Page 12 RESTRICTIONS:[A person may not take a wild animal on any land where the person is prohibited from lawfully entering by this law.] Maybe the state just needs to change the ONE WORD [on] to {ON OR OVER} as in the BIG GAME RULES to make it simple to understand. Do you think that this might be enough to keep some people from trying to CHEAT the system looking for some small loop-hole in the rules to justify their unexcusable interpretation of the present rules?

Our legislators are always changing the wording of the rules to clarify grey areas. Right now they think we could use a regulation book for big-game hunting in the mong language. This is to help make it easier for non-english speaking people to participate safeley in big game hunting. Give them a chance, if something is good for the general public, they do listen.

[hanso612]

Scout, I agree that most small parcells of land owned by the state are posted. I think the reason is not that they would make dangerous places to hunt, but because they have equipment, machinery or other working builings on them and I think theft and vandalism is a bigger problem. I see these sites posted all the time and think they should stay that way. They are usually close to town as well. I think we are talking about two distinkly types of property.

Your point on ag land is exactly right. A bill last year made it very clear and that's the kind of language I am looking for in regards to these ditches. I want to make it expressly clear that I am not advocating hunting these ditches until it is made clear to do so. And I am sure not advocating hunting AG or crp land just the puplic right away next to it. Right now it is not expressly clear, and there are conflicts in ditches all the time not just with hunters, I might add. I'm pushing for clarification to help with these conficts, but also to help with cover and hunting opportunity(two concepts very hard to argue against).

As far as the snow drift prolem -here is what I propose. Mow the up wind side in fall after nesting only. Plant downwind side in native prairie to act as snow catch. Snow catch adds moisture to soil and could help with cattails in ditch(best thermal cover). Have controled burns to keep down woody cover and help warm season grasses. Make the snowmobilers travel on downwind side until they get to there home section. There will be more and better snow in the ditch for longer period of time because of drifting. The snowmobile passes will nock down grass after first snow keeping the road from drifting.

I think we have the right person in charge of the DNR and agree with you that they have all of our best interests in mind. I think our enforcement is undermanned and underfunded and any clarification in rules would help their work as well.

As far as the cheats-like I suggested above, if we provide huntable ditch cover away from population I truly believe it will be less likely rougue hunters will be hunting next to landowners.

Once again, What I am proposing is only for pheasant hunting(not pass shooting for ducks or big game),and only in the heart of pheasant zone(Think red area in roadside survey map with that comes out each fall. Mostly what I am talking about is section line grid in farm country.

One last thing, I always hear the recomendation of asking the land owner. In our area we are seeing more and more corporate farms. The homestead in the woodlot is very rarely the farmer who farms the land. We are also seeing a proliferation of hunt clubs who lease many acres of prime hunting cover. I live in Northfield, but our farms are in Murray Co. and ,like me, more and more hunters are forming partnerships and buying every piece of huntable cover. My neigbors are from Nebraska. Absentie landownership and group ownership make it very difficult to get permission to hunt because you can't find the owner and muliple partners might disagree who to let on.

Wild game belongs to all of us, and if we let wealthy landowners control access wild game becomes theirs by default. I also think it is clear that, in Minnesota, we don't want individuals to profit from the sale of wild game. Charging access fees to shoot pheasants is just that. I'm afraid we are headed to the European system of game lords if we don't try everything in our power to stop pay hunting. My ditch proposal is a way to take a little of this land back for the people.

Once again sorry for the long post, Hans.

[Hammer Handle]

People are selling out their land due to higer taxes and the thought of getting more money for retirement...as the MN small farms are dead.

Opening up road hunting will not help this.

As a family with a small farm (still) and with lands along roads that it is not legal to road hunt on, I will not support anything that will open up people to hunt legally there and put me at risk when I hunt. I pay taxes on the land, it should be private.

If this changes, I might as well sell out and buy land elsewhere.

[gonefishin11]

Hans,

To your point about having neighbors from all over and not being able to contact them... They have plat books, websites and cell phones to find the person. Go to the plat book and find who owns the land, go a whitepages.com or google and type in the person's name. Use your cell phone to call that person and go from there.

I got permission from a guy in Colorado doing this. I told him to call me when he was harvesting in the area to meet for a handshake and a thank you. I gave him a case of beer and a package of frozen crappies and I hunt there now without issue.

This may not work when you see a group of roosters while road hunting but in the long run, it is a much better solution than road hunting.

For your road hunting proposal, its a valiant idea but I don't think alot of good would come of it. There are too many lazy hunters that would still just drive around until they saw a rooster, hop out and shoot it.

If people did attempt to walk a road ditch, what happens when a rooster flys across the road, the hunter gets too excited and blows the window out of an oncoming car?? What happens when a dog chases a pheasant across the road and is hit by a car??

Do we really want to increase (Maybe not a huge increase but it would happen) the chances of these accidents just to hunt a patch of grass that is 10 yards wide AT MOST???

[hanso612]

My point is that there has always been a large group of hunters that hunts this way and are surprised when you tell them that the ditch might be private. When they ask CO's they only hear the information that reinforces their beliefs. Its such a common practice that is obviosly contoversial that it seems to me that this is exactly the type of issue government needs to step in and take a stance. Hans

[gonefishin11]

I agree with your point that the government needs to take a stance. If/When they do, I would rather see a complete ban than making them all legal, as others have stated.

[Hammer Handle]

Exactly my point.

Make it all illegal...and safer. Driving around and ditch hunting is unsafe and really not hunting. And, most of it steps into being illegal anyway with tresspassing, shooting dangerous, and not knowing your surroundings.

Making it legal so people without land have a place to hunt is not a good solution.

[gonefishin11]

Everyone in MN has land to hunt... they are WMA's, WPA's, etc. Instead of hunting road ditches, get a MN Gazeteer, use Google Earth to find isolated patches and/or changes in cover on these lands and then hunt them. No need for road ditches.

[sparcebag]

Heres a DNR Reply;

Thanks Jim heres what is confusing me.

I'm hunting a road ditch road to fenceline about 33 feet wide a bird gets up and flies over the road,Can I shoot that bird?

Same senareo I'm in the road ditch a bird flushes and flies too the feild past the fence line,Can I shoot the bird?

Hello,

Yes, you could discharge across a road. The 500ft rule does apply to dwelling or live stock. If a vehicle was coming you could be charged with the reckless discharge of a firearm.

If that bird is flying over posted or agricultural land, I would not discharge my firearm. If an officer was driving by or watching you could be charged with trespassing for not having permission to discharge. And you still would need permission to go and retrieve that bird. If not ag land or posted sure you could discharge and retrieve.

good luck

ji

James Abernathy

DNR Information Consultant

500 Lafayette Rd Box 40

St Paul Mn 55155

651-296-6157

1-888-646-6367m