Phil Nowack
Well-known member
So did this clear everything up?
Last edited:
Wi Open water/concealment regs....
- Thread starter Phil Nowack
- Start date
So did this clear everything up?
Rick Kyte
Well-known member
Clears up quite a few of the questions that came up for hunters when the new rule was implemented, but it still doesn't address one potential problem: what if you are hunting in sparse wild rice? Suppose that when your boat/blind is viewed from 100 feet away there is 100% concealment, when viewed from 50 feet there is 50% concealment, when viewed from 20 feet there is 20% concealment. Are you legal or illegal?
Notice that the photos all show boat/blinds in the midst of or adjacent to heavy vegetation. Neither the rule nor the photo examples address the situation of tall, sparse vegetation that covers a large area of water.
Some of the areas I hunt would be illegal if I needed to have 50% concealment when viewed from 20 feet away.
I raised this question at a waterfowl meeting last fall and the warden didn't have an answer.
Rick
Notice that the photos all show boat/blinds in the midst of or adjacent to heavy vegetation. Neither the rule nor the photo examples address the situation of tall, sparse vegetation that covers a large area of water.
Some of the areas I hunt would be illegal if I needed to have 50% concealment when viewed from 20 feet away.
I raised this question at a waterfowl meeting last fall and the warden didn't have an answer.
Rick
Matt_n_Barb
Well-known member
Sounds like WI has mad bureaucrats with nothing better to do but implement rules with subjective interpretations "really, truly. officer I calculated a point intercept on a registered photo of 50.011% from the back" ...Sorry bubba hunter, I used the approved whiz bang supper dupper digitizing methodology and calculated only 49.999% cover,,here is your ticket,,see you in court...besides your boat was 3.001 ft from the cover, thus you were over 0.001 ft.")...... Such is the state of government....WHAcKO!!!!.
We have a rule in Ontario that applies to a couple of hot waterfowl holding areas: hunting must occur within 300 meters of prominent vegetation. Although it is not as restrictive, I suspect the reason is the same as the Wisconsin rule noted above in that it allows large areas of the protected bays to be resting areas for birds migrating through. They are deemed sanctuaries.
Tom Johnson
Active member
I'd known of old regulations written like this aimed at sink boxes, bodybooting, etc...not sure if this exists on Great Bay?
Matt_n_Barb
Well-known member
300 meter is sensible, no arguing over percent cover.
That must make hunting out of a scull difficult!
Phil Nowack
Well-known member
In certain areas, (i.e. Mississippi River) you have to be within 100 FEET of exposed shoreline.
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
Not difficult, just illegal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (when used in typical sculling fashion)
[/font]
Not difficult, just illegal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (when used in typical sculling fashion)
[/font]
Shermie
Well-known member
Man oh man ,,what a set of rules you guys have,,,, this gets me thinking of a question for the board...ill post it up so i dont high jack this thread
Phil i pity you guys ,here only rules are amunition /how many shots/and limits/ only rule for the water is no shooting out of a boat which was being moved by an motor..all movement caused by motor boat must be stopped...
this rule became law due to outlaws chasing down flocks with big motors and shooting many many birds before they got off the water...
shermie....
Phil i pity you guys ,here only rules are amunition /how many shots/and limits/ only rule for the water is no shooting out of a boat which was being moved by an motor..all movement caused by motor boat must be stopped...
this rule became law due to outlaws chasing down flocks with big motors and shooting many many birds before they got off the water...
shermie....
Pete McMiller
Well-known member
Carl,
This rule goes back to pre 1900 and the market gunning days. Back in the 1870's era the market gunning on Lake Koshkonong was quite lucrative. I've seen historical reports of one market hunter sending 1500 ducks to Chicago in a 6 week period. Lake Koshkonong was THE destination for hunters back then and had a significant population of migrating Cans and/or Red Heads and had gunners coming from both coasts. Presidents came here for the hunting. Anyway, back then one of the first hunt clubs in the area, the Blackhawk Hunt Club, was getting thoroughly PO'd at the effect of the market hunters and the way they hunted the birds out in the lake. The president of the club was friends with another member who happened to own one of the local papers. Between them they started a campaign to limit the market hunting - not by limiting their bag but by limiting their methods. Sooooo, that's how we got the partial concealment and open water laws we have today. The oldest regs I've seen are from 1907 and the wording is exactly the same as it is today. The other effect was to "enlighten" the politicians in Minnesota who adopted not only the same law but almost word for word from our regs - sorry Minnesota guys.
The whole mess is a study in selfishness IMO. The hunt club wanted to prevent someone else from doing it their way and at the same time not limiting their own methods of hunting along or in the marshes and they certainly didn't want to limit their own bag numbers. So instead of limiting everyone's bag to say 25 birds a day like North Dakota did in 1878 (they were the first), they limited methods of hunting.
