# Locked Blind



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Lamarsh said:


> none of this really matters because most of us sportsman don't care (i.e., if I saw some guy's blind set up on public property, even though I know I can legally hunt IN "HIS" BLIND, I wouldn't do that, and I think most guys are the same way).


I think most guys aren't this way. I can think of many times when a group has had a successful morning and shot their limit or close to it. As soon as they leave another party moves right into that blind. There have been popular blinds in the past that I have seen parties race to in the dark on the bay.

Deer hunting probably not nearly as much but duck hunters use other people's blinds often.

Maybe if we talk about this enough we will eventually get clarity on the subject.


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

DirtySteve said:


> I think most guys aren't this way. I can think of many times when a group has had a successful morning and shot their limit or close to it. As soon as they leave another party moves right into that blind. There have been popular blinds in the past that I have seen parties race to in the dark on the bay.
> 
> Deer hunting probably not nearly as much but duck hunters use other people's blinds often.
> 
> Maybe if we talk about this enough we will eventually get clarity on the subject.


I have contacted the DNR and told them that the lack of clarity (rather, lack of any reg whatsoever, when there is a reg regarding the great lakes) has caused a lot of confusion. Apparently my efforts have been futile. Not surprising in the least bit. I've even told them to peek around these forums if they want to easily see what the confusion is. 

As far as guys showing up to a blind when others are done hunting, there is nothing wrong with that. Not sure I'd care to do that, but that's irrelevant. There's also nothing wrong with finding a blind before dawn that doesn't have anybody in it, and hunting from it. If it's a new blind, with names written on it, and there's plenty of other places to hunt, is it sort of a dick move? I'd say so. And I'll also say most duck hunters I know who got there first would simply scoot over and say hey man, no need to argue about it, why don't we just hunt together. But in the scenario where a guy shows up second with another party in a blind they built, regardless of whether its in the great lakes or inland public property, there is no legal recourse for the guy who shows up second. In this hypo, many on here have suggested that the guy showing up second could just set up in front of the guy who sat in his blind first, but then questions of hunter harassment come into play, and the can of worms have been opened!


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

DirtySteve said:


> I have read your opinions on this before. You are correct there is a lack of clarity on the subject. I also understand your point. The fact that the law calls out the great lakes differently implies that other state lands are not first come first serve. I agree with you that legally this isn't correct....but ask majority of CO's out there and they will not agree with you. Telling someone otherwise is putting them at risk of a ticket and a battle with a judge that very likely won't agree with you either.


Just curious what could they write you a ticket for? Trespassing on public land? We're is occupying a blind on public land defined as trespassing? The lack of calling the use of a blind as first come first use, doesn't create a trespassing offense.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

The way I was told is that if it's a floating blind and registered it is considered private property. True?


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

A floating blind that is registered is a boat, that would be like boarding someone's boat. I'm referring to a fixed blind.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

Lamarsh said:


> If you guys are talking about others not having the right to use the blind itself, that is essentially claiming an exclusive right to hunt in that precise spot. Of course, you can set up next to, behind or in front of the blind, and, as a practical matter, none of this really matters because most of us sportsman don't care (i.e., if I saw some guy's blind set up on public property, even though I know I can legally hunt IN "HIS" BLIND, I wouldn't do that, and I think most guys are the same way).
> 
> But if the question is whether you can build, for example, a 4'x8' box blind, and stake a private and exclusive claim to those 32 square feet of public land (i.e., only the blind builder can set foot in that blind), I think the answer is no.


In my case, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Once again, I am comparing it to my car. If my car is parked in a legal spot on a public street, you cannot simultaneously park your car in that spot, nor can you climb inside and live in my car, whether I am personally present or not. The spot does not belong to me, but the car does, You can drive past my car, or park next to/in front of/behind my car, but you will have to wait until I move my car from that spot before you can occupy that precise spot. Many parking zones have time limits on how long you can leave a car parked in one place. Same for these blinds. They cannot be built before "x" date, and must be removed "x" days after the season closes. During that time, the blind (my property, not public), is legally occupying those 32 square feet.


