Ethics question

[SpitnArgueDuckClub*]

Why in the world would anyone want to screw this up by maintaining or hunting out of previously placed perm's?

[ANYFISH2]

Thanks, that answers the question I had.

[picksbigwagon]

well, that right there should put this topic to bed.....no one is supposed to be in the permanent stands, no matter when they were put in or who put them in. I would bet Blandin's insurance company encouraged them to put that rule out there.

[Big Buck Buster]

I would suggest staying out of the stands that your family constructed many years ago.

We have many stands build up north. Some are still in good condition, but we don't use them anymore after the new law came about. This year we are planning on destroying them.

[chocolab]

i had this happen to me two years in a row. i got to my stand and someone was in it, i just moved over a couple hundred yards and still tagged out. its deer hunting, its fun, but if you tangle with the wrong people it could get dangerous and just isn't worth it. If i don't get a deer this year oh well i have a whole year to scout and find a new area that may potentially be better. it sucks but it is what it is....

[CANOPY SAM]

Just curious Fishuholik, but in your original post you stated that this parcel of property was roughly 1000 acres. That's a pretty BIG hunk of land. I understand that you and your party are well acquainted with the best areas to hunt, but it's 1000 acres!

Couldn't you simply scout out an area well away from the "intruders"? Nearly two sections should offer enough space for a big group of hunters. If each hunter could only cover 20 acres a piece you could put 50 guns out there!

[96trigger]

After knowing the rules of hunting on the land, I would most definitely cut down the permanents and use portables and ladder stands. I would also let the neighbors go out on their own or I would find a new chunk of land. The sign is pretty straight forward. Sorry man, look at what you have, instead of what you are losing. You still have a 1000 acres to share. lots of deer in 1000 acres of land.

[Bear55]

Ok everyone screaming ILLEGAL STANDS needs to calm down a little. Like I said before we are transitioning from the old ways of deer hunting to a more modern approach where the public land and portable stands will probably be the norm. Things aren't going to change overnight, those stands have been there for a long long time and I'm sure their party has some attachment to them. You are talking about changing the way the entire state hunts, guys have build perm stand on public land for as long as we have hunted out of stands. Its not going to change overnight, especially when the State or Blandin don't or rarely enforce these new rules.

[96trigger]

I agree with you Bear, I dont agree with the people that prosecute someone for putting up stands 30 years ago and maintaining them. I wasn't even around then, so I don't know what went and what didn't. However, the paper company pretty much posts that it doesn't want permanent stands on their property. This might be just legal action to protect their arses and is never enforced, but at any rate, it is written and posted.

After reading some of these posts, I am surprised we don't have more fights in the woods during deer season. I would like to know where some of these guys hunt and then go set up next to them. I wonder how well they would "deal" with it. Everybody that has responded with personal experience says, "yeah it sucks, but deal with it". The main point is, that it sucks, so why shouldn't this guy be a little disappointed. Whats he supposed to say, "yeah, someone is in my stand/spot, sweet, I hope he shoots a big one"

I don't compare hunting ducks to hunting deer, they are not the same. When I fish or duck hunt and someone is in my spot, I don't have the same feeling. Deer hunting is a totally different animal than anything else. While the feelings of disappointment can be similar, they are not the same. We could go into why its different, but thats another thread all together.

P.S. Anyone care to find out how many portable stands were being sold 30 years ago. I'm betting it was very few if any at all.

[Buckcountry]

I still build permanant stands on public land, the hel* with the law on that rule. My son and I are much safer in a permant stand then a portable. They can give me a ticket, but I am a big guy and there is no way my 10 year old son and I are sitting in a portable. Permanant stands aren't hurting nothing in the woods, whats a couple nails in a tree, big deal.

[picksbigwagon]

Bear I agree, there is a transition period, but Blandin has posted their land and it states no more creating permanent stands and no using old permanent stands. Therefore, this discussion about the original poster being upset because other people are using their permanent stands is mute, the land owner, Blandin does not want perm. stands and doesn't want anyone in them. Blandin can make those rules it is their land, if it continues to be abused, they could close it off to public access.

If the public land you are hunting allows permanent stands, you need to ready to see someone in you stand during the hunt and you need to be ready to move on to somewhere else. If you can't handle that maybe you need to not hunt public land anymore.

