Proposal to leave up deer stand on public lands

[Musky Buck]

Just a think out loud but if allowed on bow opener it wouldn't get to where rifle hunters are going to set up there portables then, just to be used later ? They could always say well I was going to bow hunt and just got too busy etc. Just not sure how it would look.

[mrklean]

It clearly doesn't "lock_up" a public resource...as a matter of fact it "clearly states" that...

" A portable deer stand erected on public land does not grant the person erecting it an exclusive right to use the area.

It's exactly the same way now...if you set up a stand in the morning when you plan to hunt...it doesn't give you any exclusive rights to the area just because you have to take it down at nite....someone could still come into the area and set up close by...or still hunt close by...or make an organized drive in the area you're in...the only thing this proposed law changes is that "you don't have to set up and take down your portable stand every time you hunt a parcel of public land"

I understand what the law says but do you really think people are going to see it that way. People will put out there stands and if someone is to close there exact words will be well my stand was here first so you should respect that and move, which is exactly why i dont want stands left out it opens up conflict.

[Musky Buck]

I think that's what I meant Mr. Klean, I don't think that will make things better, better for the ones who will guard there area like a hawk and bold enough to be a ja toward others who want to hunt an area. So if this law goes through I could set about a half dozen portables each on a different parcel of public land unless I fear theft of them ?

[Wobbler]

I say put a fee on it if in public land, put their MNDNR # on it, and lets go. Nobody has talked about safety here. It would seem to me it would be safer to have the stand up for a few days before they hunt then slap it up in the dark before your hunt or set it down after you hunt. I would rather know if someone is hunting where I choose before season then run into them opening morning 30 feet away. That is where conflicts and people getting upset happen opening morning. Yes people will be mad if someone slaps up a stand where they want to be but it is "Public Land". The days of having a stand and not paying for it are numbered because of the people who are in control now and the state is looking for ways to generate revenue. If you don't like it my opinion buy a ground blind which in 2 years will probably be the same way and you will have to have a tag for that too.

[Musky Buck]

True enough, hope safety your talking falls from stands because that's safety issue #1. The amount of people getting shot because of this topic is I've never heard of any injuries as of yet. Deer drives or mistaken identity seems how most are shot. Definitely need a fee, but I can see people messing with these stands. I'm just angry about last night and these same 4 car loads also fished out my favorite crappie hole, took 3 years to turn crappies from 12-16 inchers to 9-10 inchers.

[ANYFISH2]

I have hunted WMA and state forest land. I think the state forest land was more organized because of the stands left in the woods. You see them ahead of time, avoid them, and find the next best spot.

On WMA, you go in that morning in the dark, set and see someone 75 yards away at day break, so now you chose hunt unsafely close and hope he moves or get down and move ruining the early morning hunt! That sucks and I think there is more confrontations.

I like this proposal and I especially like the one stand rule, otherwise we would see one person setting up as many stands as possible to "lock up" an area. With your one stand you still have the chioce to move it, or bring a different stand that day if the wind is wrong. I see more organization and less problems myself.

[Brad B]

stuff like this is why I got out of hunting. I see this causing big issues on smaller wma's. this would work if it was restricted to public land over 500 acres (example : Mille lacs Management area 43,000 acres) I use to hunt there and it would be a good thing for land like that but on the other hand when I lived down in southern minnesota there was a wma that only had about 30 to 50 acres of woods on it. if people where able to put stands up on this I could see where one party could come in an tie up the whole wma and make it so other can't hunt it. what happened to the land being public and for all to use equally. I HOPE THIS DOESN'T PASS.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Nothing good can come of this.

Stolen stands, people claiming "someone stole my spot" on public land, people trying to "reserve" public land for all seasons by hanging a stand early and leaving it til the end of the year, etc. I can see the fights starting already...

[InTheNorthwoods]

I have hunted WMA and state forest land. I think the state forest land was more organized because of the stands left in the woods. You see them ahead of time, avoid them, and find the next best spot.

This statement is exactly what is wrong with this proposed law. NO ONE INDIVIDUAL OWNS OR HAS A GREATER RIGHT THAN ANYONE ELSE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY!

