# Grosse Point Park Off-shore Hunting Ban



## LumberJ (Mar 9, 2009)

I just read this article and while I've never hunted down that way, it seems to be a surprising precedent they are trying to set.
Thought you guys might want to get a look at this:

http://grossepointe.patch.com/articles/duck-hunting-off-lakeshore-in-grosse-pointe-park-banned

"Duck hunters will be not be allowed to hunt near the shoreline of Grosse Pointe Park following a decision by the City Council Monday to ban hunters in the waters off of city parks....

The state says hunters cannot fire their weapons within 450 feet of a residence, Hiller said, but there was nothing about parks. He said the hunters he met were licensed and understanding about the concerns but felt they were within their rights to use the lake as they wish.
As it turns out the city is permitted to limit activities within a half-mile of the shore. In addition, a city ordinance forbids firing a firearm, he said."


A half-mile from shore? Really???


----------



## salmonslammer (Jan 28, 2001)

It'll go before the courts.... harisson twp tried to block cotton rd before and they struck it down.

Its just a matter of who will bring the case and the $$ to the table. 

Whole thing seems pretty sketchy to me...



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fsamie1 (Mar 8, 2008)

bunch of layout hunters will be mad. Who is going to enforce it? coast gaurd, DNR, Sheriff???


----------



## idylmoments (Apr 28, 2002)

City of Marysville has said the same thing for years about hunting in the St Clair River. By the letter of the law it is legal. However the police have made it known that they will ticket hunters and make them fight it in court. Our beach is loaded with geese, but across the street are condos and wouldn't make for a pretty sight. No one has attempted to hunt as far as I know. Just not worth the fight.


----------



## Ken Martin (Sep 30, 2003)

780.51 Municipalities; jurisdiction.

Sec. 1.

A city or incorporated village, having a boundary running to the shoreline of any of the Great Lakes or connecting waters, through its peace officers, with or without a pertinent ordinance, may exercise concurrent jurisdiction as to such waters to enforce *any criminal law of this state* applicable to the conduct of persons in, on or over such waters which extend 1/2 mile lakeward from such boundary, but not beyond any interstate or international boundary.

Does it say they can enforce state law or thier ordinaces can extend out into the water?

Ken


----------



## Lvhuntnfish (Sep 2, 2010)

I am born german, came to Michigan in 1998 and got U.S. citizenship 4 years ago.
One major factor that I love it here so much is the freedom one has, the outdoors, fishing and yes,... hunting. 
Got my two kids into hunting and whenever they tell relatives in the "old country" with excitement and pictures their faces light up.

I hope we are not going, where I am coming from.


----------



## LumberJ (Mar 9, 2009)

Ken Martin said:


> 780.51 Municipalities; jurisdiction.
> 
> Sec. 1.
> 
> ...


Excellent point Ken!
From that segment it would sure seem like the enforcement of state laws only.

Based on a commenter of the article, it sounds like enforcement is up to the local PD as the DNR claims it will not ticket: 

"I just spoke with the DNR in Southfield. The ban on hunting is not legal, however, the local ordinance controlling discharge of a firearm in the City limits IS legal. So...no one can discharge a firearm within 1/2 mile of the GPP shoreline. The DNR will not issue tickets on this, but the GPP Police can. A few aggressive hunters have now changed things for all of us down that way. Appreciate the Patch covering this issue...."


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

Let's see what AHartz has to say about this as this prolly affects him...but still, a half mile really isn't that far. Are the layout guys between shore and a half mile??? I thought they'd be further out than that and I'm pretty sure the guys ... end up at least a half mile offshore.

