Shotgun zones

[huntnfish]

It looks like MN is considering getting rid of the shotgun zones. 

 

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/sports/outdoors/4994139-Shotgun-zone-elimination-bill-gains-traction-in-Minnesota

 

I used to hunt in a shotgun zone but now hunt in the big woods with a rifle. The thing that always confused me with the shotgun only zone was that you could hunt with a rifle caliber pistol. I know Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and others have started allowing straight wall rifle cartridges instead of just shotguns. 

[eyeguy 54]

Interesting 

[Mike89]

yes very interesting for sure.....

[IceHawk]

This idea has been tossed round few times over last few years. As for myself I am against it. I see the possibility of it going into vote  but from what I've encountered hunting rifle and slug zones I think passing it would be a mistake. I realize many are using specialized slug barrels slug guns that shoot sabots and already reach out there. Plus you add scoped muzzleloaders and bullets are traveling some fairly good distances already. I shoot a 220 savage Nikon combo 200 yard shots can be done so I see where a rifle may be considered, although I don't recommend unless your experienced or shoot a bunch.  What scares me is putting rifles in hands of younger generation and less experienced shooters in rural farm country areas. How many of these hunters with rifles can make a honest split second decision while shooting at a deer? Are they able to think about what's over that hill? Do they know where that bullet goes if they miss whats stopping it? The big woods aren't as common in certain areas rurally as like Northern portions of the state. On my property up N 14 of us Rifle  hunt 1200 acres of solid timber we rarely see each other or other hunters. plenty of trees to stop our high power bullets. And even then though is put into each shot before squeezing off. Honestly most of our shots are 100 yards or less. In my backyard not so much way to many safety variables to consider with a rifle. People are everywhere walking, buildings,houses farm animals etc. way more chances of accidents happening. Plus slug country is driving country. Can you imagine local deer drives happening with high power rifles  scary. Or corn  field drives with high power semi autos. Plus how many more wounded deer? questionable shots will be taken guaranteed. I think if it is passed locations to pass it have to be considered before decisions are made. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by IceHawk

[Knowknot]

IceHawk, you make some very good points here. I have to agree with you 100% and I hope our legislators take some of these ideas and make a good choice.Thanks for your thoughts..

[gim]

I'll bet the major rifle manufacturers are for it.  Virtually every person that hunts with a shotgun or muzzle loader will go out and buy a rifle/scope.  Its a big advantage to be able to shoot twice as far and considerably more accurate.  I'm guessing the effeciency rate of harvesting deer in the southern half of the state would go up considerably too.

 

As for it being more dangerous...perhaps.  But being in the woods or field with thousands of other hunters carrying high powered rifles is already dangerous, as is climbing into an elevated tree stand in the dark.  So ya there is always going to be risk.  Lotta sketchy hunters out there already Icehawk.

[Wanderer]

I’ll agree there’s always risk - that’s why blaze orange and now pink are mandatory.  And I can’t speak for other hunters but from my experience there’s been at least marginal relief in knowing those slugs drop faster out in farm country.

 

I can’t clearly remember ever hearing a rifle bullet whiz by me while hunting.  And unfortunately I know what an incoming .308 round hitting the dirt 10 feet from does sound like.  But I can still distinctly remember the sound and uneasy feeling I had BOTH times I had shotgun slugs whiz by me while hunting. One time I could see the hunter who shot and one time I couldn’t.

 

I’m sure people will migrate to rifles in those areas if they can but would there be a mass buy?  Maybe, I don’t know.  What I do know is people shooting slugs out of their bird gun haven’t yet bought a designated slug/deer gun, many people already own a deer legal firearm, and I’ve had more people by far ask me to borrow my slug gun than any of my rifles.  
 

I see no GOOD reason to make the change.  Increase the risk for what gain?

[IceHawk]

17 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

I’ll agree there’s always risk - that’s why blaze orange and now pink are mandatory.  And I can’t speak for other hunters but from my experience there’s been at least marginal relief in knowing those slugs drop faster out in farm country.

 

I can’t clearly remember ever hearing a rifle bullet whiz by me while hunting.  And unfortunately I know what an incoming .308 round hitting the dirt 10 feet from does sound like.  But I can still distinctly remember the sound and uneasy feeling I had BOTH times I had shotgun slugs whiz by me while hunting. One time I could see the hunter who shot and one time I couldn’t.

 

I’m sure people will migrate to rifles in those areas if they can but would there be a mass buy?  Maybe, I don’t know.  What I do know is people shooting slugs out of their bird gun haven’t yet bought a designated slug/deer gun, many people already own a deer legal firearm, and I’ve had more people by far ask me to borrow my slug gun than any of my rifles.  
 

I see no GOOD reason to make the change.  Increase the risk for what gain?

