FAULSE ALARM - KIND OF ... CT hunters legal warning on layout and coffin blinds

Scott Farris

Scott Farris

Well-known member
Saturday while we were enjoying our traveling decoy hunt over James, Wendell related a disturbing story to me, he was told about a DEEP officer citing goose hunters in a field using layout blinds. The Connecticut regulations require a minimum 100 yards between blinds and each individual layout blind was considered a separate blind. Wendell didn't have any details, like were the layouts spaced through the decoys risking being in each others line of fire, or if they mouthed off to the officer. Anyway today was slow enough that I requested input from the EnCon Police officer who supports the CT Fisherman's web page. He does great service giving us a place to as our questions.


His reply was: "A layout blind, even one built for one person is still considered a blind and the following regulations apply:"

He included the full regulation, I'm only attaching the two he highlighted:

26-66-4. Wild fowl and shore birds
The open season, daily bag limit and possession limit for migratory game birds and the method of taking such game birds shall be the same as the open season, daily bag limit, possession limit and methods of taking fixed for such birds by the regulations of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service made under the provisions of an act of Congress relating to migratory birds, and as provided under the provisions of Section 26-91 of the general statutes, except as provided in Section 26-66-1(c).

(a) There shall be a minimum distance of one hundred yards between all occupied duck hunting blinds, whether such blinds be permanent, temporary, drift or float.

(r) A waterfowl hunting party shall include no more than 6 individuals with a minimum distance of 100 yards between parties.


So in the state of CT we can not legally hunt together in our own layout or coffin blind. Also remember in CT if we are convicted of a wildlife violation (includes paying the fine without contesting) we automatically loose our hunting and fishing privileges for a year. So CT hunters educate your friends, don't let them get screwed unawares.

Scott
 
Last edited:
Scott - A lawyer friend of mine bought a new office building quite a few years back. He had a sign put up near the road and a few months later, a township official gave him a warning stating that the local ordinance said that "all signs must be attached to the building" in those words. He thought about that, then went to the local hardware store, bought a 100' of rope, looped one end around the sign and tied the other end to the building.

That sign is still up after all of these years with the rope in place.

Just an idea.
 
Wow. I was born and lived in CT. until I was around 9. I remember my father hunting all over our town. Now there is no discharge of firearms in the whole township I hear. (Ridgefield) One more reason to move to AK Scott!
-
 
yep getting out of here as fast possible, im tired of the laws here and the attitude of the public (try to get a thank you after holding the door for someone). washington here i come or alaska sounds good the cold keeps most people away.
 
Good info to know. I am sure we could present that to DEEP in a constructive, scheduled manner and get that law clarified. Until then, leave the blinds at home and cover up with army netting and corn stalks.
Jim/Fowlfishing
 
I think this is the second time I've heard about this new rule (or new interpretation) this year.

Question for long-time CT hunters--has the rule been interpreted this way in the past?

If not, it makes me wonder whether there is some reason for the new interpretation, or perhaps just inexperienced wardens in the field who'd never seen a layout blind or layout boat before.

It wouldn't be something I'd take on, but there is a great test case out there for some duck blind lawyer.

Lawyer: "So if the two hunters had cut brush to surround both of them and layed down on matts on the ground, layout , they'd have been legal?"

Warden: "Yes."

Lawyer: "But because they cut less brush, laid down side by side in two layout blinds, and covered each of them with brush they were violating the law."

Warden: "Yes."

You might not win in court, but it would make for great press, and that would probably get the law clarified.

It would also seem simple enough to revise CT law to redefine "blind" so that it could count a small number of individual layout blinds or boats within a small area as a single blind.

Perhaps there is a reason for this strict definition, but I can't imagine what it is.
 
well, if a blind is nothing more than concealment to hide a hunter from the prey........well, then any hunter in his own camo hunting clothes is standing in his own blind which means nobody in hunting clothes can stand next to anyone else in hunting clothes. The laws keep getting more ridiculous to see if they can make guys fed up enough that they just give up.


dc
 
I've got this issue going on a couple of CT sites, the primary one, CTFisherman, has a Law Enforcement section moderated by a CO Captain who works at the Capital DEEP office. This is his post from 8:30 this evening in response a good number of unhappy posts:

Put the pitchforks and torches away.

Scott asked a question on an existing regulation and I posted the regulation for him to read. I don't make these things up and neither do our officers. The regulation specifically states that blinds (not hunters, not hunting parties) shall be one hundred yards apart...if you read section (a) differently let me know. We can't just "strike out" a regulation, there is a process and like someone mentioned, at least it's a regulation rather than a statute. Regulations can be changed easier than a statute.

