# "Permanent Blinds on Public Water"



## Dutchlund (Apr 8, 2008)

I know what the law says about blinds on inland lakes. They must have the name and address of the owner in 3" letters. etc. etc. But the law also says that they must be removed by Jan 16 and not installed before Aug 15. The law also says that it is illegal to "use or occupy a blind on the waters of the state that does not comply with the marking and placement requirements."

My question is this...We all know of permanent blinds (with no names ore addresses on them) that have been constructed and are left up all year, and typically enhanced periodically. Has anyone ever gotten in trouble for "using or occupying" such a blind? And does everyone agree that these are "first come first served" since they don't comply with the marking requirements?


----------



## flighthunter (Nov 21, 2005)

I've hunted from a couple of these blinds you speak of, never got in trouble or never came across another hunter trying to use the blind. The blinds were along a shore line and there for several years based on google/bing map images.


----------



## BVG (Nov 18, 2004)

Never been checked while on one.

I can tell you:
If you properly label it.
Leave it out too long after the season.
The DNR will show up at your door and tell you to get it off the water ASAP or get a ticket.

Happened to my brother in law.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Dutchlund said:


> I know what the law says about blinds on inland lakes. They must have the name and address of the owner in 3" letters. etc. etc. But the law also says that they must be removed by Jan 16 and not installed before Aug 15. The law also says that it is illegal to "use or occupy a blind on the waters of the state that does not comply with the marking and placement requirements."
> 
> My question is this...We all know of permanent blinds (with no names ore addresses on them) that have been constructed and are left up all year, and typically enhanced periodically. Has anyone ever gotten in trouble for "using or occupying" such a blind? And does everyone agree that these are "first come first served" since they don't comply with the marking requirements?


Not sure I understand what you're asking...i.e. "trouble"? Are you asking if anyone has ever had a LEO find them in such a blind and ticket them for the blind not being properly labeled/identified?

And regarding the last line of your post, on public property blinds are first come, first served....period, no matter if they are marked or not. In other words, you cannot lay "claim" to a spot on public property by placing a blind and calling it your own property. While it may not be the smart or ethical thing to do, if I beat you to it, I legally can stay there. The marking requirement is in the law to identify who to go after if there are legal issues, such as it not being taken down after the season as required.


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

Just ducky, as a law abiding blind builder who follows all the laws your first sentence of the last paragraph is incorrect. On in land waters not attached to the Great Lakes the blind is not first come first serve. The blind belongs to the person who legally built it. Lets just say I show up late, say 7:30, to hunt my blind and someone else is in my legal blind, that has been there since 6:00, they must leave. It is not first come first serve on in land lakes. I show up early but have talked with a CO officer who confirms this issue.
#1 *You may not erect or use a hunting blind on any public waters without
permanently affixing to the exterior, in waterproof letters not less than three
inches high, the name and address of the person who placed it there. *Any*
*unoccupied blind on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair may be used by the first*
*person to occupy it each day*.

#2 * You may not use or occupy a blind on the waters of the state that does not
comply with marking and placement requirements.
 
Per the original post the digest says you cannot hunt a blind which does not fit the legal requirements. I came to this conclusion based on the copied information from the digest right above this comment #2

Copied from the waterfowl digest for Michigan


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

just ducky said:


> And regarding the last line of your post, on public property blinds are first come, first served....period, no matter if they are marked or not. In other words, you cannot lay "claim" to a spot on public property by placing a blind and calling it your own property. While it may not be the smart or ethical thing to do, if I beat you to it, I legally can stay there. The marking requirement is in the law to identify who to go after if there are legal issues, such as it not being taken down after the season as required.


I don't think it's unethical to step into any blind on public property. I think it's silly for somebody to think they're staking any claim to public lands just by building a blind. People that want to spend resources to reserve a place to hunt should rent private land or get permission to hunt there.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

blackduckkilla said:


> Just ducky, as a law abiding blind builder who follows all the laws your first sentence of the last paragraph is incorrect. On in land waters not attached to the Great Lakes the blind is not first come first serve. The blind belongs to the person who legally built it. Lets just say I show up late, say 7:30, to hunt my blind and someone else is in my legal blind, that has been there since 6:00, they must leave. It is not first come first serve on in land lakes. I show up early but have talked with a CO officer who confirms this issue.


You may want to check this carefully.
The bottom lands of many inland waterways are subject to riparian rights. I am pretty certain that a blind built on publicly owned bottom lands is public whether it is located on an inland body of water or on the Great Lakes. I do not think that you can go into a lake in a state game area in Michigan and claim to own that piece of public property for the duration of waterfowl season.

A blind built on privately owned bottom lands is private property.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

I think I gotta go with Blackduckkilla on this. The guide is pretty specific. It says: "*Any
**unoccupied blind on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair may be used by the first*
*person to occupy it each day*." Why be so specific about where an unoccupied blind can be used? It must be because there are places where that is NOT the case. Note that it very clearly does NOT say "any unoccupied blind on any State owned property." Why? Because it does not mean to say "any unoccupied blind on any State owned property."

If the intent was for the public to be able to occupy any blinds on state land, don't you think they'd have been clear about it and acutally said "all state land?" They did NOT say this, so I believe that if you properly label a blind on State land other than the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, that blind is yours - to the point that you could put a lock on the door. I am not saying this would be a good idea, but I believe you would be fully within your rights. And I would be fully within my rights to sit right next to it and ruin your hunt - provided I was hunting too.