[ANYFISH2]

Of course no one owns public property, that was not what I said, a respectful attitude in the woods goes a long ways. Seeing someones stand the day before beats the mad dash and run-ins you have on opening morning. There really is no difference between the day before or opening morning, just more time to find your spot the day before without the headaches. Just my opinion from some that hunts public land with a lot others in the pumpkin brigaid. theres enough land to hunt apart but yet together without problems.

[dustin85]

I think this is a bad idea. I would predict that there will be conflict. Some public lands are only big enough for one or two guys to hunt. If someone hangs a stand in the only area possible it could lock up that spot. There are many people that only hunt public land, and I would aniticipate those numbers dropping gradually after this would go into effect.

[96trigger]

I guess my point and the point of many is that we would rather move to a new local if we see a stand already put up, rather than have a confrontation. I would not ask someone to move, I would be the one to move to a new location, trying to prevent any confrontation. I think its courteous. Compare that to I set up at 5:00 am only to see a flashlight toting hunter setting up a stand 50 yards away. What do I do? Do I confront him? Do I just sit there and take my chances? Now lets say that guy set his stand up a couple of weeks/days earlier, I saw it the day before. At least now I know that I should move at a minimum, a safe distance away.

Of course, there will always be those people that will have a foot race to the stand in the morning, holding the laws about unoccupied stands on public land like a badge. Saying they got their first. Is the law going to change these hunters at all? No, they will still do what they want, when they want, no matter the law.

[elkhuntingfan]

I disagree with this proposal. All it does is give people the chance to "reserve" their hunting spot. The entire woods on public land is public. If this is allowed, hunters face the issue of finding a different spot, whether someone is in the stand or not, or having a potential confrontation. As far as the issue of someone setting up fifty feet away, this happens now, but it will only be worse if this goes through. You'll end up with guys setting their stand the night before openers and then sitting there no matter where anyone else is sitting opening morning. This happened to me this past opener. I got out early and set my stand. About 6:00 a guy came in and climbed into a stand he had set the night before. He was only about 75-100 yards away. We were essentially hunting the same trail. He knew I was there beccause I flashed my light at him and he flashed back in response. He had his stand up and his spot "reserved" so he was sitting there no matter what. If this goes through, we'll need to search the woods for stands put up earlier or end up with a potential confrontation.

I don't see this as a safety issue. If that's a concern, use a safety harness while climbing or setting the stand. You could also use a groung blind if you aren't comfortable setting a stand in the dark.

I definitely don't think there should be a fee involved. The state doesn't need another reason to charge us fees. Pretty soon we'll have to pay a fee to take a dump.

[96trigger]

Quote:

I disagree with this proposal. All it does is give people the chance to "reserve" their hunting spot. The entire woods on public land is public. If this is allowed, hunters face the issue of finding a different spot, whether someone is in the stand or not, or having a potential confrontation. As far as the issue of someone setting up fifty feet away, this happens now, but it will only be worse if this goes through. You'll end up with guys setting their stand the night before openers and then sitting there no matter where anyone else is sitting opening morning. This happened to me this past opener. I got out early and set my stand. About 6:00 a guy came in and climbed into a stand he had set the night before. He was only about 75-100 yards away. We were essentially hunting the same trail. He knew I was there beccause I flashed my light at him and he flashed back in response. He had his stand up and his spot "reserved" so he was sitting there no matter what. If this goes through, we'll need to search the woods for stands put up earlier or end up with a potential confrontation.

I understand what you are saying, this is the kind of guy that I was talking about. I guess I don't see how this law can make it any worse. You had your spot, he had his. Would it have made a difference if he had set up his stand that morning in front of you instead of putting it up the night before?

Maybe, just Maybe, if this guy new you were going to be there, he wouldn't have put his stand there. I don't think having to do some preseason scouting is a bad thing either.

I honestly don't care either way, but I really don't feel like this would be such a bad thing. I would much rather know where another hunter is than meet a stranger in the dark on opening morning, with guns in hand. Maybe I am just passive.