This law is so ingrained in the waterfowl department in the state that no one has the guts to change it to something reasonable. We have been fighting for years to get more open water hunting in this state and are always thwarted by the politics.
This rule goes back to pre 1900 and the market gunning days. Back in the 1870's era the market gunning on Lake Koshkonong was quite lucrative. I've seen historical reports of one market hunter sending 1500 ducks to Chicago in a 6 week period. Lake Koshkonong was THE destination for hunters back then and had a significant population of migrating Cans and/or Red Heads and had gunners coming from both coasts. Presidents came here for the hunting. Anyway, back then one of the first hunt clubs in the area, the Blackhawk Hunt Club, was getting thoroughly PO'd at the effect of the market hunters and the way they hunted the birds out in the lake. The president of the club was friends with another member who happened to own one of the local papers. Between them they started a campaign to limit the market hunting - not by limiting their bag but by limiting their methods. Sooooo, that's how we got the partial concealment and open water laws we have today. The oldest regs I've seen are from 1907 and the wording is exactly the same as it is today. The other effect was to "enlighten" the politicians in Minnesota who adopted not only the same law but almost word for word from our regs - sorry Minnesota guys.
The whole mess is a study in selfishness IMO. The hunt club wanted to prevent someone else from doing it their way and at the same time not limiting their own methods of hunting along or in the marshes and they certainly didn't want to limit their own bag numbers. So instead of limiting everyone's bag to say 25 birds a day like North Dakota did in 1878 (they were the first), they limited methods of hunting.
This law is so ingrained in the waterfowl department in the state that no one has the guts to change it to something reasonable. We have been fighting for years to get more open water hunting in this state and are always thwarted by the politics.
NickR
Well-known member
For what its worth, MN duck hunting is bad enough / tough enough / crowded enough / etc, that I fully support the emergent vegitation law and I would fight tooth fang and claw to keep it in MN.
a) The ducks need some sanctuary, this works.
b) If people could layout / gun open water in MN you would see a gong show 100x worse than already occurs . . . there wouldn't be enough lake for all the jack-handles that would set up down wind of the first guy. AND people would be sculling all over the place . . . or at least they would "think" they were sculling.
regardless of how or why it originally started, I say it needs to stay in MN. We haven't had any high profile court battles over what constitutes "partially concealed" so our regs are not nearly as detailed as the WI regs posted, nor do we get helpful and entertaining pics of CO's in canoes. "partially concealed by naturally occurring emergent vegetation" is the meat n taters of the MN law.
NR
a) The ducks need some sanctuary, this works.
b) If people could layout / gun open water in MN you would see a gong show 100x worse than already occurs . . . there wouldn't be enough lake for all the jack-handles that would set up down wind of the first guy. AND people would be sculling all over the place . . . or at least they would "think" they were sculling.
regardless of how or why it originally started, I say it needs to stay in MN. We haven't had any high profile court battles over what constitutes "partially concealed" so our regs are not nearly as detailed as the WI regs posted, nor do we get helpful and entertaining pics of CO's in canoes. "partially concealed by naturally occurring emergent vegetation" is the meat n taters of the MN law.
NR
Mike Trudel
Well-known member
If the law in fact created a sanctuary it might have some merit. but the fact is it doesn't. Boating is open to fisherman, recreational boating, as well as hunting. So boats are flying all over the lakes.
In one case the WI DNR placed a new public access directly in the area that one large lake used as a sanctuary. So as you can see, neither boaters or the DNR are concerned with resting waterfowl.
There is a case where two hunters were in the same skiff. One hunter was legally concealed, but the hunter in the bow was sited for not being partially concealed. So the convoluted "jealousy" law continues.
In one case the WI DNR placed a new public access directly in the area that one large lake used as a sanctuary. So as you can see, neither boaters or the DNR are concerned with resting waterfowl.
There is a case where two hunters were in the same skiff. One hunter was legally concealed, but the hunter in the bow was sited for not being partially concealed. So the convoluted "jealousy" law continues.
John Fraser
Well-known member
So, is there NO layout boat hunting in WI or MN??? What about on the Great Lakes and their bays? It'd be a shame if you couldn't get out on that big water.
Pete McMiller
Well-known member
Well Nick, I respectfully disagree with you on all counts. First off on the sanctuary, do mallards, teal, wood ducks and the other puddlers seek open water for sanctuary? I submit that they don't they hide in the marshes, their natural and preferred habitat until the marsh hunter push them out. True the Blue bills, Cans, and other divers prefer the open water but they don't stick around a lake very long even if there is absolutely no pressure for they are on the move and if it's the 15th of the month they are at this lake and the 20th of the month a lake 100 miles away and so it goes until they are out of your state. If you want sanctuary for the puddlers, limit long or short tail surface drive motors that allow everyone back into the normally inaccessible parts of the marsh. Watch a large body of water and the movement of birds when the open water hunters are out there. It doesn't take the ducks long to figure out that something is up - but if the food is there they will only move on when their internal calendar tells them it's time. The only place I will agree that ducks should not be hunted in open water is on the Mississippi River as there are so many protected areas already that even the bank or marsh hunter are having a tough time - the ducks learn within 3 days to stay in the refuges. Open water hunting would make that situation only worse.
