Whats the laws?

[Redlantern]

I haven't deer hunted for a few years but I thought it was legal to retrieve a deer that has gone onto private property.

------------------
Erik

[Bogsucker]

It is legal to retrieve wounded game from private property without permission unless the property is "legally posted" and it is most ethical to recover wounded game with permission of the landowner. But that really isn't the issue, the extended issue is (in my mind) if it is ethical to hunt deer from the ice on a river between 2 private properties.

[This message has been edited by Bogsucker (edited 12-12-2003).]

[Granny]

Bogsucker,
Do you consider shooting a deer that is standing still or walking unethical? Not trying to start a battle here, I just have never considered the cases you mentioned to be unethical.

[can it be luck?]

Hey Granny, I had to take a shower, I'm back now. Yea, I'll be hanging around the puter tonight. ???

[Guest]

Lets not bring on the "ethical" word into this. There is nothing unethical about shooting a deer which has slipped on ice, mud, sand, etc., or standing knee high in water or totally submerged in water (fyi, if you ever track a deer to the edge of a pond and there is no exit tracks to be found around it, keep an eye on the pond). There is nothing unethical about shooting a deer standing broadside, head on, from behind, or while it is bedded down. What is ethical is a quick kill or the intention to kill (not wound) followed by the consumption of the game killed.

Catfish has a legit question and it deserves to be answered without mockery or cr@p added. The way the law stands, it is perfectly within the law to shoot on a frozen body of water. Should the deer wander upon private land to die, all Catfish would have to do is leave his weapon on the ice before going to retreive his kill. If a land owner has cow with this, all catfish has to do is return with a CO to retreive the kill.

[Bogsucker]

Statement of " Fair Chase" from the "Pope and Young club"

"Fair Chase
From its beginnings, the Club has grown to epitomize fair chase and sportsmanship in hunting. This fair chase philosophy reaches to the very foundations of the hunting spirit; it remains a dominant factor in the personal hunting ethic of every responsible individual; it is key to bowhunting's future with deep roots in America's hunting heritage. Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. It does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent's natural resources.

The term "Fair Chase" shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:

1. Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice...."

"FAIR CHASE STATEMENT" from Boone and Crockett Club

"FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging* wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals."

Any animal taken under the conditions basshunter specified would certainly not be eligible for entry into either of the aforementioned record keeping organizations.

Ethics is a very important part of our heritage and future!

[catfishbait]

One of the top rules in my "personal code of ethics",is shoot to kill! I try keeping all of my shots to 50 yds or less. And have been successful with this rule. As for the saftey factor with, hunting the ice,there are a couple of small islands where the river splits,this would be my prefered sitting/standing location. Deer sometimes cross this island and also 0-500 yds either direction up or down river, from this spot. If i could possibly be in the right place at the right time,I shouldn't have to worry about any tresspassing. Shots would be taken with the animal on the river or on this high ground in the middle of the river.
As long as this area is open to public hunting, I feel there is no reason for the surrounding property owners to be involved,
unless the misfortune of a wounded animal arises.
THANKS!

[Bogsucker]

catfishbait,

Sorry, but the island would most likely be the property of one of the adjacent landowners. The "public water" rule states "across the entire surface of the water" and "incidental contact with the stream bed". it only refers to the "Ordinary high water level" as a maximum boundary not a minimum. I've corresponded in great depth with Major Charles Schwartz of the MN/DNR Enforcement Division regarding the public water access laws and from Minnesota statutes

Subd. 14. Ordinary high water level. "Ordinary high
water level" means the boundary of waterbasins, watercourses,
public waters, and public waters wetlands, and:

(1) the ordinary high water level is an elevation
delineating the highest water level that has been maintained for
a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the
landscape, commonly the point where the natural vegetation
changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial;

(2) for watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the
elevation of the top of the bank of the channel; and

(3) for reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water
level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool.

Again from the MN/DNR Regs.

2.What is recreational use?
Recreational use includes boating, swimming, fishing, hunting,
trapping, and similar activities. It includes walking in the water in
connection with such activities regardless of who owns the land
beneath the surface of the water."

The regulations do not allow for the leaving of the surface of or the streambed under the surface of the water, and it doesn't matter wether or not it is within the "Ordinary high water level", you must stay in or on the water.

Be very careful where you tread.

