No more hunting wisconsin

[babybison]

First Vang shots up the state now a land owner gets beat with the butt of a gun. I've had the chance to hunt with friends there but now no chance.


REEDSBURG, Wis. - A landowner was injured and a hunter was arrested in a trespassing argument in southern Wisconsin.

It was the second violent hunting incident in Sauk County this year, said Dave Horzewski, a conservation warden with the state Department of Natural Resources.

In the other incident, a hunter beat another man with the butt of his gun over a trespassing argument.

``We have road rage and now we have hunting rage,'' Horzewski said.

Last Sunday, a series of shootings left six hunters dead and two injured in Sawyer County in northwestern Wisconsin, after a dispute over trespassing erupted.

In the most recent Sauk County incident, Charlie Goad, 63, of the town of Winfield was getting ready for a Thanksgiving meal with his family when he saw spotted blaze orange on his ranch, he said.

He went to check it out because he hadn't allowed anyone to hunt on his land, he said.

Goad said the suspect and a boy told him they shot a deer that ran onto the property, but when Goad asked them to show the trail of the animal, they couldn't.

The two asked him to let it go, Goad said, but he said he wouldn't and was kicked and hit by the two.

He was treated and released from the Reedsburg Area Medical Center for a broken nose, bleeding eye and a cut on his ear.

A 35-year-old Lyndon Station man is in custody pending formal charges. He is accused of battery and trespassing.

The suspect's family said the Goad and his neighbors had agreements allowing them to track deer that crossed property lines after being shot.

But Goad said the next time he sees someone on his property, he's taking a gun with him.

Sauk County warden Horzewski said hunters need to talk with their neighbors ahead of time and agree on whether they can track and retrieve wounded deer that crossed property lines. If arguments do break out, property owners should record details, such as tag numbers, and report to authorities, he said.

``Your life isn't worth a deer, but on the other hand you do have the right to protect your own property,'' Horzewski said.

---

Information from: Baraboo News Republic, http://www.baraboo.scwn.com

[ThreeJane]

The two asked him to let it go, Goad said, but he said he wouldn't and was kicked and hit by the two.

This line is a little vague. What do they mean by "let it go"? Was Goad hollering and screaming and threatening?

Were they?

Did they try to just walk off as he was telling them to stay off his property and then they popped him?

Too few details in this one, but dang, things are getting heated up these days.

[pcwerk]

Hi Babybison,
What part of MN are you from? We just bought a farm in the SE, near Spring
Grove. It is beautiful up there.
Thought I would let you know that per Minnesota law, it is legal to cross on
private property in pursuit of a wounded animal while hunting. No permission
needed. Sounds reasonable enough to me. (Btw, its also legal when in pursuit
of a lost hunting dog).
Take care while hunting ANYWHERE!
James in Houston, Tx (but soon will be Houston, MN ;-)

Originally Posted by babybison

First Vang shots up the state now a land owner gets beat with the butt of a gun. I've had the chance to hunt with friends there but now no chance.


REEDSBURG, Wis. - A landowner was injured and a hunter was arrested in a trespassing argument in southern Wisconsin.

It was the second violent hunting incident in Sauk County this year, said Dave Horzewski, a conservation warden with the state Department of Natural Resources.

In the other incident, a hunter beat another man with the butt of his gun over a trespassing argument.

``We have road rage and now we have hunting rage,'' Horzewski said.

Last Sunday, a series of shootings left six hunters dead and two injured in Sawyer County in northwestern Wisconsin, after a dispute over trespassing erupted.

In the most recent Sauk County incident, Charlie Goad, 63, of the town of Winfield was getting ready for a Thanksgiving meal with his family when he saw spotted blaze orange on his ranch, he said.

He went to check it out because he hadn't allowed anyone to hunt on his land, he said.

Goad said the suspect and a boy told him they shot a deer that ran onto the property, but when Goad asked them to show the trail of the animal, they couldn't.

The two asked him to let it go, Goad said, but he said he wouldn't and was kicked and hit by the two.