How would you like 1/3 less marsh hunters in your marsh? Open up the open water and you will. Every layout boat requires a minimum of 2 guys and many times I have three. Sure, there are going to be some times when crowding occurs, you already said it happens in your marsh already. From what I have seen in other states, layout hunters are pretty respectful of others and try to find their own part of the lake because they don't want to be on top of someone else as much as not wanting someone to encroach on them. Take a look around at the rest of the country and see how many problems they have with open water hunting - very little. You will have your work cut out for you because EVERY STATE except Wisconsin and Minnesota allows open water hunting. You may have specific situations that need to be addressed but why condemn the whole state because a couple marshes have crowding problems. Other states have addressed those concerns with draws, limited access, etc. We are losing habitat and hunting areas every year. It's no wonder that marshes are getting crowded, yet the DNR and DU are on a constant effort to recruit more hunters. Where are they supposed to go?
In addition to the above, the partial concealment law is ambiguous and open to a wide range of interpretations. In one county the judges are sympathetic with hunters and view one piece of vegetation as partial concealment in another it's 50%, etc. How are we supposed to be legal? It was bad law when it was enacted and is bad law now. The current bunch of "clarification" pictures and text is a like a bandaid for a heart attack.
How would you like 1/3 less marsh hunters in your marsh? Open up the open water and you will. Every layout boat requires a minimum of 2 guys and many times I have three. Sure, there are going to be some times when crowding occurs, you already said it happens in your marsh already. From what I have seen in other states, layout hunters are pretty respectful of others and try to find their own part of the lake because they don't want to be on top of someone else as much as not wanting someone to encroach on them. Take a look around at the rest of the country and see how many problems they have with open water hunting - very little. You will have your work cut out for you because EVERY STATE except Wisconsin and Minnesota allows open water hunting. You may have specific situations that need to be addressed but why condemn the whole state because a couple marshes have crowding problems. Other states have addressed those concerns with draws, limited access, etc. We are losing habitat and hunting areas every year. It's no wonder that marshes are getting crowded, yet the DNR and DU are on a constant effort to recruit more hunters. Where are they supposed to go?
In addition to the above, the partial concealment law is ambiguous and open to a wide range of interpretations. In one county the judges are sympathetic with hunters and view one piece of vegetation as partial concealment in another it's 50%, etc. How are we supposed to be legal? It was bad law when it was enacted and is bad law now. The current bunch of "clarification" pictures and text is a like a bandaid for a heart attack.
Mark W
Well-known member
Here's a question I would love to see answered. Why is law very specific to the type of boat yo use when hunting? Why is OK that I can hunt in grass that is only 9" tall that will more than conceal 50% of me and my small duck boat but the same spot couldn't be hunted by me in my bigger Lund boat that has gunwales that are 2' or so off the water and then add my height sitting on a seat and the grass would have to be 2' tall minimum. What does this regulation protect. One boat it is OK to hunt a spot, in another boat it isn't OK. Either it is or it isn't OK.
Also, suppose I am in my small boat laying down and I am within the regulations. Then I sit up to shoot a passing duck, am I now in violation. What happens when I sit up to retrieve a downed bird and moer than 50% of my body is now above the allowable limit?
Hate laws like this.
Also hate the navigable water rules which while fairly well described in the regs (in WI) they are not understood by the CO's and others. It is a constant struggle to teach what is and is not legal. Also hate the CO who say that while you are within the rule of the law, it really isn't a "nice thing" to hunt here because you are going to upset some people. That one alwyas gets to me.
Mark W
Also, suppose I am in my small boat laying down and I am within the regulations. Then I sit up to shoot a passing duck, am I now in violation. What happens when I sit up to retrieve a downed bird and moer than 50% of my body is now above the allowable limit?
Hate laws like this.
Also hate the navigable water rules which while fairly well described in the regs (in WI) they are not understood by the CO's and others. It is a constant struggle to teach what is and is not legal. Also hate the CO who say that while you are within the rule of the law, it really isn't a "nice thing" to hunt here because you are going to upset some people. That one alwyas gets to me.
Mark W
I have not had this experience, but have heard two credible stories of exactly the opposite here in Maine--a warden getting a call from a landowner about "illegal" or "unsafe" hunting too close to their building, and the warden going to the person who complained and explaining the law to them, then contacting the hunter to let them know that the spot they were in was perfectly legal, and they should feel free to hunt it. In one case the warden is said to have told the hunter that it was a spot he personally hunted! On the other hand, the wrath of the law will descend on you if you are within the 100 yard legal limit.