what would you do?

[meathunter]

I took my 12 year old out on the opener. We were out early had our decoys set and were getting ready to push in when a couple of guys came over that had just got out there from a different spot and asked me to move because they had some permanent blinds that they had built and we were directly down wind of them. This swamp is surrounded by private land but is considered to be public water thanks to a ditch that runs into it.I told these guys i was not going to move and they should because we were there first. The guy got really mad and started yelling at me and saying that is no way to mentor a youth and that he pays the taxes on the land. I kept my cool though. I even brought them a merganser they shot. Any thoughts

[Surface Tension]

My reply is taking into considering that this slough is surrounded by private land.

If I had know there were permanent blinds I'd have setup away from them. If I didn't know about the blind I'd still probably move if that was their only blind on the slough. If they did have another blind but wanted a particular blind because of wind direction then too bad. Much of that could have been avoided with a phone call.

I have the same situation as I live on a small lake with no access. When I moved in 20 some years ago I knew about the blinds on each end of the lake. I have a blind on my property toward the center of the shoreline. Plenty far away to be safe and plenty far enough away as to not interfere with decoying ducks. When I walk out there for this mornings shoot I'll expect that someone hasn't setup close by.

While you stood your ground this time, it might have been a lost the opportunity. If you had worked together with this guy, well you just don't know what would have come of it. Where are you hunting today?

[riverrat56]

Having personaly been in this situation from meathunters perscpective, if the slough has public access, it's public, almost all larger lakes and sloughs are surrounded by private land.

I hunt alot of large lakes with public boat landings and tons of landowners have blinds up, if I were to avoid those areas it would really limit my hunting areas. I don't feel a need to call and make prior arangments as to where everyone will be hunting or to see if I can hunt here or there, it's PUBLIC land. If they want the spot they can get out there before I do, then it's theres.

A wooden box in the cattails doesn't reserve a spot for a whole year or even opening day.

[sheepheadslayer]

The water is public yes. But then you better stay in the boat and not get out on the shore. With the low water pretty hard to conceal a boat or blind unless you are on dry ground.

[tracker x-2]

I guess if it was me i would have moved. although ya a road with the x number of feet rule im aware of that I know i would be upset if someone set up by my blind. Its good you didnt get to their level and start a yellin match.

[MN Greenheads]

IT'S PUBLIC ....PERIOD. You have every right to hunt public waters without asking. The guy you dealt with was way out of line, all his arguments are wrong and you showed great control. I would go there next time and bring a CO in plain clothes and tell this guy firmly and politely that his blind means nothing. If he threatens you he is in big trouble. A couple of wardens up in G Rapids nailed a few people with some actual jail time as they casually threatend the guys life.Public is public- period.

[winniewalleye777]

The water is public yes. But then you better stay in the boat and not get out on the shore. With the low water pretty hard to conceal a boat or blind unless you are on dry ground.

You bring up a good point. What would be considered private property? I would not think that low water would allow the landowner more land.

[Powerstroke]

Low water does not add more "land" to the owner. The ordinary high water mark as defined by historical markings defines the shoreline, not the current water level. It is totally legal to be on dry ground within the public waterway as long as it is within the high water mark.

Personally I try to avoid confrontations with people with guns, but you were in the right and they had no right to bully you or talk that way in front of a youth. They are a poor example for hunters everywhere of any age.

[RumRiverRat]

The water is public yes. But then you better stay in the boat and not get out on the shore. With the low water pretty hard to conceal a boat or blind unless you are on dry ground.

Wrong, they do not own anything below the ordinary high water mark.

So if the lake is down 5 feet they do not own 5 more feet into the lake.

[sheepheadslayer]

My comment was not meant that low water means more private ground. I was simply stating that low water means harder to navigate a boat to conceal it. If the vegetation is at the historical high water mark how do you conceal it if you cant go on the land. My point I guess is that the water is public no questions BUT if you get out and stand on dry ground you may come into problems.

[5806]

You were in the right and sounds like you handled it well. Public access gives you every right to be there.

On a side note, for you guys that believe in the "high water mark rule" you might want to reconsider, the DNR might not agree with you - at least in most cases.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Pardon_Me_Myth.pdf

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/waterlaws.html

[RumRiverRat]

On a side note, for you guys that believe in the "high water mark rule" you might want to reconsider, the DNR might not agree with you - at least in most cases.

[5806]

Riparian rights pertain to using the water, not the lake bed. From the paragraph directly before your quote of the DNR HSOforum:

"If a court has found that a lake is non-navigable and meandered, the shoreland owners own the bed of a lake in severalty (see: Schmidt v. Marschel., 211 Minn 543, NW 2d 121 [1942]). If a stream is non-navigable but has been meandered, the shoreland owners own to the thread (centerline) of the stream. If a lake or stream is non-navigable and not meandered, ownership of the bed is as indicated on individual property deeds."

and from the DNR's publication:

"Who owns the land under Minnesota’s lakes and what rights, if any, does the general public have to use the dry beds or shorelines of our lakes? As with most “legal” questions, there

is no simple answer. A very general “rule of thumb” is that the shoreline property owner’s rights follow the water level up and down. In other words, the public normally has no right to use the shoreline or dry lake bed unless the adjoining shoreline is already in public ownership (i.e. the shoreline is already part of a public park, beach area, access site, etc.). This does not mean that a landowner can fill, grade, build structures and otherwise alter the topography of his dry lakebed. This type of activity is strictly regulated through the Division of Waters permit program. Naturally, there are a few exceptions to this “rule of thumb”, but it works 99 percent of the time."