----------



## carsonr2 (Jan 15, 2009)

Shlwego said:


> I think I gotta go with Blackduckkilla on this. The guide is pretty specific. It says: "*Any
> **unoccupied blind on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair may be used by the first*
> *person to occupy it each day*." Why be so specific about where an unoccupied blind can be used? It must be because there are places where that is NOT the case. Note that it very clearly does NOT say "any unoccupied blind on any State owned property." Why? Because it does not mean to say "any unoccupied blind on any State owned property."
> 
> If the intent was for the public to be able to occupy any blinds on state land, don't you think they'd have been clear about it and acutally said "all state land?" They did NOT say this, so I believe that if you properly label a blind on State land other than the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, that blind is yours - to the point that you could put a lock on the door. I am not saying this would be a good idea, but I believe you would be fully within your rights. And I would be fully within my rights to sit right next to it and ruin your hunt - provided I was hunting too.


Put a blind up in the Manistee State Game Area on public land....I'll beat you to it, and when you arrive, I'll go ahead and call our local CO on my cell phone. Then I'll let her tell you who going to be allowed to hunt the blind.


Here's a hint, it won't be you as you weren't the first one there.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

blackduckkilla said:


> Just ducky, as a law abiding blind builder who follows all the laws your first sentence of the last paragraph is incorrect. On in land waters not attached to the Great Lakes the blind is not first come first serve. The blind belongs to the person who legally built it. Lets just say I show up late, say 7:30, to hunt my blind and someone else is in my legal blind, that has been there since 6:00, they must leave. It is not first come first serve on in land lakes. I show up early but have talked with a CO officer who confirms this issue.
> #1 *You may not erect or use a hunting blind on any public waters without
> permanently affixing to the exterior, in waterproof letters not less than three
> inches high, the name and address of the person who placed it there. *Any*
> ...


i would be the first person to challenge you and your CO on that one. lol. good luck with it.

now if your talkin inland state waters with private land attached to the water somewhere, you might have a smidgen of claim to that blind.


----------



## casscityalum (Aug 27, 2007)

That's a tough one. I always thought it applied to Great Lakes and lake saint Clair only. That is the first come first serve.


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

blackduckkilla said:


> Just ducky, as a law abiding blind builder who follows all the laws your first sentence of the last paragraph is incorrect. On in land waters not attached to the Great Lakes the blind is not first come first serve. The blind belongs to the person who legally built it. Lets just say I show up late, say 7:30, to hunt my blind and someone else is in my legal blind, that has been there since 6:00, they must leave. It is not first come first serve on in land lakes. I show up early but have talked with a CO officer who confirms this issue.


"Law abiding blind builder," you should check the laws. Just because the regs provide a carveout providing that "Any unoccupied blind on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair may be used by the first person to occupy it each day" does not mean that any blinds on public land on inland lakes cannot be occupied on a first come first serve basis. 

There is absolutely no law or regulation providing that anybody gains any legal interest in land by building a blind on public property, regardless of whether they follow the rules of building natural blinds. The purpose of the regs regarding labeling your blind with your information is not so you can put your name on a blind that you can call YOURS, it's so the COs know whose door to knock on if you don't take it down by the right date.

To suggest that following the regs for building a blind on public land somehow translates to ownership of that blind on public land is absurd.


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

I don't need luck and there is no inference to the rules. Try to sit in a blind that is legal and see what happens. No one is laying claim to ownership of property. In fact the rules allow rights to hunt that specific spot. Do not like the rule opt to challenge it. Be forewarned that you may/ will be asked to move if blind builder contests you being there. He does not show up to hunt, you hunt the blind you will not be charged with trespassing nor sued hence "ownership of public land" argument is invalid. I have seen the challenge first hand and saw the co use the waterfowl digest as the rule to remove someone from a blind, on public land, after the builder of the blind showed up. I did not hunt with either group nor was the builder. Argue what you may but be careful what you ask for. Just as the original post said and the waterfowl digest addresses you cannot hunt an illegal blind. Rules don't say do what you want on state land because it's state land and rules don't apply. Rules say stay away from the blind. No inference here.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

blackduckkilla said:


> I don't need luck and there is no inference to the rules. Try to sit in a blind that is legal and see what happens. No one is laying claim to ownership of property. In fact the rules allow rights to hunt that specific spot. Do not like the rule opt to challenge it. Be forewarned that you may/ will be asked to move if blind builder contests you being there. He does not show up to hunt, you hunt the blind you will not be charged with trespassing nor sued hence "ownership of public land" argument is invalid. I have seen the challenge first hand and saw the co use the waterfowl digest as the rule to remove someone from a blind, on public land, after the builder of the blind showed up. I did not hunt with either group nor was the builder. Argue what you may but be careful what you ask for. Just as the original post said and the waterfowl digest addresses you cannot hunt an illegal blind. Rules don't say do what you want on state land because it's state land and rules don't apply. Rules say stay away from the blind. No inference here.


so...if a guy erects a brush pile on state land and calls it his deer blind, if i get there first and hunt it....he can call a CO and the CO will boot me from said blind? think about it...then apply that to any other blind on state land or water.

now if the rules broke down to the point where the CO can boot you outa the blind, i can tell you this, i will sit there and totally bogart said blind builders hunt til the point the CO shows up and kicks me out strictly out of spite for the rule (if thats the case, which i believe its not). 

If you want to make an elaborate blind to the point you think its "yours" to hunt, do it on private property....do it on state land/water and you risk to having hunting buddies you do not know. Every public blind builder knows this or learns it the hard way shortly thereafter.

would love to see DS chime in on this thread and lay the rule down for it. I got a feeling a CO's interpretation of said rule can vary depending on location (hence i mentioned having private property on same said water earlier in thread). there may be a special circumstance that you are not aware of on what you witnessed.


