"Catch 22" for Local Towns Banning Hunting

BrentS

BrentS

Active member
I recently spoke with a Harbor Master of a local town, in order to determine how far (into a large body of water) the town claims jurisdiction over. I was interested in this distance because the town has enacted a complete ban on firearm discharge, effectively eliminating hunting within the land and waters of the town. The Harbor Master told me a bit of history about a waterfowler who was hunting in the harbor of said town (after the town banned firearm discharge), there were complaints by nearby residents, and the Harbor Master had to give him a summons. The man pleaded not-guilty and lost, and then appealed the decision and lost again. (The man believed that local towns could not be more restrictive than State hunting laws.)
The Harbor Master believes that the fight (and subsequent loss) against the local town’s code was actually detrimental to hunters, as it re-affirmed and publicized the case with the local community, and gave the residents more ammo (pun un-intended) for ensuring the local law enforcement (i.e. town’s Harbor Master) enforce this law. He believes that if the hunter would have simply chosen a different location (i.e. away from residents), then hunters could have continued to enjoy an activity (although not legal) that was not really enforced. I can basically see how this belief (by the Harbor Master) could hold some truth, leading to the “catch 22” scenario: You can try to fight and possibly reverse local code law (although, unlikely in this case) and risk detrimental publicity …..OR …..You can proceed to partake in an activity that is technically illegal, yet simply not enforced, (which is something very undesirable for me).
Whichever people decide; I guess the real lesson is for hunters to make sure they’re involved from the beginning, and not let local towns continue to eliminate this wonderful heritage…hunting.
 
Very interesting. Here in CT we had a town, East Hartford, band firearm discharge too. After a number of years the hunting ban portion was brought up in a law suit and tossed out by the courts. They found that with respect to hunting it was the state's prerogative and that towns could not infringe.

Headline:
"East Hartford hunting case.
Appeals court affirms trial court decision that town lacks authority to prevent lawful hunting according to state law."

It's too bad the NY courts didn't follow suit.

Scott
 
Yes...although I'm not a lawyer, my research had led me to believe that in NY, local municipalities CAN (unfortunately) enact more restrictions than exist in State law.
In many ways I love NY, and unfotunately in an increasing amount of ways I'm disliking NY.....
 
Either it is in city limits and in that case even in South Dakota most cities ban shooting. Or it is out of city limits and the state would have jurisdiction. Even if out of city limits there may be laws on how far you need to be from dwellings and livestock. A city can not just claim land or water is in city limits it must be the original city plan or annexed in. City limits are public and mapped, I'm lost as to why it would be a grey area. Follow the law and try to change the city limits if you can. Local laws can almost always be more restrictive unless it is a constitutional right or if there is a state law saying it can not be.

Tim
 
My original question that I was trying to get answered by the town's Harbor Master, was: whether the "town waters" extended all the way up to the NY/CT boarder (in the middle of the L.I. Sound) OR, is there a lesser distance from shore that the town claims jurisdiction over.......if so, what's that distance?
It was not clearly stated in the town's code, nor could I find it stated anywhere else.
I may just try hunting far enough off shore, so as not to bother any residents......as the Harbor Master, himself, even suggested I do........"unofficially", of course.
 
I was cited for my first ticket last year for this same reason. We were no where close to any homes and believed that we were in a legal hunting area. We were hunting out of a boat and not on the land on the Columbia River. The state Police came out and cited us for taking game within the city limits. We were not more than 50 yards from the deadline. There was another group of hunters right around the point on the legal side. It seems that there are some citizens who "patrol" the area regularly for hunters and we are not the first to make this mistake. The police said they ticked somebody about every other week during season. There is a sign that says no hunting on Port Property but we belived that the property line ended at the high water mark. In Oregon All Navigable waterways are public property below the high water mark and open to fishing and this is why we believed the high water mark was where the deadline was. I made an effort to contact the state police twice to get confirmation about this as there are a couple other areas in the state I hunt which are similar situation. I never was able to contact anybody that could give me an answer. Moral of the story is be very sure of where you are hunting becasue there are a growing number of people who want to stop you and they are watching for you. The part that gets me is we were no where near a road house or buildings of any sort. The other group of hunters that were legal were shooting 20 feet from there truck right off the road. Laws don't always make sense but they are what they are.
 