He was treated and released from the Reedsburg Area Medical Center for a broken nose, bleeding eye and a cut on his ear.

A 35-year-old Lyndon Station man is in custody pending formal charges. He is accused of battery and trespassing.

The suspect's family said the Goad and his neighbors had agreements allowing them to track deer that crossed property lines after being shot.

But Goad said the next time he sees someone on his property, he's taking a gun with him.

Sauk County warden Horzewski said hunters need to talk with their neighbors ahead of time and agree on whether they can track and retrieve wounded deer that crossed property lines. If arguments do break out, property owners should record details, such as tag numbers, and report to authorities, he said.

``Your life isn't worth a deer, but on the other hand you do have the right to protect your own property,'' Horzewski said.

---

Information from: Baraboo News Republic, http://www.baraboo.scwn.com

[Ken Scharabok]

I believe what you are seeing is just basic animal instinct when confined in increasingly smaller area. In this case it is hunting lands. I have heard in this county every acre of wood and fencerows is claimed by someone for hunting privileges as we do not have public access hunting. Those who currently have hunting rights don't want to give them up, so those without either have to do without, or go elsewhere or basically tresspass.

Some may say, what's the big deal? There's lots of hunting landing out there. Rule of thumb locally is it takes 100 acres of woods to support one hunter. Thus, if you had hunting rights to say 700 acres, you would limit your hunting group to about seven.

Ken Scharabok

[mpillow]

Even in Maine....everyone is posting their land and/or it is being bought up by treehuggers that limit all use of it. My dads land only 45ac is posted and he told 3 people that he saw to please remove themselves from his property so people are willing to break the law by tresspassing...Its all very sad, just a lack of human decency and decent land available for hunting.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by mpillow

Even in Maine....everyone is posting their land and/or it is being bought up by treehuggers that limit all use of it.

You don't know what a serious problem that is all over the country. There are large and extremely well funded whacko groups that buy up land and then prohibit any hunting, farming or logging on it. I have been approached by a couple of these groups wanting my land. I told them to mouthify a certain part of my anatomy.

Why can't those types just stay the h*ll in their festering cesspool cities and leave us alone.

[Mike in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Quint

You don't know what a serious problem that is all over the country. There are large and extremely well funded whacko groups that buy up land and then prohibit any hunting, farming or logging on it. I have been approached by a couple of these groups wanting my land. I told them to mouthify a certain part of my anatomy.

Why can't those types just stay the h*ll in their festering cesspool cities and leave us alone.

Now wait a second. I don't agree with all the things these groups do, but if they are willing to pay for the land, don't they have the right to control it's use? Why exactly do you care about what they restrict on property they bought and paid for? I'm sure you would be pretty POd if someone tried to tell you you couldn't restrict who came on your land or decided they knew better than you what should be done with it.

I much prefer them putting their money where their mouth is than folks lobbying the government to restrict my rights to my own land. Or what about the folks who move in next to a farm and then try to restrict activities because of smell, noise, etc.?



As usual, just my 2 cents.

Mike

[tooltime]

PCWerk,
If you are going after your hunting dog on private land, gotta leave the firearm behind. (That's the MN law.) I have seen more than a few hunters use this as a way to legally trespass.
Hope you enjoy it down there amongst all the Norsks in SG (I'm Norwegian too, and live next county over from Houston Co.)
Anyone else remember the 15 year-old kid you shot and killed two hunters in SE Iowa a few years back. This Vang one was bad, but it isn't the first time a hunter shot other hunters, and unfortunately I doubt it will be the last.

[window_wax]

Thought I would let you know that per Minnesota law, it is legal to cross on
private property in pursuit of a wounded animal while hunting. No permission
needed.

I'm glad it's not like this down here... Here, the property is "considered" posted, even if there are no signs. In other words, if we catch a tresspassor, we can call the cops and have them escorted off. Private property is private property, I dont care if people loose thier dogs or not. If a wounded deer comes on my farm (Approx 300 acres), then I consider that deer part of my property. If the hunters come to me, and tell me that they shot a deer on their property, and it came on mine, I may give them permission to go find it.