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

Ahhhhhhhhh reasoning by analogy. I don't have regs on deer hunting so I will not act like I do. However I have first hand knowledge over the rule this thread is about. I never said rule is not open to co interpretation hence when I said co May/ will move you I did so for a reason: inference by hunter is very different than interpretation by co. You want to argue or prove a point go ahead and "bogart". I wanted the original thread poster to understand that going into a blind on in land waters is different than lsc and the Great Lakes. I do not carve out rules that work best for me and I made sure of the rules before I built and placed my blind by personally contacting our local co and not a thread where many hunters are opinionated. If rules are unclear contact those with the most knowledge on enforcing hunting regs: your local co. Heck most previous threads on similar subjects often lead to total misunderstandings on topics such as riparian rights or "I thought this land was public". So be careful what we post unless true for your area.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

blackduckkilla said:


> Ahhhhhhhhh reasoning by analogy. I don't have regs on deer hunting so I will not act like I do. However I have first hand knowledge over the rule this thread is about. I never said rule is not open to co interpretation hence when I said co May/ will move you I did so for a reason: inference by hunter is very different than interpretation by co. You want to argue or prove a point go ahead and "bogart". I wanted the original thread poster to understand that going into a blind on in land waters is different than lsc and the Great Lakes. I do not carve out rules that work best for me and I made sure of the rules before I built and placed my blind by personally contacting our local co and not a thread where many hunters are opinionated. If rules are unclear contact those with the most knowledge on enforcing hunting regs: your local co. Heck most previous threads on similar subjects often lead to total misunderstandings on topics such as riparian rights or "I thought this land was public". So be careful what we post unless true for your area.


would love to hear DS chime in on this. I'm not saying the rule doesn't exist, what i am saying is its total horses#!t if it does.


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

Where is Dead Short on this?


----------



## Zorba (Jan 24, 2007)

Has anyone ever got a ticket for using an illegal blind?


----------



## Zorba (Jan 24, 2007)

Up here on the St. Mary's, there are blinds that have been there forever on public land/water with out any name on them. I know of one that my grandfather, father, and I have all hunted from. That blind probably has been there before there was laws regarding blinds.


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

Got to believe that blinds on land are different than permanent blinds on Sag. Bay. I always thought that on Sag Bay if I hunted a blind, I was legal and didn't have to give it up to the builder! Not that I would not have! Anyone who builds a blind on Sag. Bay for duck hunting should expect someone in it! If the builder of the blind wants to argue with the guy in it, well, they are both loosers!


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Blind should not reserve a spot, period. If you get butt hurt because you thought you were being clever and claiming a spot, then you should not be building a blind. The alternative is the N.C. system of blind ownership where as long as you do some sort of maintenance on it every year you reserve the sole ownership of it along with no one being able to hunt within some ridiculous distance of it. Best spots are past down from generation to generation with no one else ever getting the chance to hunt it. Is that really what you blind builders want?


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

TSS Caddis said:


> Blind should not reserve a spot, period. If you get butt hurt because you thought you were being clever and claiming a spot, then you should not be building a blind. The alternative is the N.C. system of blind ownership where as long as you do some sort of maintenance on it every year you reserve the sole ownership of it along with no one being able to hunt within some ridiculous distance of it. Best spots are past down from generation to generation with no one else ever getting the chance to hunt it. Is that really what you blind builders want?


Yes, that is what they want.

I built blinds-twice. The first was on a public lake.

The second was on my mud boat.


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

dead short said:


> There is nothing in the Wildlife Conservation Order that prevents someone from requesting you to move out of their waterfowl blind on public ground that is not Great Lakes or Lake St Clair. If someone chooses to not move, the owner of the blind has the option to call law enforcement for assistance.


Thanks for your input Dead Short. However, I think we still need to make sure everybody is clear on this. With the above quoted language, I hope you're not trying to suggest that there is some law providing that people can kick people out of blinds on public land. None of the sections you pasted explicitly provide that somebody can kick somebody out of a blind on public land (bottomlands) whatsoever. I'm not sure what you're suggesting by saying that somebody has the option to call law enforcement. Everybody always has the option to pick up the phone and call--it's what happens next that matters. If you could clarify, that would be much appreciated. 

We've been discussing this since Friday, and I was hunting in Emmet County yesterday, and was checked by a CO at the boat ramp, so asked him this exact question since we were all discussing it. He said (1) if you occupy a blind that is legally set up on public property by somebody else (i.e., they follow all the rules for constructing a blind on public property), they cannot kick you out of it if you get there first, and (2) if you occupy a blind on public land that does not comply with the blind construction regulations, as a technical matter, you can be cited.


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

This is hilarious. As stated now several times be careful what you ask for. I can put my blind out where it is legal. If you don't like it hunt somewhere else or move. If you don't want someone to call the co stay out of the blind. Blinds on certain inland waters are legal. Heck you guys asked for and received an explanation from a gentlemen you guys value (hence requesting his thoughts on the subject). The abject name calling is hilarious. You're mad at guys who follow the law. If you don't like the law you have options: try to change the law, move, build your own blind, etc. Geez this is so funny. The blind builder does NOT own the land and does not claim too. He has the right to hunt that spot for that year when legal. Be careful in that the COs are interpreting the rule so be careful what you ask for. Sit in the blind, don't move, hunt from the front, move and skybust. Do this and be careful what you ask for. Just don't teach anyone else what you "think" is the rule without knowledge. You're leading another hunter into a possible pitfall. The only reason why I responded to the original thread was to help other hunters know that the opinions provided early on may get you in trouble. Help each other out.


----------



## ducksarge (Jul 3, 2011)

I just started reading this thread and I have had experience with it. The law is that the blind builder does have his right to the blind and he does have the right to kick you out of it. However, he does not have the right to that spot. Yes, you can park your boat right in front of it and hunt there, which effectively makes the blind unhuntable. If he were to hunt it and fire over your head, it is not a ticket, it is a felony at that point. I have never built a ground blind and never used someone else's, but I have had to hunt by them many times, mostly without incident.