I hunt private property, family lands, not leased or rented, therefore if someone is in my stand during deer season, I know they are tresspassing and will ask them to leave. If they refuse I will call the county sherrif.

If I was on public land, scouted out and found a stand, I would use it, if someone came up and demanded I get out of their stand, I would. If they were abusive about it, I would contact the County sherrif or DNR and give them a description of the individual and a GPS location of that hunter. That would be hunter harrassment and it is against the law in Minnesota.

The "ethics" here goes both ways, you need to respect someone elses stand, but they also need to respect that you are there using it as well......

[Bear55]

Bear I agree, there is a transition period, but Blandin has posted their land and it states no more creating permanent stands and no using old permanent stands. Therefore, this discussion about the original poster being upset because other people are using their permanent stands is mute, the land owner, Blandin does not want perm. stands and doesn't want anyone in them. Blandin can make those rules it is their land, if it continues to be abused, they could close it off to public access.

The paper companies and the State can publish and make whatever rules they want but unless they take them seriously you won't see as much change. I think everyone knows we are headed towards portable stands, however I think the State/paper companys are taking the soft and slow approach to enforcement so they don't upset too many people all at once. Rember some of these stands have been in families for generations and passed on down, there is a lot of tradition in those public woods and just like the whole QDM debate people get upset when things start to change.

[Big Buck Buster]

Originally Posted By: picksbigwagon

Bear I agree, there is a transition period, but Blandin has posted their land and it states no more creating permanent stands and no using old permanent stands. Therefore, this discussion about the original poster being upset because other people are using their permanent stands is mute, the land owner, Blandin does not want perm. stands and doesn't want anyone in them. Blandin can make those rules it is their land, if it continues to be abused, they could close it off to public access.

The paper companies and the State can publish and make whatever rules they want but unless they take them seriously you won't see as much change. I think everyone knows we are headed towards portable stands, however I think the State/paper companys are taking the soft and slow approach to enforcement so they don't upset too many people all at once. Rember some of these stands have been in families for generations and passed on down, there is a lot of tradition in those public woods and just like the whole QDM debate people get upset when things start to change.

A transition period my a**. We have had permanent stands in the family for years before I began hunting. Now that they don't allow them to be "used, or maintained, or built", we don't use them anymore. Even if they have been in the same spot for many years, they are not grandfathered in. Plain and simple: they are not allowed anymore. Get over it, and get some portables to use. You will see that it is to your advantage anyhow. Permanents can't be moved so easy.

[DuckDog]

I still build permanant stands on public land, the hel* with the law on that rule. My son and I are much safer in a permant stand then a portable. They can give me a ticket, but I am a big guy and there is no way my 10 year old son and I are sitting in a portable. Permanant stands aren't hurting nothing in the woods, whats a couple nails in a tree, big deal.

Great attitude. Great influence on a 10 year old towards hunting ethics. Do you shoot by flashlight too

[Bear55]

Big Buck I not trying to argue one side over the other, I grew up with perm stands and I now have a mix of portables and old perm stands I still hunt because they are there and we don't have any problems. I had stated earlier in this thread I completely understand the public land argument, I don't think its fair for someone to claim an area to hunt, and I feel things are heading towards portable stands in the future. If you don't think we are in a transitional period you haven't looked at the larger picture. Just because you made the switch already doesn't mean that every deer hunter in the state is willing and able to cut down all their stands and start over. I would even venture to guess over half of the public land hunters use old perm stands.

Also take into consideration that on much of the public land in the north perm stands and the old unwritten rules still work pretty well and those people don't have incentive to make the switch. All I am pointing out is until things are enforced change will be slow and there will be problems.

[Buckcountry]

Duck Dog Wrote "Great attitude. Great influence on a 10 year old towards hunting ethics. Do you shoot by flashlight too [/quot"

Your right duck doggy, I will have an attitude with anyone when it comes to safety.Yeah, my ten year old boy is going to be ruined and have no ethics because we use permanant stands LMAO! it's safety. I am 6-7 312 lbs. I don't feel safe in a portable.

Duck Doggy, save your commments unless they mean something.

