Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Stein

Fine For Being On Early Ice

Recommended Posts

so my dad was telling me that tomorow morning on KYSM 103.5 radio station their havin ppl call in and have their say on if ppl should be fined for being out on early ice! heres what i found on their HSOforum

A man fell through the ice ice-skating on Medicine Lake in Plymouth MN on December 7th. The Minnesota DNR says it's too early to be out on the ice. The DNR will fine you for having your fish house on the ice when the ice fishing season is over. Should anglers be fined for having their fish houses on lakes too early in the season?

what the heck is this!?!? i say if someone puts their house out on thin ice and it goes through,then thats their own fault for not knowing the thickness of ice!!! lets hear what you guys think about this? you can also go to their HSOforum and vote on this issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if people should be fined but... here's the scenario, some one-who-thinks-I-am-silly knowingly goes out on dangerous ice and the officials aren't allowed to say no, said one-who-thinks-I-am-silly falls through the ice and now expects the officials to risk their lives to pull him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point do they say its safe? They say its safe at 2 ft and somone finds a spring,falls in and dies ,then what? His family sues the DNR? At NO point should they be saying its safe,to much liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this is ridiculous. People need to do what's best for their own personal safety. From the sounds of it the guy who fell through on Medicine wasn't familiar with early ice or what steps we take to ensure our safety. #1 you don't go out one early ice alone. #2 you take it slow, checking the ice as you go. It was a tragedy, but I don't think everyone should be punished for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect from a state where if you get caught without a seat belt its a $120 fine, but yet someone can do a wheelie past you on the interstate not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.

Welcome to Minnesota, Land of 10,000 dumb laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading on here somewhere that down in New Mexico up in the mountains, they have everything blocked off untill the DNR/Rangers measure a said amount of ice.

There is no way that this could happen here, too many variables, what about the backwaters, rivers, lakes with springs or current in them, what happens when the lake gets plenty of ice, then the heat wave comes and starts dropping some of those houses into the lake, or if we get an early spring???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect and appreciate the DNR for all they do, but I don't think it is possible to regulate laws for being on the ice early. Fishing and hunting are at-your-own-risk sports/hobbies. All they can do is increase the fines for pulling trucks and fish houses out. Maybe they should put more money into advertisements or run ice reports on the local news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm, for the most part, a law abiding citizin...but if it came to laws about when I can ice fish and when I can't I will become a criminal...these proposed laws are becoming ridiculous......if these types of things keep going on we all will be living in the same style homes, eating the same foods, driving the same cars....etc. etc. etc. Zombies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did notice neither of the deaths were people who fished. In fact I saw them interview a fisherman on medicine who said the patch of ice they guy went through had been open water the day before. You cant legislate against people doin things that are going to get them in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't they heard of "natural selection"? I'm a firm believer that if we start down the road of having the goverment tell us when something is "safe" or not we're in for a world of idiots just waiting for someone to tell them when to do everything in their life. It's sad times when no one will take responsibility for themselves. Just my opinion of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fines, although unpopular in this case are probably going to be imposed to defray the enormous cost to rescue people when they fall through the Ice. Is there an emergency reponder on this forum who can tell us what it costs to rescue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work on an ambulance service. We don't charge unless there is a transport. It kind of sucks when we treat people, and then refuse the transport. Cost of fuel, supplies, time, etc. are a hit.

However when the local fire department is called out, they typically are going to bill. (I got stuck with a fire bill for a false alarm to the house I bought. I didn't own it at the time, but it went with the property.) Amounts can be by the number of fire responders that showed up ($/hour per person), or it can be a set amount. The city ordinances usually state what that amount is, or when/if they charge.

*That's my personal experience, and agencies vary, so don't take it that it's that way everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fireman. All departments do things differently.

We charge in 2 different ways. If it's a full blown call, no matter if it's a fire, rescue, car accident, etc it will be $500. If it's what we call a "Nusance" call, meaning a false alarm, guy with a backyard bon fire, etc then the charge is $100.

These charges are not to make money, it's to help defray the costs of the run. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as fines for thin ice travel is concerned. Let's not give the government any more ideas on how to squeeze revenue from our pockets. Also, I feel this will never happen as who will be the one to say it's safe??? If the DNR says, ice on lake X is safe and someone falls through, the DNR is now liable. So, it's in their best interest to stay out of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to sound cruel here, but yeah it's sad that the idea of an individual having to be accountable for their own choices is going by the wayside. I blame a lot of it on attorney's or more so court rooms that decide to award damages to a person that got hurt mainly by a choice that he/she made.