----------



## flighthunter (Nov 21, 2005)

ducksarge said:


> I just started reading this thread and I have had experience with it. The law is that the blind builder does have his right to the blind and he does have the right to kick you out of it. However, he does not have the right to that spot. Yes, you can park your boat right in front of it and hunt there, which effectively makes the blind unhuntable. If he were to hunt it and fire over your head, it is not a ticket, it is a felony at that point. I have never built a ground blind and never used someone else's, but I have had to hunt by them many times, mostly without incident.


At what point does this become hunter harassment? Seems malicious to me unless it's the only huntable spot. But on the other hand, the blind builder would have to be jack ass to not offer the invite to share said blind.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

*There is a section in the WCO which is explicitly written for ground blinds on public lands. In that section it explicitly excludes waterfowl hunting blinds. *

*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. *Sec. 2.9 (1) For the purposes of this section, "ground blind" means a structure, enclosure, or any material, natural or manufactured, placed on the ground to elevate or otherwise assist in concealing or disguising the user or occupant for the purpose of taking an animal except for commercially manufactured ladder stands which lean up against and require the support of a tree to maintain their upright position. 

(2) A person may use, occupy, place, build, construct, or maintain a ground blind on publicly owned lands only if one of the following applies: 

(a) The ground blind is constructed exclusively of dead and natural materials found on the ground in the area where the blind is constructed, except that cloth, netting, plastic or other materials may be used by the occupant of a ground blind if the cloth, netting, plastic or other materials are not fastened to the blind and are carried out by the user at the end of each day&#8217;s hunt. For the purposes of this section, "fastened" means stapled, nailed, glued, or other means of permanent attachment other than tying. 

(b) The ground blind is clearly a portable blind and is removed at the end of each day's hunt. Fasteners, if used to attach or anchor a portable blind, shall be removed at the end of each day&#8217;s hunt and shall not consist of any item that penetrates the cambium of a tree. 

(c) The ground blind is a temporary ground blind constructed of materials other than dead and down materials found on the ground in the area where the blind is constructed and which meets all of the following conditions: 

(i) The blind for deer hunting purposes is not located upon publicly owned lands from the day following the last day of the open deer season to September 1 unless allowed by the public agency administering the land on which the blind is located. A ground blind located on publicly owned lands anytime during the period defined in this subsection shall be considered an abandoned ground blind. 

(ii) The blind for bear hunting purposes is not located upon publicly owned lands from five days after bear season closes to August 10 in the Amasa, Baraga, Bergland, Carney, Gwinn, and Newberry Bear Management Units; to August 17 in the Red Oak, Baldwin, and Gladwin Bear Management Units; except successful bear hunters must remove their ground blind within 5 days of harvesting a bear. A ground blind located on publicly owned lands anytime during the period defined in this subsection shall be considered an abandoned ground blind. 

(iii) The name and address of the licensed bear hunter in the Bear Management Unit where licensed, or, outside of the bear season, the person placing the ground blind, is permanently attached, etched, engraved, or painted on the ground blind. 

(iv) Fasteners, if used to attach or anchor a temporary ground blind, shall be removed with the blind and shall not consist of any item that penetrates the cambium of a tree. 

(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. 

(4) The placement or use of a ground blind on publicly owned lands shall in no way convey exclusive hunting rights to the area surrounding that blind. 

(5) A ground blind that does not meet the requirements of subsection (2) shall be an illegal ground blind. A person shall not use an illegal ground blind. 

(6) Only ground blinds which meet the requirements of subsections (2)(a) or (2)(b) may be used in state game areas, state recreation areas and state parks that are located in zone 3. 
History: Am. 9, 1995, Eff. Jan 1, 1996; Am. 4, 1996, Eff. Jun 6, 1996; Am. 3, 1997, Eff. Jun 1, 1997; Am. 1, 1998, Eff. May 15, 1998; Am. 10, 1998, Eff. Jun 15, 1998; Am. 11, 2005, Eff. Jun 3, 2005; Am. 16, 2013, Eff. Aug 9, 2013. 

*Then there is the section specifically for waterfowl blinds (quoted earlier). This section explicity allows for someone to use a blind, first come first serve on specifically listed public waters. There is nothing specifically written that addresses other inland public lands. There is simply no protection spcifically written into the WCO for hunters arriving first to a blind on inland public waters. It only specifically addresses Private waters, Lake St Clair, and the Great Lakes. The way it's written, the builder of the blind can actually lock a blind not built on Lake St Clair and the Great Lakes. An officer can try to mediate things, but if the owner of the blind insists, on what basis can the officer allow them (who arrived first) to stay? I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just simply pointing out what it says.*

*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. 

(2) Any person who shall erect, anchor, or attach such blind or structure to the bottomlands described in this section shall remove the entire blind including submerged supporting members each year no later than 16 days after the end of the calendar year. If not removed within that time, the director may cause its removal or destruction and assess the costs of removal and storage, or destruction, against the person whose name is affixed to the blind or other structure, in addition to any other penalty provided by law. Any structure used or to be used in the hunting of migratory waterfowl found erected upon, attached, or anchored to bottomlands described in this section from January 17 to August 14 of each year shall be considered abandoned. 

(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 Lake St. 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. 

(4) It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or hunt from a blind or structure which does not meet the requirements established in this section. This section shall not apply to a vessel registered as required by the provisions of part 801, marine safety, of the natural resources and environmental protection act, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.80101 to 324.80199 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. 

(5) On those publicly-owned lands and waters of the Kalamazoo river watershed, including the watersheds of Pine creek and Swan creek, Allegan county, blinds or other structures for waterfowl hunting shall not be permitted, except in accordance with rules for the Ottawa marsh, described in subsection 13.11(a).History: Eff. Mar 31, 1989; Am. 14, 1996, Eff. Sep 1, 1996; Am. 11, 1998, Eff. Aug 1, 1998; Am. 13, 2001, Eff. Sep 1, 2001. 