What's really pathetic...........is that I keep typing "boarder" instead of "border".......I thought that looked funny.
Man, my spelling is getting bad............
 
Brent,

Can the local CO help you? Or do you have a local waterfowl association that may have a lawyer as a member that could help. I know here in CT the towns control the shell fish beds / licenses & local closures due to contamination, indicating town control well out from shore. If your side of the Sound is the same you may be $crewed.

Tim, Never assume all states are legally set up the same. The eastern seaboard states were not settled with a plan, they just happened. Check out a road map of an old New England city to dispel any belief that there was ever a "PLAN". Towns are communities that incorporated to provide services. They changed many times over the years. I live in a town that was once part of two old towns that still exist that have broke further apart. Just for fun:

EAST GRANBY was incorporated in 1858, out of Granby and Windsor Locks. Granby was set off from Simsbury in 1786, and Windsor Locks from Windsor in 1854. The individual history of East Granby is chiefly that of the Turkey Hills Parish Society, which was the Northeast Society of Simsbury. This society was created in 1736, and in 1737 a part of the Northwest Society of Windsor was added to it; this part was taken from Windsor Locks and incorporated into East Granby when the town was established.

-----As early as 1793 an effort was made to have East Granby set off as a separate town, because Granby at that time reconsidered the vote under which the town-meeting was held once in three years at Turkey Hills. The limits then asked for the proposed town were practically those which were at last fixed upon.

-----The town embraces about eighteen square miles; being four and a half miles east and west, and averaging four miles north and south. Its population in 1860 was 883; in 1870, 853; in 1880, 754; showing a decrease in the last decade of more than twelve per cent. This decrease was due almost wholly to the decline in value of agricultural products, especially tobacco, which followed the close of the War of the Rebellion, and the extended culture of that product in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A more economical production was necessary, and there was consequently a limited employment of farm laborers. The Talcott range of mountaihs divides the town from north to south into nearly equal parts. That west of the mountain is rolling and somewhat hffly; that east of the mountain slopes gradually down to a plain, and is of peculiar natural beauty.

Scott
 
Interesting discussiuon--and, like many others, I am glad it's not a burning issue here.

I have often wondered about what happens on tidal lands here in towns where discharge of a firearm is prohibited. In the town I grew up in, discharge is not allowed, but there are exceptions for intertidal areas and for one large freshwater pond where ducks were traditionally hunted. A neighboring town had essentially the same rule, although only a portion of the town area was closed. I've checked with local police departments in both towns and been told that so long as I am below the high tide line, and also otherwise legal with respect to distance from dwellings, I can legally hunt.

A town near where I live now has a no discharge zone that appears to include a tidal section of a large river. Town police there have told me that the no-discharge zone extends all the way to the town line, which is mid-river. Hunting is legal in the town across the river, and we have a couple of spots we hunt by launching within the no-discharge zone and paddling across the river.

State law preserves the right for the public to "fish, fowl and navigate" within the intertidal zone, and I suppose some day someone will challenge those towns that enforce the no-discharge rules in the intertidal zone. I have no interest in being the test case, though.
 
Don't hold me to this, but, I believe the town jurisdiction limits into LI sound is 1500'
This is , I believe, true for all the n.shore towns.
The assessors office should have maps available for you to check out. Don't necessarily believe what the local Harbormasters say, On some of these rarely run into situations, they may not know, or are supplying you with a determination that the Town attorneys gave them, and THEY might be guessing, or just trying to appease the complaining homeowners by saying xyz is illegal, when it just might not be so. Politics you know.

So, long story short, YOU must find out. Go to the assessors office, scrutinize the Town Code, but know for sure so when your confronted by local LE's, who would just rather you went away so they don't have to listen to the whiners, you'll actually know, instead of asking on a National forum where you will get a multitude of mostly incorrect answers and opinions.

That said,... is it worth the aggravation to hunt where your not wanted? You MAY be legal, but at what cost?
 