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

craigrh13 said:


> The way I was told is that if it's a floating blind and registered it is considered private property. True?


that is true... that is why the 'owner' has the right to move the blind at any time... with or without hunters in it....


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

There have been numerous posts and arguments about this topic on this site for years now. Conservation Officers who are members here have chimed in. Do a search. There is an answer, many do not like what it is, because it seems counter intuitive. Here is what I will say to the original poster: If you feel the blind you saw is illegal because it is locked - and it's important to you - report it. See what happens. If it is properly labeled with the owners name, a C.O. could check on it and call the owner - but he won't, because legally there's nothing he can do. If it were on the Great Lakes, the answer would be different. There are those here who will disagree with me. That's fine. Again, it seems counter intuitive, and I myself wish the law were different. Make the call. See what happens. Then you'll know for sure....


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

But if you are in such a blind what are they going to ticket you for?

And a car is a big difference, it's titled and registered property.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Well, if you are in such a blind, they might ticket you for breaking the lock.... And a properly labeled blind isn't such a big difference from a car. While it is not "titled," it is registered personal property. There are lots of laws that are disagreeable. This is one of them. Riparian rights are another. Just because what the law says doesn't seem right does not mean it is not the law....


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

Putting a name and address on something does not mean it's registered.

And where is the law that says it's illegal to occupy a blind with someone else's name on it. Again what would they write a ticket for.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

pinman said:


> But if you are in such a blind what are they going to ticket you for?
> 
> And a car is a big difference, it's titled and registered property.


I don't know what they would ticket you for. I guess it depends on how creative they wanted to be. Maybe trespassing on private property? (I'm talking about the blind, not the land under it) Or, if the occupants won't yield occupancy to the real owner, how about theft of personal property? Like I said, I don't know. But I don't think a car's title and registration are the only things making it personal property. A woman's purse is not titled and registered, but that doesn't mean anyone can just walk up and take it. It is her personal property and the grabber could be charged with theft. The state requires the builder to label the blind with his I.D. in 3" letters, or something like that. If the blind's lack of title and registration means it is not personal property, does that mean it would be perfectly legal to destroy it or carry it out of the woods and sell it? I think not. Title and registration or not, I think the car analogy is plausible.


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

That's my point, they would have to get creative, as there is no law against sitting in such a blind. To get a trespassing ticket land needs to be posted or meet other requirements, don't think it would stand in this case. Theft doesn't really apply if all you are doing is sitting in it.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

The lawbooks are filled with ambiguities. That doesn't mean we can just do as we please without consequence. I don't think there is a law _explicitly_ forbidding me from sitting in a woman's purse, but I suspect I might get into a bit of a jam if I grab a woman's purse, dump out the contents, sit in it, then refuse to move, even if I haven't technically _stolen_ anything. Ambiguous laws are argued about in court all the time, and the verdict can go different ways each time, depending upon the judge's philosophical leanings or even his/her mood on that particular day. As luck would have it, it is not really up to us here on the duck hunting forum to make these calls. Just for the record, I neither build nor hunt from blinds on public or private property; I'm an open-water diver hunter. I just joined in the discussion to point out what I feel is a plausible interpretation of the rule.


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

You kind of stole the purse when you took it from her. Now if you find a empty purse on public land sit away.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

The Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair are public bottomlands held in trust for the citizens by the state of Mich., hence the first come first serve rule. 

Rivers are privately owned to the centerline of the river by the adjacent landowners. Blinds on rivers sit on private land. you cannot even float hunt a river unless BOTH sides are owned by DNR, Forest Service etc....