*As mentioned by others, there is also nothing that prohibits a hunter from setting up 50 feet (or any other arbitrary distance) from you on public waters/lands and hunting. If all they do is hunt and do nothing to intentionally prevent you from hunting there is no cut and dry hunter harassment. *


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

sounds like a politician who had a blind on public lake was present when that was wrote. :evil:


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

Flighthunter and ducksarge. Here is my shot at sarcasm. "You're wrong. You're a slob hunter and how dare you steal *my* spot. It's _*my*_ spot and if _*I *_want to hunt there screw you. If you don't like me violating the law than _*I*_ will skybust, steal your blind and let everyone know you are just a slob hunter. You're lazy, don't scout and just plan steal from _*ME*_." In reality you are both right: beware logic and facts even from CO and deadspin seem to have no effect on those whom I poked fun at. Just because the law says one thing, blind belongs to the one who builds it, means every blind builder is an a-hole as mentioned in previous posts not every huntable spot will now have a blind on it (just hilarious). I am just following the rules and that makes me a HORRIBLE HUNTER and MAN. Ha ha. Good luck this weekend and DON"T hunt from a legal blind everyone ever..


----------



## JMSparty08 (Sep 20, 2012)

This thread does a great job of illustrating how big of a-holes some duck hunters can be. 

I just don't get it. Why all the namecalling and animosity? Why all the d*** measuring contests at the ramps or in the field? We all share a common hobby and enjoy it. Why can't we all enjoy it together? It's crap like this that keeps me hating public land hunting. 

Everyone is just looking to have fun and enjoy themselves. That's all. Why make it a horribly uncomfortable and tense situation for all involved? If you're in a blind and someone comes over later, how about inviting the guy in and hunting together? You may just make a new friend out of the whole thing. That's certainly better than creating a contest or a race the next morning.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

JMSparty08 said:


> If you're in a blind and someone comes over later, how about inviting the guy in and hunting together? You may just make a new friend out of the whole thing. That's certainly better than creating a contest or a race the next morning.



Sounds good.... 



Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## smithsc1 (Feb 8, 2008)

I've met some really good guys sharing spots...


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

dead short said:


> *There is simply no protection spcifically written into the WCO for hunters arriving first to a blind on inland public waters. *


Indeed, but apparently there is also no protection specifically written into the WCO for hunters arriving second to a blind on inland public waters, whether they built that blind or not. Sounds like a Mexican standoff to me. Just some food for thought. 

The law is so confusing and vague that CO's can't even understand it (and rightfully so). A change needs to be made.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I'm sure our county court would side with the owner, given there are specific clear exceptions for other lands. The argument would be if there were to be an exception, it would've been clearly stated as it was for the Great Lakes and Lake St Clair.



Lamarsh said:


> The law is so confusing and vague that CO's can't even understand it (and rightfully so). A change needs to be made.



The way it is written, I understand it. I don't read anything into it. It says what it says. I don't see where it says "an unoccupied blind attached to the bottomlands of public lands........." It clearly says "an unoccupied blind attached to the bottomlands of the Great Lakes or Lake St Clair......" What section of the WCO allows a person to stay in it?

Needs a waterfowl group to recommend a change in wording to the NRC for consistency. 

Why doesn't anyone argue that ice shanty's placed on public waters (ice) are any different. Using your logic, any ice shanty is open to the first one that gets there also. 



Lamarsh said:


> Indeed, but apparently there is also no protection specifically written into the WCO for hunters arriving second to a blind on inland public waters, whether they built that blind or not. Sounds like a Mexican standoff to me. Just some food for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## flighthunter (Nov 21, 2005)

blackduckkilla said:


> Flighthunter and ducksarge. Here is my shot at sarcasm. "You're wrong. You're a slob hunter and how dare you steal *my* spot. It's _*my*_ spot and if _*I *_want to hunt there screw you. If you don't like me violating the law than _*I*_ will skybust, steal your blind and let everyone know you are just a slob hunter. You're lazy, don't scout and just plan steal from _*ME*_." In reality you are both right: beware logic and facts even from CO and deadspin seem to have no effect on those whom I poked fun at. Just because the law says one thing, blind belongs to the one who builds it, means every blind builder is an a-hole as mentioned in previous posts not every huntable spot will now have a blind on it (just hilarious). I am just following the rules and that makes me a HORRIBLE HUNTER and MAN. Ha ha. Good luck this weekend and DON"T hunt from a legal blind everyone ever..



Why you so mad bro? I missed the sarcasm. All I'm saying is if a hunter wants to hunt a spot that has a legal blind constructed on it, and the blind owner shows up after said hunter is already set up why wouldn't they just hunt together?

If blind builder calls co, there probably won't be a resolution by shooting time, both hunters lose 

If non blind builder voluntarily vacates blind, but sets up 25 feet away; boy that sounds like an enjoyable hunt, again both lose. I personally think this would be harassment, which brings this full circle... Why not just hunt together. Just don't share duck calls if the guy had a cold sore. 

We're beating a dead horse here. 

As a side note. I love that sky blasting has become what seems to be the norm if someone's ego takes a hit in the marsh. It's like if I'm not killing ducks today, nobody is. And this isn't directed at you.


----------



## gentpike99 (Sep 13, 2012)

This discussion is a good example of why I only hunt private property.


----------



## greenheadsmacker (Aug 14, 2008)

The way it is written, I understand it. I don't read anything into it. It says what it says. I don't see where it says "an unoccupied blind attached to the bottomlands of public lands........." It clearly says "an unoccupied blind attached to the bottomlands of the Great Lakes or Lake St Clair......" What section of the WCO allows a person to stay in it?