For example...someone walks on my land, potentially without permission and lets say that it's not posted. They break their leg by tripping over something on my land or something like that and I end up getting sued because in someone's twisted mind I should have made things "safe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thin ice is something that each look at differentaly. I being heavier 275lbs. know that I will not be comfy walking on ice a 150lbs man would be. So they would have to use a weight chart then you get into decrimatation to big people like me .LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice fishing and hunting have always been at your own risk hobbies like csrandt said. There are tons of at risk type hobbies. If people are stupid enough to go out on the ice without checking the thickness as they go out, then give them a Darwin Award. Thanks for removing yourself from the gene pool.

On the other side of the coin. My buddies in high school were threatened with fines from the Burnsville Police for being on the lake too early. The catch there was that the lake was still largely open and little kids from the park next to the lake were following them onto the ice. My buddies were suddenly putting the lives of young unknowing children at risk for falling into the open water. I can fully understand were the police were coming from in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a fine for not brushing your teeth twice a day? Maybe we should fine people for eating too much fast food or diving on the shallow end of a pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it this way. If it's a volunteer service then charging ("fine" if you prefer) would be appropriate, at least to defray the cost of the service, which is much lower than it would be if it was a full-time service.

If the service is a full-time service then the cost is already paid for through the budget of the program when we pay our taxes. I don't see this any different than the cost for winter snow removal. We never know how much will be spent but we budget as needed to take care of it.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I feel this will never happen as who will be the one to say it's safe??? If the DNR says, ice on lake X is safe and someone falls through, the DNR is now liable. So, it's in their best interest to stay out of this.

The DNR does not currently say a lake is safe so why would they start doing it. They would only prohibit travel on a lake that has been deemed unsafe. I am by no way saying they should start fining people for being on dangerous ice but simply making a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the idea of fining someone for simply being on "dangerous ice" will work as there are way too many variables involved.

The only way I can see this working is to fine people who actually fall through and require a rescue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



  • Posts

    • I've always been partial to the fold down couch in the back but I'd want to have storage under it and a fold down bunk above it. One thing to keep in mind is the heater.  I know you said the current heater stays for this season and maybe next but if you're doing work on the layout now you should probably plan for the new heater now even if its not going in for a year or two.  You'd hate to do all this work adjusting the layout only to find out you should have done something differently to accommodate the new heater. 
    • If mine,  I would add those drop down bunks and some pedestal boat seats.  With a smaller house like that I would want as much open area as possible.  I think those big couch/sofas take too much room.  You can always drop the bunk and take a snooze without taking up floor fishing space.  Just some thoughts.......
    • I tried a glass of a buddy's Templeton Rye last night and was impressed. I'm not big of Rye's but this one was very smooth. I can't say I'd ever buy a bottle but someone else's booze is always up near the top of the list of my favorites. I still prefer the $15 Trader Joe's bourbon though. 
    • I didn't figure anyone at cabelas would be any help. I have scoured the gun and haven't ever been able to find any markings of any kind. I forgot to mention in the previous post that it's a 16 gauge.  If nothing else, it'll look cool hanging over my basement bar. 
    • Ha I remember showing ya a thing or 2!!! Not sure where your son got his fishin prowess from though! Yea well!! oh I changed my poopy pants!
    • I can't see the pics?
    • You might be better off trying to do some research on your own on the old shotgun. I think it would be a waste of time taking it to Cabela's since most of the folks  who work there now think  any gun made before 1970 is an antique. The gun surely is made in Europe and might have originated in one of the English or Belgian or even German "guild" shops, little outfits that cranked out inexpensive guns that did not even bear maker's names since they were made by a "bunch" of guys. Your best bet would be to trace or photograph the proof marks and go from there.  That is,  I'm assuming it has proof marks :).
    • For an exciting adventure in shooting grab an old "trapdoor" Springfield and rattle off a few rounds of 45-70 or 45-90.  If you're of skinny build and little weight it'll give you a THUMP you'll remember!   Perfect deer cartridge for MN though since that big ol' bullet will go churning through the brush like a D-8 Cat until it hit's it's target. Have been around the old '94 30-30 since way back when and while it is handy it is not that accurate and lacks the knock-down power of many, many of today's rounds. But if you just have to have one as I always say, it''s your money. Keep in mind you can buy the .35 Remington in a pump action,   which a lot of MN duck hunters find easy to use come deer season.
    • I have an old Damascus barreled shotgun that was passed on to me by my grandpa. The story I have always heard and been told is that it was brought over from Denmark by my great grandfather in 1915. It has no markings indicating where it was made or anything else that I could use to figure out some history on the gun. It is a pin fire and has a stag carved into the underside of the stock. Anyone have any ideas on where I could find any info on this? I had thought about bringing it to Cabelas and see if they knew anything about it. I'm not concerned about the value. I'd just like to know a little more about it or even get pointed in the right direction. 
    • I like the .30-.30 because of availability and affordability of the ammo but I think the .35 Remington may be a better overall round. I don't know anything about the .45-70 Gov. though.
  • Our Sponsors