So yes a blind can be locked on rivers.......andy


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I us hangon stands on public land, I tabs welded on both halves so I can fold it up and slap a lock on it rendering it unusable for anyone who does not have a key. If you cut my lock off that is destruction of real property.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

ahartz said:


> The Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair are public bottomlands held in trust for the citizens by the state of Mich., hence the first come first serve rule.
> 
> Rivers are privately owned to the centerline of the river by the adjacent landowners. Blinds on rivers sit on private land. you cannot even float hunt a river unless BOTH sides are owned by DNR, Forest Service etc....
> 
> So yes a blind can be locked on rivers.......andy


That is true, but I think we were talking about a blind on _pubic_ land other than the Great Lakes, such as where a river runs through a state forest or something like that. At least, that's how I read it.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

pinman said:


> You kind of stole the purse when you took it from her. Now if you find a empty purse on public land sit away.


Oh, no, you misunderstood. I didn't grab it _from her_, I just grabbed it off the public picnic table where she "left it lying around" when she turned around to tend to her baby in a stroller. There's no law _explicitly_ against that, is there? OK, I'm being silly now, but this whole discussion has been getting silly for awhile now. Let's face it, the public property blind law is, indeed, a bit ambiguous, and there is a valid argument to be made on either side of the discussion. I don't think it is nearly as clear as some of these guys think it is. Oh, and I still think the parked car analogy is a pretty good one.


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

I agree it isn't real clear, but that's why I find it hard to believe you would get a ticket or that it would stick. If your cutting locks or destroying it all bets are off.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

plugger said:


> I us hangon stands on public land, I tabs welded on both halves so I can fold it up and slap a lock on it rendering it unusable for anyone who does not have a key. If you cut my lock off that is destruction of real property.


If your not in it, It could be considered abandoned. Could be considered as an attractive nuisance as well - while it usually applies to children, you're liable If I'm injured falling from your stand or blind. Hypotheticals, but those are a couple things that could certainly happen.

Bottom line. You can't simply claim public land as your own. A CO might write, but it's up to the prosecutor to decide to try the case, and a judge certainly isn't going to rule against public use of public property.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

a blind on public land is first come first served period.

you can be ticketed for hunting a blind with no name on it .

a registeted boat can be anchored used as a blind provided it is not blocking a navagational channel it can be left and is private property


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

TNL said:


> If your not in it, It could be considered abandoned. Could be considered as an attractive nuisance as well - you're liable If I'm injured falling from your stand or blind. Hypotheticals, but those are a couple things that could certainly happen.
> 
> Bottom line. You can't simply claim public land as your own. A CO might write, but it's up to the prosecutor to decide to try the case, and a judge certainly isn't going to rule against public use of public property.



There are a couple of separate issues here: First is the issue of whether it's abandoned. A properly labeled blind cannot be considered abandoned unless it is outside of the dates that blinds are allowed on public property. The second issue is occupancy. If the blind is not locked then nothing prevents someone from using (occupying) that blind - the question is whether they have a right to do so; and this leads to the third issue, which is the lock. If the law is actually that "any" blind on "any" public land may be occupied by "any" member of the public, then a lock preventing that from happening should be illegal. If, on the other hand, the blind is truly private property then there is no issue with the lock, and no issue with preventing another person from using the blind. So which is it?

The reason behind labeling a blind is so that it is removed after the close of the season - so that it does not permanently occupy public property, and the owner can be persuaded to remove it or fined if there is a failure to comply with the law. However, just the fact that it is on public property does not necessarily confer the right to public use. Let's say you drive your ATV out into State Forest land and then park it and walk a mile to your hunting area. If I happen upon it, and you're not around, I don't have the right to sit on it - even though it is on public property. Even if you leave it there for a week, it's still yours, and the property it is sitting on is still public. If at a certain point the State feels you've abandoned it, they can use the labeling on it (the license) to contact you and demand you remove it, or have it moved and find you liable for the cost of its removal. At no point in this process does it become mine to touch, take, or use. And at no point have you actually "claimed" that the land it is sitting on is yours - it is just temporarily occupied by something that you own. What makes a blind any different?

Just for the record, I hunt mostly out of my boat, and am not typically in areas where marsh blinds are built or used. The way the law reads on blinds is unfortunate, so again I'm saying: If the blind in question is on public property, make the call and see what happens. The blind will stay where it is, and the lock will stay on it. And at the end of the season, it had better be removed from public land!