I'm not saying that he can't access and hunt the lake. I'm saying he would probably be tresspassing IF the lake were low and IF he was standing on dry lakebed adjacent to privately owned shoreline. In other words the public owns the water, the land owner owns the land.

[Ufatz]

I think it was awfully swell of you to give them a merganser.

Have you ever tasted one? Ha!!

[duckster]

I looked into this because I have this situation at my duck shack but I am the guy with the permanent blinds.

5806 I believe you are right on the money. If you hunt from the boat you are probably OK.If you hit land you better know who owns it.

I must be getting old, bottom line for me is it is not worth ruining a days hunt with a confrontation.

-Duckster

[RumRiverRat]

Riparian rights pertain to using the water, not the lake bed

[5806]

You're not understanding my point. I never said he couldn't access the lake or wade or do whatever when in the water. I don't know why you keep harping on that.

I never said it had anything to do with the OP. I said it was a side note in response to you and others saying that there was a high water rule which determined if you can legally use a dry lake bed.

If you don't want to believe me fine I don't care, but I'm not going to argue about this especially when you clearly don't know what and why I posted.

[djl40]

5806 is right. Some of you guys better educate yourself on this subject to avoid confrontations.

[KG243]

Just get out there before they do, solves the problem permanent blind or boat.

[169Sportsman]

This is a very interesting read as i ran into a situation myself this weekend. I was hunting on the shoreline of the mn river and the adjacent landowner came out screaming at us to get off his property. I apologized and told him i didnt think it was a big deal as we were very near the edge of the river and had boated in. All i got was more profanities. If he would have just asked nicely and talked instead of yelling

I would have left peacefully but that wasnt the case. After words i did some research and found a couple sites saying that the state owned to the normal "high water mark". So we would have been legal. One link said the state owned to the low water level but i thought it may have been a misprint because all it defined was the high water mark. ??? Here are the links I used. I guess there is alot left open to interpretaion. Maybe it is different for lakes than it is for rivers?? The national rivers site seems to clearly state that states cant give the land below the high water mark to the adjacent land owner.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/water_law_questions_and_answers.pdf

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/mn-law.htm

As for the original post I dont think I would have moved. Permanent blinds do not constitute ownership of an area. Just like deer stands dont mean ya own the area. We all pay taxes and licenses in the state so why should one person have more rights on the water. It would be rude to set up right in front of a blind if you know it is there but key is rude not illegal. Maybe next time he will wake up a little earlier. lol Maybe the landwoner should have been a better "mentor" and offered to let them hunt together. Kicking a youth around a lake making them set up possibly multiple times would sure be discouraging for a young hunter. The youth are the future of this sport!!!

[meathunter]

This lake has 50yards or more of cattails before hitting dry land and the boat is still floating in the cattails. I thought there is a law against building permanent structure blinds on public waters. This swamp is surrounded by private land although i know this is public waters because of the drainage ditch. One other year the c.o. told us this when we had our spinning wing decoy out. We did ok on the opener had 4 ducks then we set up in a different spot the second day even though we beat him there well it turned out well my boy shot a goose and duck and we ended up with 5 ducks and a 2 geese. This guy and the 5 other guys hunting with him shot about 6x. We still had a confrontation with him as he said i was unethical by letting my kid shoot at ducks on the water any thought about that?

[meathunter]

rum river i accesed this through private land that i had permission for.

[duckster]

Good discussion. One thing to consider. Just because something is "Legal" doesn't mean that it is the right, ethical or sporting thing to do.

I had many experiences where the other party was doing something that was "legal" but I thought was not the right thing to do. For example, coming in late and setting up 60 yards downwind from me. Legal yes. Ethical? Right? sportsman like?

My opinion is that if your actions in the field are affecting someone else negatively then you probably shouldn't be doing it. My .02 cents.

Duckster

[Dilly]

I think the best thing you could do would be to find a new spot to hunt. I think it would be better to teach your son how to scout for a new spot than to teach him how to get up extra early to beat somebody out on the water, why would you want the headache?, find a spot with less or no hunters. Just my $.02

[MN Greenheads]

I think it's best you hunt that area with your son quitely and respectfully but always standing your ground. Letting someone bully you is showing a kid to back down under pressure. Letting him water pound a couple ducks is fine(#4 shot) when he's a little older then it's a no-no. Would you expect a t-baller to hit a 80 mph pitch?

Your totally in the right with hunting at that spot and I would have the CO and County Sheriff on speed dial on your cell phone and tell these guys that you do when you see them there. It's a shame these guys are the jerk-baits they are.