I say line up .5 mile off shore and only shoot towards shore to ensure the sound carries fullest to the phat socialists trying to ban hunting down there


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

ahh...lol that's what I get for reading the article last....Ahartz is like the second comment


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

BangBangBang said:


> Let's see what AHartz has to say about this as this prolly affects him...but still, a half mile really isn't that far. Are the layout guys between shore and a half mile??? I thought they'd be further out than that and I'm pretty sure the guys ....end up at least a half mile offshore.
> 
> I say line up .5 mile off shore and only shoot towards shore to ensure the sound carries fullest to the phat socialists trying to ban hunting down there


Yes this affects me. I predict that this law will be enforced on the guys trying to hunt 5 feet waterward of the boardwalk or similar. layout guys so far out that they can't be yelled at will be left alone, my prediction..

and it isn't a hunting ban, the law is discharging a firearm in the city and up to a 1/2 mile out of the cities borders. But of course they need a boat to get out to the far out guys etc....I am not as fired up on this now as I was at 9:30 this AM....Andy


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

one last comment, they allege guys were basically stepping off ....into the water (I have fished for walleyes here in the same manner) and "hunting" like 5 feet offshore.....while technically legal, that's dumb.

These (lazy, imo) dudes have f'd it up for all the rest cause they just had to hunt 5 feet from the GP soccer moms walking off last nights cocktails at the waterfront park. NOT COOL.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

BangBangBang said:


> one last comment, they allege guys were basically stepping into the water (I have fished for walleyes here in the same manner) and "hunting" like 5 feet offshore.....while technically legal, that's dumb.
> 
> These (lazy, imo) dudes have f'd it up for all the rest cause they just had to hunt 5 feet from the GP soccer moms walking off last nights cocktails at the waterfront park. NOT COOL.


you make walking off last nights cocktails....sound so....seedy....:lol::lol:

and I agree with 100%....guys were walking down the kayak launch and walking out into the lake and hunting...while maybe legal..not cool...


----------



## TheWrench (Jan 29, 2009)

Last time I checked you had to discharge a firearm to hunt ducks. Unless you own a Falcon.... This is a clear cut case of little government trying to enforce stupid ordinances that they put forth due to complaints from people who don't like hunters. 


LumberJ said:


> Excellent point Ken!
> From that segment it would sure seem like the enforcement of state laws only.
> 
> Based on a commenter of the article, it sounds like enforcement is up to the local PD as the DNR claims it will not ticket:
> ...


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

This will never hold up- no matter how they try to sugar coat it. 

The recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling regarding beach walking indicates that all bottomlands boardering the great lakes from the high water mark out are held in public trust. I don't believe there is any court that will allow this puny city council to regulate a resource owned by all the residents of the state.


----------



## TheWrench (Jan 29, 2009)

Marysville and Marine city have the same ordinance. I was one of the fortunate ones who tried hunting there in the past and was severely harassed by the local PD. Its not worth the hassle trust me! The officer was doing his job and kept asking us to come to shore I refused his request until a DNR officer was present he never showed. We didn't launch at the city launch so there was no reason for us to go to shore other than to receive a coupon so like I said the hassle isn't worth it. So we picked up and left. We were totally legal as far as distance goes I had my range finder with me. I called the PD after this all went down and spoke with chief he said there jurisdiction extends to the center of the river. So if we wanted to continue trying to hunt there we will be ticketed and the courts will decide the outcome. If I had the money I would probably fight it tooth and nail unfortunately my income can sustain a court battle against a city.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BIRD BARREL (Aug 14, 2010)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## BIRD BARREL (Aug 14, 2010)

I now for a fact that the D.A of gross point and some of the judges are huge duck hunters see them at harsens island quite often so hopefully their is a chance it gets turn down
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Ken Martin (Sep 30, 2003)

BIRD BARREL said:


> I now for a fact that the D.A of gross point and some of the judges are huge duck hunters *see them at harsens island* quite often so hopefully their is a chance it gets turn down
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


They may have a different opinion when it's thier voting district.

Ken


----------



## Ken Martin (Sep 30, 2003)

The way I would fight it is if the city of Grosse Pointe Park pays *TAXES* on all of those acres one half of a mile into the lake then they can enforce a city ordinance.

Like Al Capone, you can hang them on the taxes.