This is probably the best advice. Don't hold me to this, but, I believe the town jurisdiction limits into LI sound is 1500'
This is , I believe, true for all the n.shore towns.
The assessors office should have maps available for you to check out. Don't necessarily believe what the local Harbormasters say, On some of these rarely run into situations, they may not know, or are supplying you with a determination that the Town attorneys gave them, and THEY might be guessing, or just trying to appease the complaining homeowners by saying xyz is illegal, when it just might not be so. Politics you know.

So, long story short, YOU must find out. Go to the assessors office, scrutinize the Town Code, but know for sure so when your confronted by local LE's, who would just rather you went away so they don't have to listen to the whiners, you'll actually know, instead of asking on a National forum where you will get a multitude of mostly incorrect answers and opinions.

That said,... is it worth the aggravation to hunt where your not wanted? You MAY be legal, but at what cost?
Click to expand...
 
I am sure there are other guys on the board who can clarify it better than me but I know you are NOT allowed to discharge a firearm on Lake Michigan from the top of the City of Milwaukee to the bottom, and if I recall it correctly, the idea is 1/2 way across Lake Michigan till the boundry of MI. I could be wrong the distance out, but in WI the actually ownership of land does exceed out to the midway point of a lake. You technically own the lake bottom, but can not improve it or do anything beyond the ordinary high water mark. For example, if Green Bay were to dry up, and now the lake bed was showing, you actually own that, until the water comes back.

I say this because I know guys who layout hunt down there and they either go north or south of the line, but from what I recall they never talk about going farther out.
 
I have fought this in NJ, the only thing that will happen is after you spend a ton of doe on a lawyer and bring this issue to court, it will be found under case law that it is against the law for the town in NJ to ban hunting , just before it gets to the judge the town will drop the ticket, and you will be out a few thousand dollars. then the town will not remove the law from their books and even if told to by a higher court they will not change their ordinances. then the next time out you will get arrested again and go thru the whole process,

the NJF&G has refused to help and go after these towns
so it is up to the hunter to find out the laws in the town and if you do run into a conflict you are on your own
if you call them and bring F&G into the fray, they will always side on the township side and attempt to write you more tickets.

if you could sue the twn and have the money to do so
the town will agree that they are wrong and then still do nothing about it.

my other issue with F&G is that they will sell you a license and permit to hunt in that area, give it to you in writing that you may hunt, show you a map with the area showing that you may hunt. yet if you do you will get arrested.
 
I guess my question to the town would be. If I were to get hurt or need assistance, would the town provide assistance? Are they prepared to protect, defend an serve their constituents in a manner that would be reasonable on any other land in town? Are they ready to be sued over mishaps that may happen in "their" body of water? Are they prepared to test the water and ensure it's safety for all in town?
Once they claim ownership I would hold them to all of the responsibilities of said ownership. They do not get the rights of ownership without the responsibility that goes along with it.

I'm not an attorney but it would seem that citizens could argue this and make it clear to the selectmen that by annexing the water they are claiming responsibility and that their insurance coverage must extend beyond the shore as well. Make them pay for the insurance to cover the land that they annex.

Again not sure if this is feasible but I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
 
I am sure there are other guys on the board who can clarify it better than me but I know you are NOT allowed to discharge a firearm on Lake Michigan from the top of the City of Milwaukee to the bottom, and if I recall it correctly, the idea is 1/2 way across Lake Michigan till the boundry of MI. I could be wrong the distance out, but in WI the actually ownership of land does exceed out to the midway point of a lake. You technically own the lake bottom, but can not improve it or do anything beyond the ordinary high water mark. For example, if Green Bay were to dry up, and now the lake bed was showing, you actually own that, until the water comes back.

I say this because I know guys who layout hunt down there and they either go north or south of the line, but from what I recall they never talk about going farther out.
Click to expand...


I think, note the word "think" you are incorrect in your statement Eric. It may be minor but it is important. Lake bottom can be owned by idividuals and townships can claim "ownership" as well but they cannot claim ownership of the water on top of the lake bottom. This has been made clear I'm fairly certain in case law trialed in WI. Many articles on this and I believe some are very specific to your area. If I get some time I'll search my info and post it.

Federal rules define what can and canot be done on the surafce of that lake as it is considerd navigable water.

Mark W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top