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

walleyeman2006 said:


> a blind on public land is first come first served period.


If the law stated it like you just did then we would have nothing to talk about. Unfortunately that's not how the law reads..... I wish it did.

I've got a friend who is 100% certain that as long as he is 450ft off of a private property shoreline in a lake that he is legally allowed to hunt there. Another law that, unfortunately, doesn't read like that. I wish it did - it's a killer spot. One of these days, he's going to find out he was mistaken....


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

You present a good argument Shlwego. For the most part, I agree with it. I am loathe to compare blinds to any other property. The intent of the blind's placement is to hunt from there. Leaving it at a particular spot on public land is claiming that area as your own. I would have no problem hunting out of it. 

I came across a deer blind in the UP some years ago that was an engineering marvel. The locked blind was placed at the exact center of 6 shooting lanes going out like a wagon spokes for 250 yards. These spokes had to be surveyed before the lanes were cut on State land. They were 6 lanes every 30* for 180* view. The only way you could see all 6 lanes was to be in that blind with your head in an imaginary 12" box. If your head wasn't there, you could only see maybe 3 at a time. This guy tied up at least 30 acres with that blind (of course, not to mention that cutting shooting lanes is a no-no.). You could actually see it from Google Earth. He doesn't own that 12" box and shouldn't be allowed to keep it from the public.

That being said, I like to think I'm a gentleman hunter and would probably vacate any blind on public land if the rightful owner showed up. I assume this situation will have to be addressed at some point with the DNR Commission as competition heats up for public spots.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

walleyeman2006 said:


> a registeted boat can be anchored used as a blind provided it is not blocking a navagational channel it can be left and is private property



Can be left for 24 hrs. No different than leaving a car on the side of the road.


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

Tavor said:


> I don't know what they would ticket you for. I guess it depends on how creative they wanted to be. Maybe trespassing on private property? (I'm talking about the blind, not the land under it) Or, if the occupants won't yield occupancy to the real owner, how about theft of personal property? Like I said, I don't know. But I don't think a car's title and registration are the only things making it personal property. A woman's purse is not titled and registered, but that doesn't mean anyone can just walk up and take it. It is her personal property and the grabber could be charged with theft. The state requires the builder to label the blind with his I.D. in 3" letters, or something like that. If the blind's lack of title and registration means it is not personal property, does that mean it would be perfectly legal to destroy it or carry it out of the woods and sell it? I think not. Title and registration or not, I think the car analogy is plausible.


Tavor, I like how you are getting into the nitty gritty of analogies. That is a good way to use logic to break this down, and think outside the box. However, I will say, that the car and purse analogy is not a great one because that is likely classified as a trespass to chattels (personal property, not real property), whereas the issue we're really talking about is real property (land). But it does raise the question, if a legal blind has a floor, does that make it personal property, and therefore anybody who steps into the legal blind is committing a trespass to the owner's chattel? All interesting questions, and more the reason why the DNR and state needs to promulgate some rules on this.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

DirtySteve said:


> Can be left for 24 hrs. No different than leaving a car on the side of the road.


explain how people dock boats on public waters in front of homes and cabins then? sorry but there is no 24 hour law


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

the law doesnt state blinds placed on public lands can be used by the first to occupie said blind that day? ....as per your safety zone comment unless your on a lake thats not state owned 450 ft applies township or county ordinances dont apply on the greatlakes


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

walleyeman2006 said:


> the law doesnt state blinds placed on public lands can be used by the first to occupie said blind that day? ....as per your safety zone comment unless your on a lake thats not state owned 450 ft applies township or county ordinances dont apply on the great lakes


Correct: The law DOESN'T state that blinds placed on public land can be used by the first to occupy said blind that day. It only states that about blinds on the Great Lakes. Perhaps the law should read differently. 