Ken


----------



## eyecatcher (Feb 2, 2004)

The city of Grosse point tried this back in the early 70s. It was explained to the city manager and city attorny that their city ends at the high water mark. I doubt it would ever stand up in court and I believe any arrest for this would be cause for a law suit against the city. IMHO


----------



## Jewellad (Jan 1, 2012)

As a waterfowl hunter and GP Park resident, I find it repressive that our city goverment can take away our basic civil liberties without discussion and proper notice. Yes it was discussed at the Park City Council Meeting in October 2011, but it was intentionally put on the agenda with little notice when all the hunters in the communtiy were persuing their passion in the fields and waterways around Michigan. Some of the GPP Council members will say that Chief of Police Hiller strong armed them into the decsion, I say baloney, lets hold them respondsible and get this repealed.
I also find it insensitive that the young men who walked into Patterson Park with a gun and duck decoys showed a lack of good judgement and sportsmanship in the spirit of Duck hunting. All you had to do was get in your boat and hunt a hundred feet off shore and we would not be having this discussion. 
Lets keep this discussion actively open. I'm open to suggestions; where does Ducks Unlimited stand on this issue. WE pay thousands of dollars to this orgainization, we need their support and help


----------



## Ken Martin (Sep 30, 2003)

Jewellad said:


> Lets keep this discussion actively open. I'm open to suggestions; *where does Ducks Unlimited stand on this issue. WE pay thousands of dollars to this orgainization, we need their support and help*


Ducks Unlimited is *not* a hunting organization. It is a conservation organization and that is all. You are better served going to the Bluewater Chapter of Michigan Duck Hunters Association. They meet at Perch Point Conservation Club the first Tuesday of the month. Also Delta Waterfowl if there is a local chapter.

Ken


----------



## fishing extreme (Feb 13, 2005)

Ken Martin said:


> 780.51 Municipalities; jurisdiction.
> 
> Sec. 1.
> 
> ...


Am I missing something here, or does this say they may enforce state law out to 1/2 mile off shore?
Last time I checked, it wasn't against state law to hunt ducks on the Great Lakes during duck season...


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

They can enforce a local ordinance within that area which prohibits the discharge of weapons. Same way some cities prohibit bowfishing by enforcing restrictions on using archery equipment within their jurisdictions. 


Posted from my iPhone.


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

Am I missing something? I thought Andy said nothin happened??


----------



## fishing extreme (Feb 13, 2005)

No - it doesn't say they can enforce "any city ordinance", it says they can enforce "any criminal law OF THE STATE". Firearm discharge is not a law of the state.

And, although nothing may have happened, it's good to stay on top of these things for the future, I'm thinking. It's just a matter of time...


----------



## eyecatcher (Feb 2, 2004)

Ken Martin said:


> 780.51 Municipalities; jurisdiction.
> 
> Sec. 1.
> 
> ...


Hunting is not in any way shape or form a criminal offence. As I read this, the city can "enforce any criminal law of this state" violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal offence


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

And as far as I know, local ordinance cannot trump state or federal law. LSC is a public waterway, and I would be curious to know where the city "property" line is in the lake? Likely at the "normal seasonal high water mark". Plus, if LSC is considered part of the Great Lakes, does the recent supreme court decision regarding public access along beaches apply? http://www.mackinac.org/7346

Not like it affects me personally, but this situation really smells to me...

*edit...* Sorry, didn't read all of the posts back far enough to see that some had already posted info about the beachwalking ruling. But I believe there is a legal question about whether LSC is considered a "Great Lake" as discussed in that ruling. Before you bash me and say "of course it is", the reason I say that is I was stopped by the Coast Guard on the St. Clair River each of the last two years for a summer boat safety check, and the officer told me that the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers AND Lake St. Clair are not considered Great Lakes under the Coast Guard regs, and therefore you do not need the additional safety equipment that is required when boating on the "Great Lakes". That really baffled me...I have all the equipment anyway. 