[DuckDog]

Duck Dog Wrote "Great attitude. Great influence on a 10 year old towards hunting ethics. Do you shoot by flashlight too [/quot"

Your right duck doggy, I will have an attitude with anyone when it comes to safety.Yeah, my ten year old boy is going to be ruined and have no ethics because we use permanant stands LMAO! it's safety. I am 6-7 312 lbs. I don't feel safe in a portable.

Duck Doggy, save your commments unless they mean something.

Never said you do not have ethics. Let me put it this way... if you can not find a way to hunt legally then do not hunt. Believe it or not laws tend to be made for a reason. If you do not like them - then work to change them. Blatantly breaking a law, while knowing you are doing so, makes you no better then a guy poaching at night with a spotlight.

[Buckcountry]

Me hunting out of a permanent is no different then someone poaching at night, are you serious dude??? You are putting me in the same boat as a poacher, that's a shot below the belt. Thanks Duck, it's a good thing we don't know each other.

[Getanet]

Oh come on, I don't think a guy that stands 6'7, 315 needs anyone to stand up for him, but you can't compare someone using a permanent stand as "no better" than a guy poaching at night with a spotlight. Is a guy going 5 miles over the speed limit "no better" than someone drunk driving? Even the law understands there are various degrees of "bad." You'll experience vastly different penalties for sitting in a permanent stand where it's illegal compared to poaching a night with a spotlight.

[Bear55]

Thank you Getanet, a little reason never hurts. It was almost like watching the Republican and Democrate go at it.

DuckDog I would be willing to bet over half of the public land hunters use perm stands. Should we just take away their hunting rights forever? What do you propose? If the State and Blandin were serious about it they would be out there chain sawing stands as we speak.

[fishuhalik]

You know it's funny. So many people question my ethics for building a perminent stand. You really don't think there's anything wrong with the "if it's legal then I'm gonna do it" attitude? That's EXACTLY what's wrong with outdoorsmen & women today. If they can get away with it and have "Joe Law" behind them, they're gonna do it and call you a jerk if you oppose. Boy, your attitude sure does change when a guy keeps a big muskie or big walleye that's legally taken, or shoots a small buck that you were trying to let grow to maturity.

[InTheNorthwoods]

You know it's funny. So many people question my ethics for building a perminent stand. You really don't think there's anything wrong with the "if it's legal then I'm gonna do it" attitude? That's EXACTLY what's wrong with outdoorsmen & women today. If they can get away with it and have "Joe Law" behind them, they're gonna do it and call you a jerk if you oppose. Boy, your attitude sure does change when a guy keeps a big muskie or big walleye that's legally taken, or shoots a small buck that you were trying to let grow to maturity.

As long as it is legal, they have a right to do it. I might disagree with it, but I won't condemn them for it. Everyone enjoys different aspects of the outdoors, to some, it may be keeping a trophy walleye or shooting a button buck. In many cases, it is simply someone who is not as educated about the outdoors, but they have a right to enjoy the resources in the way that they choose and within the parameters of the law. If they are willing to listen, I will share my knowledge and let them continue to make their own decisions.

As to public land, it is public and there are going to be issues. I adovocate respect and the golden rule - do unto others as you would like done to you. In that sense, I do not want someone building permanent stands on public land, therefore I will not do it. It is a shared resource and there should be no "we've been here for years mentality". Why should a kid who grew up in a non hunting family that goes out and finds some public land to hunt not be able to hunt it because your family has been hunting it for years?

To this all into perspective a little bit, take into consideration this public school example:

Do you, your dad, and your family go back to your public elementary school each year on the first day of classes, walk into your third grade classroom, and try and claim "your" desk back from the 8 year old kid who was sitting in it because you had used it first?

Sounds ridiculous, but its not much different really. Both are public property and a public resource. But because you were there first, it doesn't give you any "ownership" or right to occupy it.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

You know it's funny. So many people question my ethics for building a perminent stand.

I don't think anyone is questioning your ethics for building a permanent stand - it obviously wasn't a problem when the stands were built 25 years ago. However, if you are building and occupying stands on privately owned land when you know you are violating the landowner's policy, it's a different matter completely. You have no "rights" to someone else's property, regardless of how long you have been using it - "squatter's rights" don't apply here, sorry - that's just the way it is...