[motley man]

I disagree also as it will only lead to confrontations and bickering in the woods. People will start harassing others or messing with their equipment. Let everyone work for that early morning stand. Part of the hunt is getting in to these areas and setting up. First come -First served. Even if it is 1 stand per person you know that people will put more up just to lock up areas. Will we have to license our stand and put name address or DNR # on them for ID puurposes. Just seems like alot of trouble in the long run.

[B. Amish]

what's ironic about this whole topic is that the guy who proposed this is only worried about bringing in non resident hunters to MN and increasing tourism $.

so, this is the reason MN isn't a destination for whitetail hunters????? hhmmmmmmm...

[mrklean]

haha yea that is pretty dumb reason lets see if you had a chance to hunt at your home state of wisconsin, or that dakotas, or come to mn where are public land is already filled with hunters where would you go? Then even funnier thing is people from minnesota would probably rather hunt a different state then MN

[Musky Buck]

I forget about the slug of guys who like to use red or orange ribbon to mark their trails in advance of opener in a sense kinda not locking up an area but making sure we all can clearly see the many marked trails keeping many of us out, I kept driving and about a mile of road frontage was all ribboned out. If this is for non-resident mainly, either way it sounds like a bad idea.

[walleye365]

when hunting public land i hunt on the ground iv shot more deer hunting on the ground anyway. when a stand can be placed and then left the owners some of the time think they own that area and what does that lead to.also think non-resident licsends should be alot more than what they are nor should a non-resident be allowed to hunt state land unless hunting with a resident imo.non-residents have it good in MN compared to other states.

[Wobbler]

Every time I read this I keep thinking this is public land and like it says public means anyone can do what they want. I hunt way up north and there is plenty of places for people to get away from the crowds. It takes some work and sweat but there are plenty of places to hunt where you will not see anyone. I'm trying to not be dumb here but most of the discussion surrounds WMA. Those are small areas to hunt and nothing will solve the issues there especially around big populated living areas and hunters wanting to get into them. You need to find either a bigger area where you know you will not be disturbed and drive a ways or buy some land by where you want hunt to avoid all the issues mentioned. I like how people "stake" the public land as they own it. Only private landowners can do that!

[gr82fish]

"when hunting public land i hunt on the ground iv shot more deer hunting on the ground anyway. when a stand can be placed and then left the owners some of the time think they own that area and what does that lead to."

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make earlier in this discussion.

[RumRiverRat]

It would be like lighting a smoke while gassing your truck, eventually, something bad is going to happen.

Yep, this will lead to shootings and other mayhem.

[mrklean]

Every time I read this I keep thinking this is public land and like it says public means anyone can do what they want. I hunt way up north and there is plenty of places for people to get away from the crowds. It takes some work and sweat but there are plenty of places to hunt where you will not see anyone. I'm trying to not be dumb here but most of the discussion surrounds WMA. Those are small areas to hunt and nothing will solve the issues there especially around big populated living areas and hunters wanting to get into them. You need to find either a bigger area where you know you will not be disturbed and drive a ways or buy some land by where you want hunt to avoid all the issues mentioned. I like how people "stake" the public land as they own it. Only private landowners can do that!

But thats the thing most people have to hunt the WMAs. Me driving 4 hours up north to hunt the big woods every weekend is out of the questions. A large portion of the population is in the southern part of the state where its mainly WMAs which is exactly why this wouldnt work. I agree up north where you have tons more public land and large chunks i think it would work better, but when you have 20 guys hunting a 300 acre WMA it makes things much more difficult

[Wobbler]

I drive 6 hours to hunt and do it every weekend during the rifle season to the big woods. There is nothing to solve that issue in WMA without banning everyone to hunt there then there would be no problems. No matter what is done people bicker and fight sounds like a lot less hassle would be ban rifle hunting in the WMA. Maybe that needs to be proposed since it is such a problem. 300 acres and 20 guys is nuts and is in my opinion unsafe.

[lichen fox]

Good point Mr.Clean...So, if the southern 1/2 or 2/3rds of the state is overcrowded on public lands why not just change the rule so that only the northern 1/2 or 1/3rd of the state could leave stands up...that would be the same "compromise" that was eventually reached over the managed-limited & closed state forest road classifications issue after the big meeting at the gardens in Warroad a few years back...