In my mind this issue should be challenged. As I said, it doesn't personally affect me, but if it did, my first call would be to the MUCC. They have staff who constantly battle legislators over issues like this, so I would think they would be concerned about a local government overreaching their authority. It's worth a phone call or email.


----------



## Blacklab77 (Jun 21, 2006)

"The courts ruling now exposes Great Lakes waterfront landowners to new risks and intrusions. Do the landowners have a duty to make the area beneath the high-water mark safe for walkers or wheelchair users? UM no just like they don't have to remove big boulders that would hurt my boat if I was on the water when it up to the high water mark. You use the area at your own risk.Can people fish all day below the high-water mark?" Sure can. Just like they could fish from any boat all day, or any pier, dam, bridge that allows this, and they are within the season, bag limit, rules applied to for what they are fishing for.
[/COLOR] 

Its like ice fishing, as long as they enter the area (IE- ICE) from a public or private owned property they have permission once they hit the ice there is little you can do to force them to leave from fishing in front of your house. Except to call the DNR have a CO come out and check them out an pray they have something wrong.

Just my thought on the whole thing. 

**GPP wants to do the 1/2 mile thing. After speaking with a few people sounds like the general dealing with hunters will be those that are reachable by land (IE) you walk in and out from shore will be dealt with (How not sure- They may just ask you to leave), those in layout boats, may get the coasts called but they mentioned they are going to do there standard safety check an send you on your way if nothing is wrong.


** (FROM BEFORE THANKGIVING) This is word of mouth statements from 3 coast guard guys I know and 1 GPP officer, It by no means reflects either departments policies.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I have to get to a computer. Just got off the phone with the court here. I'll write an explanation as to how it works. 


Posted from my iPhone.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Sep 6, 2010)

So what you're all saying is the Buffy and Bentley don't want hunting outside their picture window.... :evilsmile


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I specifically contacted our court reference this thread. All the systems are going to be pretty much the same as far as adopting ordinances go. For starters violating a municipal ordinance where the violation of the supporting statute is a misdemeanor (or worse) and the penalty of the ordinance is also a misdemeanor is a "crime" in the state of Michigan. If a municipality wants to they can make the penalty less, but I think the max is 90 days/$500. Some places, possession of marijuana, if written by a city or ordinance officer under an ordinance violation is only a civil infraction. They can choose to charge the violation under the civil infraction ordinance or under the misdemeanor state law.

First thing a municipality will do is determine what exactly they want to do, in this case prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within the boundaries of their city. The second thing they have to do is find a state law that would be in line with that violation. They couldn't choose a misdemeanor uttering/publishing state law vioaltion (for instance) to enact an ordinance pertaining to firearm discharge.

For example, the city of Bad Axe has a similar ordinance, no discharging a firearm in the city limits. They did their research and their city attorney used the state law of brandishing a firearm in public to incorporate the violation of discharging a firearm in the city. They can then enforce that ordinance, which carries the weight of state law, out into the boundary waters 1/2 mile under the home rule city act. If interested, someone could call into their city hall/police department and ask them what the underlying statute was used to write their ordinance. If it a law that is till on the books than they can do it. They can only write an ordinance that has a state law associated with it, hence violating a law of the State of Michigan.

They cannot directly write an ordinance that has anything to do with hunting regulations, but they can write an ordinance which regulates "shooting" within their jurisdiction.

I did find this interesting though researching the brandishing law in Michigan - 
*750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.* 

Sec. 234e.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
*(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:*
(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
*(b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.*
(c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
(d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

It would be interesting to know how a challenge to that ordinance would go *if they too used the brandishing law as their supporting ordinance*.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

thanks DS...I hope this issue can now rest.....Andy


----------



## Jewellad (Jan 1, 2012)

Thank you guys for the comments.... I'll talk to the GPP Cheif of Police and City Attorney and see if Brandishing Law is basis of ordinance and keep everyone informed.


----------



## Jewellad (Jan 1, 2012)

I think this issue can rest


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

Jewellad said:


> I think this issue can rest


lol..ok 3 and out then  wonder what changed from post number 2 ?


----------