Needs a waterfowl group to recommend a change in wording to the NRC for consistency. 

Why doesn't anyone argue that ice shanty's placed on public waters (ice) are any different. Using your logic, any ice shanty is open to the first one that gets there also. 



Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire[/QUOTE]

I believe the difference is because we honor the ownership of the shanty knowing that it could only have been placed there this season for the purpose of fishing this season. Duck blinds, on the other hand, may have been built and abandon years ago. The new laws on removing the old blinds should come with changes in the law and the mindset of hunters. The law should side with the builder of the blind since he or she obviously constructed the temporary blind with the intent to hunt it during this season, the same as a ice shanty.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Until around 2004, there always had been a date for removal of a waterfowl blind written within the WCO. What we struggled with was that there was no earliest day to build one. If you didn't check every single blind on the first day following removal date, people would just say they had just built it for the upcoming season. It really didn't make sense. I might somewhere still have a copy of the letter my sgt, my partner, and I drafted to forward up our chain of command to recommend a change to the NRC. 

There seems to really be fewer abandoned blinds inside Wildfowl Bay now compared to when before the WCO was changed to incorporate an actual build date.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

I am not pissed at all. I was agreeing with you and duck sarge. However, it has been frustrating to hear many take pot shots especially when I and others have done nothing wrong nor illegal. As to your question I have given up my blind to another group. Example, last year I took a new guy out and he showed up very late: I waited for him instead of leaving. We got to the blind a saw other guys had set up real close. So instead of calling the CO and making the other guy move I moved. What bothers me is if you read the thread those that take pot shots don't realize that if I show up late I move. I have found garbage and shells in the blind but did not go off on a rant. I realized someone hunted their during the week oh well. There are several misinformed people on this thread who feel they can teach others that if you don't like the rules do what you want.


----------



## ducksarge (Jul 3, 2011)

That is really the key, work it out. Whenever I get to the ramp and there are other groups there, I check to see where they are going, even if I am first at the ramp. If they have their heart set on a spot, I go elsewhere. Rarely do I have just one spot to set up.

But yes, I have set up next to permanent blinds ( with my boat blind ) and then had the blind owner motor in close to shooting time and said "didn't you see the blind " . Yes I did, but it is in a good spot and the only place to set up on this spot.


----------



## brandcole73 (Sep 13, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> so you took some time to build a blind on someone elses property (state, ours) and you will piss off another hunter because you think thats your spot and they beat you to it. got it. always good to know where you stand.
> 
> p.s. no need to reply to this. :tdo12:


 

Like I said, I hunt out of my boat... but yes I would be be that guy. Would you use some one else's blind and not let them have it if they show up that morning? Maybe they didn't get there first because they are bringing their kid with them or some other reason... And you think that's not going to piss them off? Just making sure where you stand. Keep in mind this is hypothetical because I don't build blinds anywhere.


----------



## seabee8782 (Jul 25, 2008)

Question so they put up a blind on an inland public lake right? Public land why should they be able to be the only one to hunt that spot? I know thats how it is deer hunting if you find a tree stand move on but idk if it's just me but waterfowl seems a little different.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

brandcole73 said:


> Like I said, I hunt out of my boat... but yes I would be be that guy. Would you use some one else's blind and not let them have it if they show up that morning? Maybe they didn't get there first because they are bringing their kid with them or some other reason... And you think that's not going to piss them off? Just making sure where you stand. Keep in mind this is hypothetical because I don't build blinds anywhere.


If I was on public land/water and chose to hunt a blind and was there first...correct, you are gonna have to ruin both our hunts for me to move. 2 choices, a) downwind me b) call the law to boot me out. 

Don't like that hassle? Don't build a blind on public.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Geez guys, I didn't mean to be an instigator in making this thread go 6 pages!!! I chimed in on this before I went to Nodak a couple weeks ago, and just now got caught up on reading it. I honestly didn't realize (as many apparently didn't) that there was specific language in the WCO about ground blinds on public land exempting waterfowl blinds. I stand corrected...I've learned something, so thanks. But it also sounds like most here agree it makes absolutely no sense to single out waterfowl blinds and treat them differently?

Deadshort made a suggestion that perhaps a group should bring this issue to the NRC for consideration in making the rules for blinds consistent. It seems that such a change would make everyone's life easier, including the CO's, and would be just WAAAAY too logical for this group :lol: 

Since I happen to be very close to one of the CWAC members evilsmile) I may just run this up the flagpole for discussion :idea:


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

just ducky said:


> Geez guys, I didn't mean to be an instigator in making this thread go 6 pages!!! I chimed in on this before I went to Nodak a couple weeks ago, and just now got caught up on reading it. I honestly didn't realize (as many apparently didn't) that there was specific language in the WCO about ground blinds on public land exempting waterfowl blinds. I stand corrected...I've learned something, so thanks. But it also sounds like most here agree it makes absolutely no sense to single out waterfowl blinds and treat them differently?
> 
> Deadshort made a suggestion that perhaps a group should bring this issue to the NRC for consideration in making the rules for blinds consistent. It seems that such a change would make everyone's life easier, including the CO's, and would be just WAAAAY too logical for this group :lol:
> 
> Since I happen to be very close to one of the CWAC members evilsmile) I may just run this up the flagpole for discussion :idea:


Agreed. I too have been away (Sask) and am just catching up on this one. What is apparent is that there is a lack of consistency in the way the rules are written for ground blinds and waterfowl blinds. This has caused confusion. Why should there be a difference between blinds on the Great Lakes and those on inland lakes? It doesn't make logical sense, and yet that's the way the WCO is written. Perhaps it's time for a change......


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I'm willing to start the ball rolling...but only if there are hunters who want it to be consistent. Don't want to start a **** storm of controversy over this.