My 450' comment was not about a safety zone, it was about private property riparian rights and how far they extend offshore on an inland lake. But I'm not going to open that can of worms any further here. The reason I mentioned it was merely to illustrate that many times what people think the law states and what it actually states are not the same thing.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

lol you need to read general game laws as those rules apply to all hunting blinds......first come first comle first served
my phone is giving me fits.
but riprian rights are simple and clear thete is no grey area on hunting blinds on public land in michigan


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

i was questioning why you missed the law not openning this up for you to farther confuse anyone...ive had this discussion with more then one co and gotten the same answere everytime


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

walleyeman2006 said:


> lol you need to read general game laws as those rules apply to all hunting blinds......first come first come first served


OK, now you read them. The laws do apply to all hunting blinds, but having said that, the laws treat ground blinds and waterfowl blinds differently with regards to "first come first served." Here they are:

*2.9 “Ground blind” defined; requirements to use, occupy, place, build, construct, or maintain a ground blind on publicly owned lands; use or placement of blind does not convey exclusive hunting right....*

*(3) This section shall not apply to blinds constructed and used for taking waterfowl *as described in section 3.401* or structures constructed by a public agency upon lands administered by that public agency*.*


**3.401 Waterfowl hunting blinds; erection and removal, name and address; assessment of costs; hunting rights.*

Sec. 3.401 (1) No person shall erect on, anchor, or attach to the bottomlands of the Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, and the bays thereof or the connecting waters between the lakes, or any public inland lake or river, or in any lake which is not wholly owned by himself, his lessor or licensor, a blind or any other structure used or to be used in the hunting of migratory waterfowl, unless there shall first be affixed permanently to the exterior thereof the name and address of such person in legible letters of water insoluble material not less than 3 inches in height. No person shall affix a fictitious name or address or both to a blind or structure or remove or cause to be removed a name and address prior until the blind or structure is removed from the water. No person shall erect on, anchor, or attach to the bottomlands described in this subsection a blind or any other structure to be used in the hunting of migratory waterfowl prior to August 15 of each year.

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to deprive a riparian owner or their lessee or permittee on inland waters of their exclusive right to hunt over the riparian's subaqueous lands, nor shall the posting of the name and address of the person erecting a blind or other structure attached to the bottomlands of *the Great Lakes and LakeSt. Clair,* used or to be used in the hunting of waterfowl, be deemed to constitute the exclusive privilege of hunting therefrom, or to reserve or preempt a shooting location for such person, nor shall such blind be locked to bar use when unoccupied. An unoccupied blind attached to the bottomlands of the *Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair* may be used for hunting by the first person to occupy the same.

If you want to go to my source, you'll find it here: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366_37141-120756--,00.html

Esssentially what this means is that the laws for waterfowl blinds over bottomlands, i.e. over water, are _different_ than the laws for ground blinds. The *only* waterfowl blinds constructed over bottomlands that _may not be locked_ (i.e. kept private) are the ones located on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair. All others may be legally locked. Note, though, that if a waterfowl blind is constructed on land, it is considered a "ground blind" and may not be locked and is first come first served. The key word is "bottomlands." It has to be constructed over water for you to be legally able to lock it. 

If you still think ALL blinds on public property are first come first served, show me where in the laws it says exactly that. Again, I'm not saying this is a _good_ law, but it is - in fact - the law. Perhaps it should be changed.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

and there you have it.....done......


----------



## pinman (Feb 2, 2012)

Except nowhere does it suggest that by placing a blind on public waters you have ownership of that spot.

Section 3 that you suggest gives you that right by only saying the great lakes and lake St Clair, is dealing with riparian rights. It is stating that the riparian rights exist on all water except the great lakes and lake St Clair. So if you own land on lake St Clair and build a blind on water in front of it, it's still open to the first person. This does not need to be stated on public land because the riparian ownership is already public.


