Wi Open water/concealment regs....

hehe, I wasn't thinkiing koshkonong as I have never been out there, but few other places around the state though.
 
So, this is illegal correct? No naturally occurring vegitation rooted to the bottom on the slough. Funny thing is, I was just out to this spot on Friday and the whole island is underwater. Now, the the WI OHWM (ordinary high water mark) rules, and since this waterway is controlled by a dam and the level the water is currently at is not out of the ordinary, is this considered naturally occurring emergent vegitation (I know the answer is a resounding "no" but there are islands that have slough plant life growing on the islands and when these islands are underwater, does this count?)
Unfortuantely, I have lots of pictures like this.

[inline pic1.jpg]

Mark W

View attachment Pic1.jpg
 
Last edited:
If your pics are of the Mississippi - THEN - the 100ft. rule applies, does it not? If not, you ought to make your CO aquaintence, your new best friend.
 
It is not the Mississippi. It is a stream that flows into a stream that then flows into the Mississippi. Close enough? Different CO from yesterday as well as it is in a different county.

Mark W
 
http://dnr.wi.gov/...e_Lookup.asp?id=1206

look on the right side and the photos of the guy in the canoe and the corresponding text, now these new photos may override this assessment, but it clearly defines it as rooted emergent vegetation. They don't seem to address this in the new brochure.
 
Last edited:
Mark, as long as those trees aren't dead, I believe that is legal hunting. A tree is a plant and vegetation is all plant life. It is certainly rooted to the bottom. Good to go is far as I'm concerned!
 
Emergent vegatation is defined as vegatation that is rooted underwater but the growth projects up above the water line. Trees are vegatation but typically do not meet this defination, at least in WI.

I wish they wouldnt have included the work "emergent", basically if you are within 3 feet of non-emergent vegatation, you are within 3 feet of shore...which sounds reasonable to me.
 
I see lots of problems with this rule. 50% concealment when viewed from how far away? Look at my boat from 1/2 mile and between me and the boat will be enough "emergent vegetation" to cover 50% of my boat. Look from the same angle at my boat from 50 feet away and there won't be enough emergent vegetation between me and the viewer. Of, if I park my boat so that the bow meets the 50% rule when viewed from in front of the boat but both sides are not covered, is this considered legal? There are many situations that would be questionable regarding legality.

I see lots of trouble coming over this rule.

Mark W
 
I have a couple of the same pictures but on the Wisconsin River up by Stevens Point from when I was in college. I thought it was legal(???)

What I find even funnier is that the open water hunting that is legal on Big Green and Lake Mich you have to be more then 500ft from shore and on Lake Winnebago at least 1000ft.

I really wish this rule would go away. I like the with in 300ft rule that I've heard from others but wishes wont get me anywhere.
 
Guys read that again. The point is made that if it is UPLAND veggitation it does NOT count, as in Mark's picture (which by the way is a great looking spot and in my book something that should be able to be hunted) EMMERGENT veggitation is the main operational word in that sentence. No aquatic veggies you are illegal.

well, at least that is what we were told up here in GB so who the hell really knows.

And for the guy that said take it for the team. I will sign you up. Hope you have a good lawyer. There was a guy who fought it last year that I am aware of. Still in the courts, so far he is only out 8k in fees so far......yah, that almost seems worth it to me.
 
Taken from the WI DNR website that I posted.


View attachment 20090922_waterfowlblinds2.jpg

View attachment 20090922_waterfowlblinds3.jpg
"It may appear that the hunter in the top photograph has met the requirements of Wisconsin’s new Open Water Hunting Rules but in fact this set up is not legal. In the bottom photo the viewer can see that the concealment is provided by an overhanging tree and is not considered bottom-rooted emergent vegetation as the rules require."
 
Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner....

and now tell me how stupid is that. That guys is perfectly camo'd and in a great spot.

gotta love our new rules.
 
Is the term "emergent vegetation" defined in statute? Presumably such a definition would have to rely on a reference to roots below the water surface. Which water surface? April? Normal high water? (Which does have a legal definition and is used by the Army Corps of Engineers for other regulatory purposes). The annual flood? Bankfull flow? The 100 year flood?

I'd make the case that many of the "shoreline" trees I hunt around are in fact "emergent vegetation". Something like a silver maple is just as flood plain dependent as a cattail or a patch of bulrushes. And I've got photos from flood events in multiple seasons to show those trunks emerging!