Well said couldn't agree more  There's risk in all kinds of hunting we do that's why we have gun safety classes , Laws and regulations out there.  Ive had slugs zip by me as Tracie not a fun experience.  You want to experience see high risk hunting try duck hunting with a couple guys in a duck boat. Common sense and safety considerations have to be considered at all times in any kind of hunting. I honestly don't believe everyone will buy rifles if it becomes legalized in slug zones. I have multiple high power rifles legal for hunting,   and doubt I would use anything more than my 220 in a slug zone if passed. See no reason to if that deer is out behond my range and shooting ability with the weapon I chose,. Why risk safety factors take chances  by taking unethical shots and wounding a animal. The animal birds  gets my respect time and time over . Think before you shoot has always been my moto. There are different stages everyone experiances in hunting.  The excitement learning period as a newbie youth or less experienced hunter .  The all about the kill bragging rights kind of hunter the look at what I did and shot. Then there's the seasoned experienced hunter who has been there done it, The hunt is more about experiances , friends,  laughs and memories made on a hunt. Safety factors are considered before a reaction is made. You get more out of enjoying what the good lord has gave us nature at it's finest more so then the kill.  Glad I'm in that latter stage in my hunting career. 

Edited March 13, 2020 by IceHawk

[MJ1657]

The shotgun zone was never about safety it was about the herd.

 

Senseless old rule that needs to go away. 

[Wanderer]

14 minutes ago, MJ1657 said:

The shotgun zone was never about safety it was about the herd.

Really?  Never heard it put that way before.  All my life I’ve only heard it touted as a safety rule.

[MJ1657]

Nope it was created to protect the herd in the southern part of the state. At the time there were not as many deer around and limiting the range you could shoot in farm country cut down on the harvest. With modern day slug guns and muzzle loaders the law is now about useless. 

 

There is an article about it in last week's outdoor news if anyone's interested. 

[Knowknot]

There is a lot more range on a rifle bullet than on any shotgun or muzzle loader, and yes it was for the safety aspect of it....

[Dave S]

Not to mention the southern part of the state is more densely populated than areas in the rifle zone. I used to deer hunt with a hand cannon chambered in 7mm-08 a half hour north of Mankato. I quit since the land was being sold and developed to the point there was no safe shot anymore. I know the area well and knew what the limits were. It was just wasn't safe. Not with a round that travels at 2700 fps out of a 14" barrel.

[Wanderer]

7 hours ago, MJ1657 said:

There is an article about it in last week's outdoor news if anyone's interested. 

I’ll check on it.  I haven’t read the whole issue yet.

[huntnfish]

I emailed the DNR about the chance that the straight walled rifle cartridge rule would come to MN late last year. The DNR said the shotgun rule had nothing to do with safety and was only instituted to limit the harvest of deer. 

[MJ1657]

2 hours ago, Knowknot said:

There is a lot more range on a rifle bullet than on any shotgun or muzzle loader, and yes it was for the safety aspect of it....

You are correct about the range of a rifle bullet.

You are incorrect that the shotgun zone was for the safety aspect.

[IceHawk]

20 hours ago, MJ1657 said:

The shotgun zone was never about safety it was about the herd.

 

Senseless old rule that needs to go away. 

Great info always thought it was for safety reasons.  Very possible back in the days when  it was implemented the deer herds population were way less for sure. I remember as a kid hunting up near Remer MN . Our group was lucky to get 1-2 deer for a group of 10. some years lucky to see one. This year I had 31 deer go by me in a 7 day season boy times and numbers have changed. 

[gim]

On 3/14/2020 at 8:26 PM, MJ1657 said:

You are correct about the range of a rifle bullet.

You are incorrect that the shotgun zone was for the safety aspect.

 

While it may have originally been implemented to protect the deer herd in the southern half of the state, there has not doubt been an increase in urban sprawl/development there since then.  That is something I think the legislators/DNR should consider and I think what some of the other posters are a little worried about now.

 

Common sense and practical gun safety goes a long way in the field or woods.  If every single one of us practiced it, no one would be in danger regardless of what weapon we are using.

[MJ1657]

It's sad that this is a sportsman's website and there are guys here afraid of guns. 

 

We wonder why we have problems. 

[Squirrelhawke]

in my opinion it doesn't matter what hunters are using they are all capable of accidentally killing something i grew up in South Dakota and i don't even go out during deer firearm season way to many guys in this state go out and get loaded themselves before they even touch a gun people forget about drinking and firearms in November it's even more deadly than drinking and driving

[Squirrelhawke]

just my 2 cents but I'll gladly spend the money to go hunt in SD where I'm not worried about guys that are still drunk from last night popping off rounds within a mile of me

[DonkeyHodey]

6 minutes ago, MJ1657 said:

It's sad that this is a sportsman's website and there are guys here afraid of guns. . 