----------



## HookedUp (Dec 31, 2010)

As a blind owner in Sag bay I have had people in it over the years. I just let them hunt it and take the day off or go elsewhere. Years ago it seemed like when you piseed someone off by asking them to leave the next day you blind would be burned,destroyed or anchor pulled and floating away. I can't say that it don't upset me some but its public ground and they have the right to be there too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

just ducky said:


> I'm willing to start the ball rolling...but only if there are hunters who want it to be consistent. Don't want to start a **** storm of controversy over this.


I think consistency is a good thing. I have known for years that the WCO allowed "private" blinds on public land, but because other public property blinds (ground blinds for deer, Great Lakes waterfowl blinds etc) are first come first served, I could never get anyone to believe that it could possibly be true that waterfowl blinds actually could be private. At a certain point it was an argument I was no longer willing to have. Frankly, since I do NOT build blinds, there was really no point in me arguing it anyway.

Based on the tone of some of the posters in this thread - who (though incorrect) were absolutely certain that public waterfowl blinds were first-come-wins-it-for-the-day and even appeared willing to fight to prove it; I can see where misunderstanding on this issue could lead to unfortunate violence. All it takes is a couple of hot heads.... 

I am not saying that having a consistent policy would prevent conflict in all cases; but if there was NO QUESTION that all blinds on public property could be possessed by the first person to occupy them each day it would likely prevent many of the arguments.

So I for one would definitely support any attempt by the CWAC or any other organization to make the change to have inland waterfowl blinds on public land follow the same occupancy rules that apply to Great Lakes waterfowl blinds.


----------



## bayman160 (Oct 6, 2010)

Yes several years ago my dad and his buddy had a blind out on the bay that we had used a number of years. The sign was left in it. An officer called and talked to my mom who when asked if her husband hunted on the bay she said yes. He also asked for his friends telephone number which she gave to him. A couple days later a ticket arrived in the mail for both of them.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## blackduckkilla (Jul 14, 2013)

Just a sad thread. Law may be confusing but it's been the same regs since I started hunting 20+ years ago. I have thought about they few who post in this thread that despite their ignorance come hell or high water screw the blind builder because they don't like the law. Don't ruin my hunt because of the law. Also the argument that blinds would be everywhere doesn't hold water because it does not happen. I will never defend the original post where blinds are left year round or don't comply with the law. It is sad For those of us who follow the law, don't show up late and kick guys out, and are ethical hunters to hear guys like shi kid or lamarsh say screw you I will sky bust, downwind or outright ruin your hunt because they don't like the LAW is just plain idiocy. I am sooo happy I do not hunt near people with this callous attitude. Sad.


----------



## CVG (Oct 14, 2009)

blackduckkilla said:


> just a sad thread. Law may be confusing but it's been the same regs since i started hunting 20+ years ago. I have thought about they few who post in this thread that despite their ignorance come hell or high water screw the blind builder because they don't like the law. Don't ruin my hunt because of the law. Also the argument that blinds would be everywhere doesn't hold water because it does not happen. I will never defend the original post where blinds are left year round or don't comply with the law. It is sad for those of us who follow the law, don't show up late and kick guys out, and are ethical hunters to hear guys like shi kid or lamarsh say screw you i will sky bust, downwind or outright ruin your hunt because they don't like the law is just plain idiocy. I am sooo happy i do not hunt near people with this callous attitude. Sad.


ya that is right on


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

HookedUp said:


> As a blind owner in Sag bay I have had people in it over the years. I just let them hunt it and take the day off or go elsewhere. Years ago it seemed like when you piseed someone off by asking them to leave the next day you blind would be burned,destroyed or anchor pulled and floating away. I can't say that it don't upset me some but its public ground and they have the right to be there too.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


About as true as it gets. Great attitude for a blind owner too.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

I keep a blind on the Bay. 

I have hunted other people's blinds. I have *always* waited until after shooting hours to enter another person's blind. I would never race somebody to their blind.

Also, my attitude is that if the owner shows up, I will thank him and then leave.

I did exactly that last season. The owners even invited us to hunt with them.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

HookedUp said:


> As a blind owner in Sag bay I have had people in it over the years. I just let them hunt it and take the day off or go elsewhere. Years ago it seemed like when you piseed someone off by asking them to leave the next day you blind would be burned,destroyed or anchor pulled and floating away. I can't say that it don't upset me some but its public ground and they have the right to be there too.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Does anybody recall a number of years ago when Fred Trost and crew went up to Fletcher Floodwaters for opening day of duck season and anchored a pontoon blind off a point? They were quite upset the next day when somebody had lifted the anchor and and allowed the boat/blind to drift off.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

blackduckkilla said:


> I don't need luck and there is no inference to the rules. Try to sit in a blind that is legal and see what happens. No one is laying claim to ownership of property. In fact the rules allow rights to hunt that specific spot. Do not like the rule opt to challenge it. Be forewarned that you may/ will be asked to move if blind builder contests you being there. He does not show up to hunt, you hunt the blind you will not be charged with trespassing nor sued hence "ownership of public land" argument is invalid. I have seen the challenge first hand and saw the co use the waterfowl digest as the rule to remove someone from a blind, on public land, after the builder of the blind showed up. I did not hunt with either group nor was the builder. Argue what you may but be careful what you ask for. Just as the original post said and the waterfowl digest addresses you cannot hunt an illegal blind. Rules don't say do what you want on state land because it's state land and rules don't apply. Rules say stay away from the blind. No inference here.