----------



## fsamie1 (Mar 8, 2008)

In Summary, great lakes and LSC first come first serve and you cannot lock it. If floating blind, owner can come and tow it away with you in it?? Sorry, I do not want to read 55 postings, is this correct?? Forget the law, 5 am in the morning, be ready for confrontation. Do not try to do first come first serve for fish point lodge blinds out in the bay. Also, blinds in wildfowl bay setup by locals.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

pinman said:


> Except nowhere does it suggest that by placing a blind on public waters you have ownership of that spot.
> 
> Section 3 that you suggest gives you that right by only saying the great lakes and lake St Clair, is dealing with riparian rights. It is stating that the riparian rights exist on all water except the great lakes and lake St Clair. So if you own land on lake St Clair and build a blind on water in front of it, it's still open to the first person. This does not need to be stated on public land because the riparian ownership is already public.


Ownership of the spot is not in question. Ownership is not conferred or even implied merely by occupancy. No one who places a blind over publicly owned bottomland claims ownership of the land itself. What's in question is ownership of a properly labeled blind that is temporarily occupying a piece of public property. The blind is "owned" by the labeling party. In the case of a waterfowl blind temporarily occupying a space over the bottomlands of public property that is not on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, the law does not prohibit a lock and the implications that a lock implies. Does this mean that it temporarily "locks up" a piece of public property? Yes, unfortunately, it does. Just like the parked ATV in my previous post locks up a small piece of the forest floor. Nothing prevents setting up right next to it, but the law does not explicitly prohibit putting a lock on it. The section of the law referenced above that provides public access and prohibits locks on blinds is Section 2.9; and subsection (3) of that section exempts waterfowl blinds completely from the regulations of Section 2.9, giving their regulation in its entirety to Section 3.401. Section 3.401 does not explicitly prohibit locks on all blinds over public bottomland property, only those over the bottomlands of the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair. Like virtually all regulations, anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed.


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

Shlwego you are right and posting facts. Problem is the guys who hunt and post on this thread say "Forget the law". And be ready for "confrontation" at your blind. The types of guys who post stuff like this are a disgrace to hunting and seriously ruin the sport because of their attitude. Shelwego, I suggest you give up trying to persuade the guys on here that won't follow the law. Leave them alone and give them room when you run into them in the field. I had the exact same battle last fall that you're going through now on this thread. Most just don't care about the rules!!!! Sad


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

Ps watch the responses to my last post and you will learn a lot about who you are trying to persuade


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

Shlwego said:


> Ownership of the spot is not in question. Ownership is not conferred or even implied merely by occupancy. No one who places a blind over publicly owned bottomland claims ownership of the land itself. What's in question is ownership of a properly labeled blind that is temporarily occupying a piece of public property. The blind is "owned" by the labeling party. In the case of a waterfowl blind temporarily occupying a space over the bottomlands of public property that is not on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, the law does not prohibit a lock and the implications that a lock implies. Does this mean that it temporarily "locks up" a piece of public property? Yes, unfortunately, it does. Just like the parked ATV in my previous post locks up a small piece of the forest floor. Nothing prevents setting up right next to it, but the law does not explicitly prohibit putting a lock on it. The section of the law referenced above that provides public access and prohibits locks on blinds is Section 2.9; and subsection (3) of that section exempts waterfowl blinds completely from the regulations of Section 2.9, giving their regulation in its entirety to Section 3.401. Section 3.401 does not explicitly prohibit locks on all blinds over public bottomland property, only those over the bottomlands of the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair. Like virtually all regulations, anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed.


I love this succinct summary of the reg's and their nuances. Are you an attorney Shlwego??..
We are done now right???....


----------



## Full Auto (Feb 23, 2010)

So was anyone going to answer the question?


----------



## fsamie1 (Mar 8, 2008)

Well Blackduckkilla, I was not saying to break the law. I was saying try to explain the law to a few mad hunters 5 in the morning while they are swearing/beating you out of their blind. You will be 100 percent legal with a black eye. Been there, done that in my younger years. I am older and think a little wise and do not really want anyone's blind that bad. Just going out there to have fun.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

walleyeman2006 said:


> explain how people dock boats on public waters in front of homes and cabins then? sorry but there is no 24 hour law


We are not talking about docking a boat in front of a cabin. docks on great lakes can legally be left if proper rules are applied. There are regs provided by DEQ and they are different for inland lakes and great lakes.