[TNT4ME]

Well, tough one here,
pushing the envelope on gray area here.
Lets see, 18 below,100 yards wide river,looks like two choices here,Red River or Red Lake River,
two area's of prime hunting,and very well guarded as far as access on private property.
Getting back to your question,
yes it would be legal to hunt from the river,but can you honestly hold off from shooting at only deer on the river? It's your conscience working here, and this is pushing the gray to the max,so all I can say is try to stand tall and proud if you bag a brute this way.
ETHICS
"A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct.Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact." -Aldo Leopold

[Granny]

Can it be luck,
I am back for the rest of the night....and into the morning. Now I have to back and read the previous posts.

[Mark Christianson]

Another perspective.
My dad owns a slough that has produced some great duck hunting. It just happens to be accessible from a road right of way.
"legally" a person can access our slough to duck hunt. No question about it.
So does it make it right for someone to barge in and stake a claim on our slough?
So does that mean someone like catfishbait can walk out on that same ice and set up a deer blind? Probably so. But I'll tell you what. My deer stand looks over that slough.
If someone has the nuts to come out and sit on our slough to shoot a deer, they are gonna get an ear full from me and the rest of my family.
My point is................
Just cuz its legal, doesn't make it right.

People that read things to literally, are the ones causing a lot of grief for those of us that use our brains.

I am convinced Catfishbait cares about one thing. If its legal, it will be his destiny.
We will not stop him. Have fun Catfish, don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Careful on that river ice too. Ice is never 100% safe. Especially on a river.

[Granny]

Bogsucker,
Pope and Young Club is a "trophy" club correct? I am sure you have read the "shooting fawn" post put up a while ago. Not all hunters are trophy hunters. Many people hunt for the food and their ethics may be quite different the those of a hunter chasing trophy deer.

[Bogsucker]

catfishbait,

Deer do not live on the river, ducks and geese do! Granted, you may have a lawful "right" to hunt from the frozen river, however having a "right" and doing whats right are not always the same! Perhaps you are young or inexperienced or maybe have not been denied access to land that you had previously hunted because some (deleted) pushed the limits. I wish there was something I could say to change your mind catfishbait, but maybe you should go hunt on the frozen river between the private properties, shoot a deer, hopefully recover it on the river, then analyze how you feel about what you have done.

[Bogsucker]

Catfishbait,

Here's another question, if you do hunt from the frozen river and a big buck runs across the ice and falls down, will you shoot him as he lays on the ice?

I know I'm rippin on ya a bit but I actually hurt inside when I here or read about hunters taking advantage of situations as you've described. I wasn't always the most ethical outdoorsman but I have learned alot from my mistakes, the mistakes of others and the guidance of other ethical outdoorsmen and I certainly wouldn't be responding to your statements if I didn't feel I could contibute in a positive way

[Mark Christianson]

Catfishbait

Go to a local game warden if you want the real legal description of what you can or cannot do.

Its very apparent from the hunting community that has spoken on this topic, that you should not do it unless you have specific permission from the adjacent landowner(s). And if you get permission from the landowners, I think it would be a little safer to have you sitting on dry ground, and not on a moving waterway.
Next thing you know, you will drop your buck on the river like you want, off you go to retrieve it, and through the ice you go because you found a thin area, only to be swept downriver under the ice.
Then the public gets to have our emergency services tied up trying to save you, when there are other people out there that may need their assistance for a true emergency.

Use your head on this one a little bit.

[Bogsucker]

Nope, the Pope and Young Club is a hunting club. One must only have taken a mature game animal not necesarily a "trophy" and must have a high standard of ethics to join.

[can it be luck?]

High code of ethics...Sheeesh. According to who? I don't need any club telling me how to be ethical according to thier book of rules. I know ethics when I feel it. Hunting was, and is, a way of substanance. At least the roots of hunting. Well, I take that back, cavemen and people throughout time have documented thier hunts in one way or another. Cave drawings and such. I guess this was to establish dominance and celebration. In a sense, a way to display thier trophys.(?) When it comes to ethics, don't look to clubs for guidance. Look inside yourself. If it feels wrong, it probably is wrong. Me, I have a problem with STRICTLY trophy hunting. IMO, trophy hunters are the most unethical of all hunters. They hunt for selfish reasons, to prove to others that they are "the best". Rules to follow in order to enter an animal into a club? Sounds like competition to me. Laws are needed. But RULES? A deer standing in a field is different than a deer standing on some ice. How about an icy field, or a muddy, icy, field? Is that unethical? According to Pope and Young it is, not to me, or MANY other hunters for that matter. I have nothing against why people hunt. If within the framework of the laws, to each thier own. I'm glad I don't have any interest in P and Y. I wouldn't be able to hunt some of my favorite river bottoms or swamps. You know, ice and water, stuff like that.
PS: Biglake, Did you realize that if you shoot a deer off your slough, it can't be registered in the forementioned trophy hunt clubs? Ice and water issues. Deep snow??? WOW!
------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[This message has been edited by can it be luck? (edited 12-13-2003).]