This is the post I have a problem with. In it, you say that the rule gives you the exclusive rights to hunt that particular spot for the year. I don't see that language in there anywhere. The _blind_ is your personal property, and I am not allowed to use it without your permission. The _land_, on the other hand, remains public, and I don't see anything in the rule that would prevent another hunter from hunting there if you are not already there. He could set up six feet to the left, or maybe hide behind your blind, or perhaps he could put his boat blind in front of your blind. I see no language in the quoted rule that would prevent this. And if he is hunting in such a manner when you arrive, I see no language in the rule that would give you a legal advantage over him in terms of who's harassing whom. And just for the record, I don't hunt inland spots at all; I'm just an outsider looking in at a rather heated discussion of a rather vague rule.


----------



## greenheadsmacker (Aug 14, 2008)

I'm sure this isn't going to change anybody's mindset but hopefully it will give some a different perspective. 7 of us assembled a blind on a lake in southern central Michigan. It's as little as 40 miles from one of us and as much as 200 miles for the other six. The lake is partially public and partially private. We legally assembled a blind on the part owned by the state (you and I). Before the season started we cut evergreens to cover the blind. Because it's state/public owned we can leave our decoys out overnight. We get there Friday after work, put our decoys out, cover the blind, put our barbecue out behind the blind so we can make hot food on those cold days, (yes, we're spoiled), haul coolers with food 
to the blind, and get it all set up. We rent a house/cabin for the entire 60 day season so we have a place to stay when we're there hunting. We have spent a few thousand dollars so far and haven't even hunted yet. I can't understand how someone would think it's ethical to hunt our blind because you got up at 3:30 am and we slept in until 4. You have the same ability as we do to spend the time and effort to assemble a blind there or you could assemble one 100 yds in either direction from us but in your world it's OK to reap the rewards of our labor? I just can't wrap my head around that!


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

greenheadsmacker said:


> I'm sure this isn't going to change anybody's mindset but hopefully it will give some a different perspective. 7 of us assembled a blind on a lake in southern central Michigan. It's as little as 40 miles from one of us and as much as 200 miles for the other six. The lake is partially public and partially private. We legally assembled a blind on the part owned by the state (you and I). Before the season started we cut evergreens to cover the blind. Because it's state/public owned we can leave our decoys out overnight. We get there Friday after work, put our decoys out, cover the blind, put our barbecue out behind the blind so we can make hot food on those cold days, (yes, we're spoiled), haul coolers with food
> to the blind, and get it all set up. We rent a house/cabin for the entire 60 day season so we have a place to stay when we're there hunting. We have spent a few thousand dollars so far and haven't even hunted yet. I can't understand how someone would think it's ethical to hunt our blind because you got up at 3:30 am and we slept in until 4. You have the same ability as we do to spend the time and effort to assemble a blind there or you could assemble one 100 yds in either direction from us but in your world it's OK to reap the rewards of our labor? I just can't wrap my head around that!


Yes. Build it on private land and it would be consistent with all the other laws in the state and you would have nothing to worry about. Your staking claim to public land. This has nothing to do about reaping the rewards of your build and grill. Your money spent to do so should have 0 to do with it.


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

greenheadsmacker said:


> I'm sure this isn't going to change anybody's mindset but hopefully it will give some a different perspective. 7 of us assembled a blind on a lake in southern central Michigan. It's as little as 40 miles from one of us and as much as 200 miles for the other six. The lake is partially public and partially private. We legally assembled a blind on the part owned by the state (you and I). Before the season started we cut evergreens to cover the blind. Because it's state/public owned we can leave our decoys out overnight. We get there Friday after work, put our decoys out, cover the blind, put our barbecue out behind the blind so we can make hot food on those cold days, (yes, we're spoiled), haul coolers with food
> to the blind, and get it all set up. We rent a house/cabin for the entire 60 day season so we have a place to stay when we're there hunting. We have spent a few thousand dollars so far and haven't even hunted yet. I can't understand how someone would think it's ethical to hunt our blind because you got up at 3:30 am and we slept in until 4. You have the same ability as we do to spend the time and effort to assemble a blind there or you could assemble one 100 yds in either direction from us but in your world it's OK to reap the rewards of our labor? I just can't wrap my head around that!


Ah, so your the one that has staked claim to the PUBLIC spot that I had planned to hunt several times this year with my boat blind. So, you feel that because you spent money and time and effort to build the blind, you are now entitled to claim that PUBLIC spot as yours because you have a permanent blind there, just because the "law" allows you too. So I guess the money and time you spent building the blind means more than the money and time I spent building my boat blind and scouting out that location this spring and early summer.

Just because the law says its ok, doesn't make it "right."

*FYI, I have no clue where this spot is, nor do I care about the inland blinds and the laws. I don't hunt in any places that it is of concern to me. I presented this in the manner above to hopefully give some a different point of view on the subject.*


----------



## greenheadsmacker (Aug 14, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> Yes. Build it on private land and it would be consistent with all the other laws in the state and you would have nothing to worry about. Your staking claim to public land. This has nothing to do about reaping the rewards of your build and grill. Your money spent to do so should have 0 to do with it.


 On the contrary, this blind is legally assembled according to the laws of the state and I believe should be protected the same way an ice shanty is. Shi, you and I don't disagree on very much, at least that's the way I see it, but I think you're totally off base on this one. If someone wants to hunt that spot then they can assemble a blind there and we'll have to find another spot to put a blind. 
I believe that duck hunting is an ethical sport much like golf. The more ethical the participants, the more enjoyable for all. Unlike golf, we have way too many unethical people in the sport. You can read post after post on here about them. The difference being this is one area where the law could be totally clear one way or the other about blind occupancy unlike sky busting. Just because it's legal doesn't make it ethical. Our difference of opinion is based on ethics and should be corrected by changing the wording in the law.


----------



## carsonr2 (Jan 15, 2009)

Poor ethics of an ideology based upon personal possession of State/Federal Land held in the public trust for all vs. poor ethics of hunting near or in someone else's blind on said public land.

Pot calling the kettle black.


----------