This year especially, I have had a LOT of trouble with tresspassors. I have had to run off about 10 different people this year. One of them on several occassions. (He just runs from me... and he runs faster than I can...)

Last weekend I was hunting, and a tresspassor shot a deer on my land less than 50 yards away from me. I went to find him, and he took off running again. Needless to say, I now have deer in the freezer, and a new treestand.

- window_wax

[mikell]

If I have people tresspassing I usually use that time to sight in my guns. No law against target practice.


mikell

[sylvar]

Originally Posted by Mike in Ohio

Now wait a second. I don't agree with all the things these groups do, but if they are willing to pay for the land, don't they have the right to control it's use? Why exactly do you care about what they restrict on property they bought and paid for? I'm sure you would be pretty POd if someone tried to tell you you couldn't restrict who came on your land or decided they knew better than you what should be done with it.

I much prefer them putting their money where their mouth is than folks lobbying the government to restrict my rights to my own land. Or what about the folks who move in next to a farm and then try to restrict activities because of smell, noise, etc.?



As usual, just my 2 cents.

Mike

I totally agree with you Mike. I have a real problem with people telling me what to do with my land. If somebody wants to not allow hunting on their property its their right. If I want to allow hunting on mine don't tell me I can't. I actually have a lot of respect for some of those groups. Rather than try to use the government to force something down a landowners throat they ponied up and bought the land they wanted to protect.

Shane (also in Ohio)

[Ken Scharabok]

Somewhat put yourself in the place of those who are trying to save some of our environment. Image 200 years from now some of your descendants taking a canoe trip down a once scenic river and seeing nothing on the banks but houses and backyards coming down to the river bank. The fact these groups are acting now, may mean they can virtually see nothing from trees and farmland for long stretches.

In my will development and timber rights on my farm go to a Land Trust while the land itself will go to the county soil conservation agency. They must keep it in sustainable agriculture to the extent possible. The Land Trust could legally prohibit building any structures, even agricultural in nature, if they go beyond sustainable (basically row crop) agriculture. My giving them timber rights will help ensure the land is not commerically cut again. 200 years from now it may one of the few areas left which hasn't been logged on a regular basis. While it will never be 'old growth forest' again, it should be about as close as you can come to recreating it.

Hunting rights (to allow or forbid it) would go to the district.

Ken Scharabok

[Ardie/WI]

As you can see, I live in Wisconsin. Where I live, the hunters park by my barn and walk to their deer stands every year AND they phone and ask if it is okay to do so every year. It's called common courtesy. They also come to my door and ask to come on my land if they shoot an animal and it comes on my land. Again, it's common courtesy. Heck, these guys are my neighbors and I see them in church. They know that they are more than welcome to be on my land, but they ask anyway.

BTW Mikell, your post about sighting in your gun gave me the chills. I was taught to NEVER point a gun at anything I didn't plan on shooting

[Lt. Wombat]

Ardie I think Mikell meant to go shoot at his target thus letting them know a gun is in use nearby.

Back to trespassers:
As of yesterday I am the proud owner of an orange dog collar with an antenna and speaker attached to a black box powered by 4 AA batteries. I keep hoping someone comes looking for it so I can show them the beautiful 90 yard shot I made and their dogs frozen carcass lying right where it fell, more than 1400 feet inside my fence line next to the stock feeder that was in use by the stock at the time.

I am so by the South Dakota Codified laws regarding our lands protection it’s pathetic. Every aspect (signs, gates, locks) is by the book and has been checked by the local sheriff’s department, which is why I have yet to loose when one of these out of state idiots calls the sheriff after I catch them on our land. Sure the deer, elk and antelope are heavy on our land, that’s because we feed and medicate (mineral blocks) them and don’t harass them in the slightest. The deer, elk and antelope are welcome 24/7, the hunters are not welcome at all and never will be.