Anyone who understands firearms should be afraid of an idiot using them.   Perhaps afraid isn't the right word:  ?sickened.  ?appalled.  ?disgusted.

 

I'm blessed to hunt in the rifle zone on private land...  Very near me, though, I can tell you of recent things I'm aware of involving "sportsmen:"  shooting over roadways, hunting on private land w/o permission, car hunting, substance consumption while hunting, and the ever-popular shooting a deer and then going to buy your management permit after the fact and tagging it...

I don't fear guns:  I fear morons out there.  There's lots of 'em.

"It was a huge deer; It wasn't a clear shot but I had to fire a few rounds anyway..."

"The deer was full run and I fired a few shots but only found a couple drops of blood..."

"It was still pretty dark and I couldn't tell if it was a doe or a buck when I shot, but it was big!..."

 

IceHawk commented on respect for the animal and "think before you shoot":  SECOND THAT!  Many "sportsmen" don't (whether it's hunting/fishing/etc...) and shouldn't be using either a rifle or a shotgun or a muzzie...

[IceHawk]

52 minutes ago, Squirrelhawke said:

just my 2 cents but I'll gladly spend the money to go hunt in SD where I'm not worried about guys that are still drunk from last night popping off rounds within a mile of me

I have to politely disagree with you on that. To say that careless hunting doesn't exist in SD and other states is totally false. I pheasant hunt private land in SD and  over the years witnessed some unethical safety stuff out there that blew me away. We watched guys (SD plates) with roll bars and bus seats mounted in the back of there trucks perform drives through grass fields. Jumping deer and shooting at them out of backs of there trucks. Plus many times snow goose hunting I watched SD plate hunters shoot at snows off roads not ditches, out windows doing drive byes etc. So unsafe hunting practices happen everywhere.  

 

 Yes DNR was contacted !

Edited March 16, 2020 by IceHawk

[PRO-V]

I can't remember which gun magazine I read this in a few years back but, they did testing on rifles versus slugs. Rifle bullets still drop fairly fast after 200yds. When they hit the ground they quickly stopped or broke up harmlessly. By comparison a slug which weighs much more could act like a bowling ball and bounce retaining considerable weight and a higher ability to cause damage. It doesn't matter which one you fire over a hill - NOBODY should take such a shot with anything!!!

[Wanderer]

Times have changed and obviously projectiles have changed.  I don’t fear guns and never will.  But I’ll always pay attention to who operates them and how.

 

Time will tell if it’s a good idea or not but I really don’t think changing to rifles will automatically make shooters more accurate.  Seems to me the change would just eliminate an enforcement item.  People will shoot as good as they want to/prepare to shoot.

 

I guess I’ve moved to neutral on the subject.

[eyeguy 54]

Being an archer for so long I like the slug gun. Guess it doesn’t matter much to me. I hunt south of Rochester during gun season. Last 5 years longest shot was 45 yards. I really like that close encounter. 

[Tom Sawyer]

1 hour ago, eyeguy 54 said:

I really like that close encounter. 

 

#1 reason I bowhunt, 25 yds is my range. 2nd would be the earlier season, sit in the boat in the afternoon chasin fall eyes, hunt a m and p m. 3rd would definitely be gun hunters with a "brown it's down mentality"..... No worries anymore of #3, since I hunt my private land. 

[monstermoose78]

I love archery hunting but rifle is family time a full week of hanging out. I live on the edge of shotgun and rifle in Princeton let the rifles bark state wide!! 

[MJ1657]

 

It's unreal so many here are against carrying a rifle. 

 

It's easy to see why the anti gun crowd is gaining momentum. 

[IceHawk]

 

20 minutes ago, MJ1657 said:

 

It's unreal so many here are against carrying a rifle. 

 

It's easy to see why the anti gun crowd is gaining momentum. 

Not sure who this pertains to,  but speaking for myself I hunt with both in fact I own 15 rifles of all calibers. In know way am I against carrying a rifle, I hunt my land up N in Pequot  lakes all the time when up there  with my 30-06 or my 270. When hunting locally in a slug zone I use my 220 savage or my 11-87 fully rifled slug gun. . I also have been a archery muzzleloader hunter for a very long time and own and hut with them also. What I am against is opening a can of worms in a area I don't think is setup to handle high power rifles. If we allow rifles are we going to draw the line of AR style weapons being allowed to be used?  Safety is my number one concern. As I stated in numerous posts. Its all a personal opinion and everyone has one and has that right to one. Do we agree with everyones not always.   If there was a vote I would vote no just because of my personal views and opinion. And for the guys that want it great that's there right,. Will it change my opinion if rifles are allowed  heck no. Do I feel any different twoards someone that thinks it should be allowed a strong no. As hunters we need to stick together because your right antis are after our guns and rights as hunters. And a strong core equals a strong fight.