[Mark Christianson]

I could care less about registering a deer in some club or whatever.
Great, if I ever shoot a monster buck, and it so-called "makes the books".
I just have an itch to some day get a real monster for the wall.
But, yeah, what an odd deal overall with some of the so-called rules.

I guess we are going completely out of scope on this topic.

[Bogsucker]

Their (food hunters) ethics need not be different or less. They may simply choose to take an animal other than a "trophy".

I have never been able to justify my hunting from a strictly "food hunter" viewpoint as the cost of the licenses, equipment and travel, far exceed the dollar value of the "meat" from game that I take.

I have been a very successful deer hunter and I do not believe that I have to lower my standard of ethics to be consistently successful.

[Bogsucker]

can it be luck.

You've misinterpreted the P&Y rule, it states "helpless...", animals shot that are not "helpless" because of conditions are still eligible.

The entry of a persons name into one of the aforementioned record keeping organizations books is a recognition of hunter accomplishment within a set of ethical standards. It is not a competition, though some people who are competitive in nature may feel that it is.

I'm not trying to force anyone into anything here, I'm simply implying that we should engage in behavior that does not do harm to our image.

catfishbait, please let us know if you hunted the river and if you were successful.

[can it be luck?]

Bogsucker, I agree with you. I'm sure the hunt clubs aren't quite as strict on thier rules, at least not to the extent that I described. I got the impression that you thought Catfishbait would be acting in an unethical way, as far as shooting deer crossing the river and it's islands. I'm all in favor of organizations such as those you've described. The sport of fishing has their clubs also. Rules and guidelines are needed to establish and uphold the ethics of harvest and registery into the record books. On ethics. The opinions of proper ethics have been brought up in this thread and several others. For the most part there's been either strong or mixed beliefs which fall into a few groups. You have the "meat hunter", someone who looks to fill tags. Meat is on top of their list, but I'm sure the hopes of shooting a trophy is up there too. You have guys that practice QDM, hopeing to get a crack at a trophy. In the midwest QDM is hard to do without access to large tracts of land. Without totally controling of the amount of hunting pressure and deer harvest, I think QDM could be real frustrating because of this, IMO. There's also "trophy hunters". I'm not sure what type of satisfaction they get from a hunt, I would only be guessing. I don't feel as though there are any people in FM that fall into this category. I think all people that post on this site have a good sense of ethics as far as meat consumption, as the saying goes, "Don't shoot it, if you don't plan on eating it". I think we all agree on that. As far as total agreement on other issues of harvest? There will always be differances. Heck that's what make FM so interesting and enjoyable, the expressions of opinions and beliefs......As well as a whole lot of other REALLY GOOD STUFF!!!

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[BLACKJACK]

I think you guys are missing the point on ethics and Fair Chase. As previously posted:

The term "Fair Chase" shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:

1. Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice...."
----------
The key word is 'helpless'. If an animal chooses to swim across a pond or walk across a pond on the ice, it is doing that by its own freewill and its ethical to shoot it. On the other hand, if that same animal is stuck in the mud or falls thru the ice and is 'helpless' then it would be unethical to shoot it.

As far as Pope and Young/Boone and Crockett go, the size of the animal, trophy or not, has nothing to do with ethics.

As for what Catfishbait is contemplating, the ethics come into play from the fact that there is a very high probability that whatever he shoots will be going onto private land and causing a conflict with landowners. 'Bad ethics' is probably the wrong phrase to use it. Call it 'fostering bad hunter/landowners relations'. Thats never good.

[Mark Christianson]

Anyone heard from Catfishbait lately???
Did he fall through the ice on that river???

[can it be luck?]

Catfishbait became catfish bait. LOL.....j/k, That would be terrible.

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[catfishbait]

Thanks for all the input on this subject.
I decided not to hunt this river,for the simple fact that it would be like shooting deer in my back yard,easy pickins.I am more of a meat hunter then a trophy hunter,but a nice buck is a bonus,and there is a dandy buck that travels this river often.I still feel that a person should not feel unethical about hunting this property,as most state land has private property surrounding it,and you take the same risks when you hunt these spots. From my past hunting experience,most land owners will not let you on their property,if there is surrounding state land.