If hunters want a trophy like we have on our land let them pay $21k an acre and feed them like we do, then they can have all the trophy’s they want. It’s not my fault they choose to spend their money living in the inner city crap holes and don’t have anywhere to hunt!!

[mikell]

[
BTW Mikell, your post about sighting in your gun gave me the chills. I was taught to NEVER point a gun at anything I didn't plan on shooting[/QUOTE]

Didn't say I was shooting at them when through that with the sherriff just sighting in my gun on my property as tresspassers happened to have bad timing.

mikell

[Mike in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ken Scharabok

Somewhat put yourself in the place of those who are trying to save some of our environment. Image 200 years from now some of your descendants taking a canoe trip down a once scenic river and seeing nothing on the banks but houses and backyards coming down to the river bank. The fact these groups are acting now, may mean they can virtually see nothing from trees and farmland for long stretches.

In my will development and timber rights on my farm go to a Land Trust while the land itself will go to the county soil conservation agency. They must keep it in sustainable agriculture to the extent possible. The Land Trust could legally prohibit building any structures, even agricultural in nature, if they go beyond sustainable (basically row crop) agriculture. My giving them timber rights will help ensure the land is not commerically cut again. 200 years from now it may one of the few areas left which hasn't been logged on a regular basis. While it will never be 'old growth forest' again, it should be about as close as you can come to recreating it.

Hunting rights (to allow or forbid it) would go to the district.

Ken Scharabok

Ken,

I understand what you are saying and having seen your place I think it's great that you are looking to have it preserved for the future. I'm not against environmental groups per se. All I was pointing out was that if they own the land (whether bought or donated) it's their choice (within the limits of easements, covenenants or the law) to manage it as they will. I was a little disappointed at the insider dealing at the Nature Conservancy a couple years ago (board members getting to buy land on a favorable basis from the conservancy and build houses).

Mike

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Mike in Ohio

Now wait a second. I don't agree with all the things these groups do, but if they are willing to pay for the land, don't they have the right to control it's use? Why exactly do you care about what they restrict on property they bought and paid for? I'm sure you would be pretty POd if someone tried to tell you you couldn't restrict who came on your land or decided they knew better than you what should be done with it.

I much prefer them putting their money where their mouth is than folks lobbying the government to restrict my rights to my own land. Or what about the folks who move in next to a farm and then try to restrict activities because of smell, noise, etc.?



As usual, just my 2 cents.

Mike

Yeah I am rabid in support of property rights and I do have somewhat mixed feelings about it but these aren't individuals or "people" per se but corporations/organizations with agendas. You can also be sure that once they get a foothold on the land next to yours they will be the first ones in front of the county board with heavily funded lawyers wanting zoning and demanding restrictions what you can do on your land. These lands are more or less forever lost once these loons get a hold of them. The productive farmland, timber, and wildlife are all rendered useless. No management of any kind takes place and things that should be corrected (erosion, invasive species and other hazards) go uncorrected and can have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners. Again, if it was just some guy who bought the property and let it go to h*ll I would say more power to him but I draw the line at lunatic fringe corporations/organizations with agendas.

[Ken Scharabok]

"I was a little disappointed at the insider dealing at the Nature Conservancy a couple years ago (board members getting to buy land on a favorable basis from the conservancy and build houses)."

I would strongly recommend against donating any lands to The Nature Conservancy. To them land is just an asset to be sold or traded as they see fit. They is nothing to prevent them from swapping say a 500 acre farm in Iowa for five acres of endanged rainforest in South America. They are not a Land Trust, but a brokerage with their own agenda.

A couple of years ago a very large area of land on the Tennessee River at KY Lake was donated to The Nature Conservancy. Almost before the ink dried on the transfer documents they sold it to a commercial company for BIG BUCKS as it was prime waterfront land for industry.

Ken Scharabok

[mikell]

Michigan DNR has land for sale




http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...2101--,00.html



mikell