Granting the value of providing refuge by preventing hunters from setting up in open water, it seems you could enormously clarify the rule by allowing hunters to set up EITHER within some short distance (say 15 yards) of the shoreline, OR with 50% cover on all sides of the boat up to point 1 foot from the current water surface. I can't believe a warden would take a law designed to protect open-water refuge areas and use it to ticket a hunter set up with his boat 15 feet from a spot he could have hunted legally if sitting on the shore, but that's just my opinion.
 
Taken from the WI DNR website that I posted.





"It may appear that the hunter in the top photograph has met the requirements of Wisconsin’s new Open Water Hunting Rules but in fact this set up is not legal. In the bottom photo the viewer can see that the concealment is provided by an overhanging tree and is not considered bottom-rooted emergent vegetation as the rules require."
Click to expand...


Wow and Wow and Wow. I'm really sorry guys - wow that sucks.

T
 
Am I missing something here? The trees in both Bills and Marks photo are bottom rooted. The root structures of trees are massive and I believe the DNR would have a tough time making a case that the trees were not bottom rooted.

And secondly the regs actually use the word bottom, they do not clarify the bottom of what. Sure the assumption might be in the water, but is that specified. If you pass convoluted regulations, you will continue to get convoluted interpretations.
 
Am I missing something here? The trees in both Bills and Marks photo are bottom rooted. The root structures of trees are massive and I believe the DNR would have a tough time making a case that the trees were not bottom rooted.

And secondly the regs actually use the word bottom, they do not clarify the bottom of what. Sure the assumption might be in the water, but is that specified. If you pass convoluted regulations, you will continue to get convoluted interpretations.
Click to expand...


Trees rooted to the upland areas or banks do not constitute emergent vegetation. That is what the rules say. Also say that emergent vegetation is rooted to the waters...... I think this is clear

What I can't wait to see is someone who is hunting like the photo above in BillS's posting is ticketed. To me, it looks like the tree the guy is next to is rooted to the upland area (island or shore) AND in the water. What will be the ruling on this one. Roots in the water and on the shore. I see this all the time where I hunt.

This will be interesting.....

Mark W
 
Where is all this "upland" verbiage, I haven't seen that listed in the regs. Trees are emergent vegetation and they are certainly above the water line. If you want to assume the regs are referencing out of the water so be it, but if any of the root structure of a tree is in fact on the bottom of the water, it still meets this criteria.

I contacted my local DNR officer, and he said he would not ticket on the partial concealment law. If after a discussion he felt the boat blind was to far over the line he would allow the hunter to reset up. As long as the conversation remains cordial and if asked to move, the hunter complies, no tickets would be issued.

With this officer, common sense comes first. Can't speak for others.
 
Hi Mike -

Go to page one of this discussion and you can see what the exact regs are. It discusses what emergent vegetaion is and what is and what is not allowed.

My guess is that most CO's will be very tolerant on this issue and I agree with attitude will get you far in discussing things with the CO.

Mark W
 
Go to page one of this discussion and you can see what the exact regs are. It discusses what emergent vegetaion is and what is and what is not allowed.
Click to expand...


I'd say that regs as presented in the first post are very clear about what is NOT emergent vegetation (i.e., dead trees or stumps), but not clear at all about what IS emergent vegetation. And, depending on how you diagram or parse this sentence

In this sub-section, "naturally occurring growth of emergent vegetation" does not include naturally occurring dead stumps or trees or vegetation placed in the bottom by a person.


LIVE trees may or may not be emergent vegetation according to the rule, although the explanatory photographs certainly suggest that live trees are not considered emergent vegetation, at least in the examples provided. However, based on the rule as written, the adjective "dead" would appear to apply to BOTH trees and stumps, since the second time the phrase is used, the order is reversed and it reads "dead trees or stumps".

From which I conclude that "dead" is important, and which says nothing whatsoever about emergent live trees.

Rule #1--if it takes multiple photos to explain how a rule or law will be interpreted, then the rule is not clearly written.

All of which begs the question of why the wildlife agency would "clarify" a rule about hunting in open water--the stated intent of which is to allow ducks refuge in open water portions of lakes--with examples of "violations" along the shoreline.

Bottom line: whether you think this is a good rule or a bad one, it's poorly written and open to interpretation by a judge or jury. That's the last thing a CO wants if he or she ends up taking a contested case to court.
 
Jeff.. the sad thing is that this is much clearer than the law was in the past!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top