This regulation was probably put into place when the only kinds of blinds in use were the larger built up duck blinds in marshes. Layout blinds have come a long way in just the past few years so it's one of many things that the regulations may have not caught up with...or the Wildlife Division (they are the ones who put the regulations together) may not have wanted to change the regulation. We ran into the same thing several years ago with the .17hmr came out. The regulation prohibited the use of it because it is longer than a .22lr cartridge. It took a year but the regulation was changed so .17hmr's are now legal for use on state land.

Look at it this way, if you are going out hunting with a couple friends and want to put your layouts close together (less than the required 100 yards) it may not be an issue for you. Now take the same situation, without the 100 yard distance. You and two or three of your friends set up your layout blinds five, ten or twenty yards apart (pick your distance), then some other hunter shows up who is not part of your group and sets up in the middle of all of you five yards away. I'm sure you would be screaming about him encroaching on you. You can't have it both ways. Most if not all of our officers would cut you some slack (and it sounds like that's what routinely happens) if a bunch of you are closer and you are all hunting together. But as I mentioned in the scenario above, if someone not part of your group tried to squeeze in close on you I'm sure you would want our officers to be able to tell them to move it.

I don't know what the other states allow, our regulations are enough to worry about.

If you are concerned about the wording of the regulation then I would suggest you contact the Wildlife Division and let them know. Personally I don't have a problem keeping the large blinds 100 yards apart and allowing the small individual layout blinds to be set closer together if you are all part of the same hunting party, but they may not see it the same way. Or you may want to suggest to them that a hunting party of no more than six hunters using individual layout blinds can be closer than one hundred yards apart. I know from a common sense approach if six of you are in a large blind you're a lot closer than having six layout blinds several feet or yards apart so it shouldn't be an issue....but then again, what do I know? ......
__________________________________________________
Captain Raul Camejo
raul.camejo@ct.gov
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Connecticut State Environmental Conservation Police
Northeast Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs Association

Hopefully we can get enough enough attention on this that we can get the regulation changed.

Scott
 
I doubt the law was written with the intent of layout blinds,,Its an old law before layouts were common and it needs to be tried. Find out if there is any case law supporting this with layouts. CT hunters organizations should take this on.
 
well, if a blind is nothing more than concealment to hide a hunter from the prey........well, then any hunter in his own camo hunting clothes is standing in his own blind which means nobody in hunting clothes can stand next to anyone else in hunting clothes. The laws keep getting more ridiculous to see if they can make guys fed up enough that they just give up.


dc
Click to expand...

Point well taken DC
 
Well it's a new morning and we have an official clarification from Captain Raul Camejo:

OK, here's what I got.....

For our purposes we are considering up to 6 hunters hunting together to be a hunting party. If you are together in a group of 6 or less, your layout blinds, coffin boxes, mud puddles where you are covering yourself with mud, burlap bag jackets, flapper coats or whatever would be considered a single blind - for waterfowl, so it doesn't matter goose or duck. Being in a single party of up to 6 will keep someone who is not a member of your party from crashing in and setting up on you. As they are not a member of your party their setup would be another blind and the 100 yard requirement would apply.

Unfortunately the term "blind" is not defined in the statutes or regulations anywhere. There are multiple references to blinds in the regulations, the most specific is the one I posted where it says "duck hunting blind".

Anyway - I hope this clarifies this for everyone. I apologize for any confusion, I was multi-tasking yesterday talking on the phone, trying to review a report and answer Scott's question all at the same time.
__________________________________________________
Captain Raul Camejo
raul.camejo@ct.gov
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Connecticut State Environmental Conservation Police
Northeast Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs Association
 
Wendell thanks for bringing it to my attention. I still think it's worth contacting the [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Wildlife Division to request a clarification. If they see how confusing it is (confused their own ENCON Police captain) they may add appropriate definitions.

Scott
[/font]
 
Scott - I am impressed that you took this issue to a source able to hear and understand the situation then start working on it.

That may seem simple to some, but a lot of people would have simply thrown their hands up in frustration and walked away.

Good for you sir...I think you provided a service to a lot of CT sportsmen.
 
This has still been kicking around? I heard about it back in early November and informed Min Huang, and he was a bit taken aback by it, and was going to contact EnCon. I thought it was resolved over a month ago.
 
How about this setup Scott? Common thing to do, but I think these guys were just out drinking coffee and taking pictures.

IMG_20111217_082144-1.jpg

 
Jim,

As long as the regulation is worded the way it is, it isn't truly resolved. When an ENCON Police Chief doesn't interpret the reg the way it's "resolved", what makes you think a rookie officer will do any better. If your cited it's your butt on the line. Okay we old guys have contacts we may be able to call right in the field to get us off the hook, now that we know the official interpretation of the month, but what about the average Joe? What about judges? Think you can get the CWA working to have the regs updated?

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top