We are talking about leaving a registered boat on a lake or river where the bottom rights are owned by the state. You can leave it for 24 hrs without permission from the state. 

http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/IC3003-2_Harbor_BAS_Land_Rules_452670_7.pdf
*
GENERAL RULES


R 299.922

(w) Store or leave a watercraft,

or other property on state-owned land


for more than 24 hours.



This particular instance I believe is referencing dry land but there are several places in our laws that refer leaving a registered boat. It doesn't matter if it is a car, boat, snowmobile or camper. you can't leave it on the side of the road, woods or floating in water unoccupied without permission or proper paperwork from the state. after 24 hrs it is considered abandonment and you could be subject to pay fines or removal fees. 


*


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Blackduckkilla, thanks. I've been on here for years, I know how things go. Sometimes I just can't help it though. And I try to keep it civil - I'm not into name calling. We're all in it to hunt waterfowl, and hopefully do it within the law. So at least that - hopefully - we can all agree on. Andy, I'm not an attorney, though sometimes I think like one; and, yeah, I think I'm done with this one....


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

for the love of god you guys ate that far lost on fighting things.....your talking to someone who worked for the dnr and had the brains to ask questions....the law states blindes canbe left between dates...it doesnt say a blind cant be on a registered watercraft.....stop playing lawyer stary helping people loooking at how to do things right


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

i have no spell check and no way to edit .......so deal with it....ive asked these same questions to co s and dnr management at shiawassee nayanquing and fish point...these are the guys who use common sense and tru to make this easy on us...


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

if anyone wants to go shoot birds and argue...im up for that...ask your local co get answeres that matter...


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

walleyeman2006 said:


> if anyone wants to go shoot birds and argue...im up for that...ask your local co get answeres that matter...



Have you been following this thread?

The issue is that people have asked their local CO and gotten different opinions with these issues. There are many laws/rules that CO'S have been wrong on. That is why we have the ability to take it to a judge.

You are correct that the the law doesn't state a blind can't be on a registered boat. The law does state however that you can't leave a registered boat on state land for more than 24 hrs. I wouldn't doubt at all that a dnr officer incorrectly told you that you can.


Nice chatting with you.


----------



## lasalleman (Jan 27, 2011)

This may have already been addressed... But what about a blind built on private waterfrontage on the Great Lakes ?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

lasalleman said:


> This may have already been addressed... But what about a blind built on private waterfrontage on the Great Lakes ?



On great lakes is first come first serve. With Private land water frontage on great lakes the land owner doesn't own the bottom rights to the great lakes the state does. On inland lakes the land owner owns bottom rights. There is a sticky at the top of this forum about riparian rights in mighigan....there is also alot of information on the dnr website.


----------



## The Fishing Pollock (May 9, 2006)

The only time I can see where a blind ot the great lakes is " yours" only to use is if you build it above the high water mark. Which is where great lakes waterfront owners property ends. I would assume if you are behind the highwater mark that is private property. Below the highwater mark, it's anyones game.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

The Fishing Pollock said:


> The only time I can see where a blind ot the great lakes is " yours" only to use is if you build it above the high water mark. Which is where great lakes waterfront owners property ends. I would assume if you are behind the highwater mark that is private property. Below the highwater mark, it's anyones game.


Another situation that would create an essentially private blind on the Great Lakes would be when the landowner's dwelling is less than 150 yards from the blind. Without permission, nobody else could hunt from the blind, even if it's out on the water.


----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

Tavor said:


> Another situation that would create an essentially private blind on the Great Lakes would be when the landowner's dwelling is less than 150 yards from the blind. Without permission, nobody else could hunt from the blind, even if it's out on the water.


Although, I think, they just passed a law that removes the 450' rule for BOWHUNTING, So you just have to go Robin Hood on them ducks.


----------

