Eau Claire city council defies state law
Wisconsin
Contributors to this thread:
RutNut@work's Link
I know EC pretty good as I live nearby and do a lot of my business there, so this doesn't surprise me. Hopefully the state withholds more from them.
Sounds like the state is nit picking if that article is telling the whole story.
Eau Claire is charging a fee to hunt private/public lands in the city which by state law, allows hunter to do with an archery licenses.
The state is doing the right thing.
Hmm, sounds like EC should require anyone shooting a bow outside but in city limits to take a 'safety' refresher class put on by the city parks department each year in order to shoot a bow inside of the city limits. Fee for that class $20. Must have that permit in possession anytime you hunt with or shoot a bow in the city. win-win Well maybe some people that just target practice in their back yards would not like having to pay the extra $20. Qualified ranges like archery stores could be exempt.
Not sure if it's still there but EC had a great free archery park about 15 years ago right off the EC river.
The only place they could have a right to charge a permit/license to hunt in the city limits is on city owned land as a trespass fee but I doubt that would be legal as it's public land.
Their problem is that they are charging a license fee for hunting. IMO the only Department who can charge a license fee in WI to hunt, fish or trap would be the WDNR. If I owned 20 acres in the city limits, it sounds like they would charge me $20 to hunt it or if the state owned land, they would charge to hunt it. They don't have that right.
To get their grant, they are better off setting up a speed trap a few times a year. They would make a bunch more $$$. But then again.....anyone who has lived in EC knows it's the only place on earth that people drive 10 mph under the speed limit daily;)
Eau Claire is supposedly charging the fee to recoup the time/money they lose setting up the hunt. How in the hell are they losing anything when someone is hunting their own land? The same with public land? The way they talk is that they are "guiding" hunters. IMO, they are charging the fee for two reasons. First and foremost, hoping it deters hunters. Secondly if they can't deter them they wan't to make them jump through hoops and make some money off of them.
I really would have no trouble with a fee AND a proficiency test. It would help weed some of the riff raff out. I have a buddy that administers the test for the Twin Cities metro hunt. He says less than half pass, even with crossbows. I would love to see a statewide proficiency test to get an archery license. But that will never happen.
Camp McCoy had and maybe still does do a shooting proficiency test for those that bow hunt in the area where most of their buildings are. Makes sense. I am also pretty sure that McCoy also charges a fee for hunting on base. They probably don't stand to loose any state grant monies tho.
I know of other public land areas where you need to show up to listen to a little lecture and then take a written test to prove you know their rules. Same concept could apply to hunting any land inside of a city limits.
The City does not have the authority to charge a "license" fee to hunt/fish/trap - The State holds that exclusive authority.
However they (City/County/Municipality) does have the authority to charge an "access" fee to enter those lands (although public domain) just like they can charge for a County/City park for access too/or camping/recreational fees.
This is where the confusion may lie.
Municipalities have the authority to create new laws (ordinances) that are more (not less) restrictive than State Statue.
BT, wouldn't they only have the authority to charge a land usage fee on land the city owns/maintains? It wouldn't make sense for land owned by the state or feds, that the city could charge.
Not a lot of information in the article, it seemed very vague and lacking specifics. I am assuming the DNR has a problem with the City of Eau Claire allowing bow hunting within city limits. If a guy has a minimum of 3 wooded acres he should be allowed to hunt. If the issue is strictly the 20.00 fee, the DNR is the only department that can charge hunting fees, I thought? I would not want to pay a 20.00 fee to hunt my own land. As a matter of fact I wouldn't and would still hunt the land just to be defiant. If the DNR has a problem with the hunt in general, then they better not propose using sharp shooters either. A lot of guys in Brookfield are pissed because they cannot bow hunt their own land, yet the city brings in sharp shooters.
Sturgeon Bay charged a fee for many years to enter the drawing for bow hunting on city land .... not sure where that stands today. Last hunted the canal property in the 90s .....
Mike F's Link
Stevens Point doesn't charge and the rules are easy to follow.
A good place for those who don't have access to land and a great place to hunt during the gun season. No guns allowed!
10, the DNR's gripe is that the city is charging people to hunt. There is nothing the city can do to stop law abiding bow hunters, even in the city limits. The city thinks they have compromised enough as they lowered their illegal fee from 45.00 to 20.00. The real problem is just too damn many liberals in Eau Claire.
"Municipalities have the authority to create new laws (ordinances) that are more (not less) restrictive than State Statue."
Bloodtrail, I think you switched around more and less. Based on your statement, a city could be more restrictive and ban bow hunting within their limits. This would render the state statute irrelevant and there wouldn't have been any local governments opposing the bill.
Act 71 reads:
2. Except as provided in subd. 3., a local governmental unit may not enact or adopt a restriction that prohibits a person from hunting with a bow and arrow or crossbow within the jurisdiction of that local governmental unit.
3. A local governmental unit may enact or adopt a restriction that does any of the following:
a. Prohibits a person from hunting with a bow and arrow or crossbow within a specified distance, not to exceed 100 yards, from a building located on another person's land. A restriction enacted or adopted under this subd. 3. a. shall provide that the restriction does not apply if the person who owns the land on which the building is located allows the hunter to hunt within the specified distance of the building.
b. Requires a person who hunts with a bow and arrow or crossbow to discharge the arrow or bolt from the respective weapon toward the ground.
Eau Claire(or any local government) must abide by state statute. It is clearly documented what restriction they can enforce but if they want less restriction and as long as it abides by state law, they can enact them.
IMO, Eau Claire has a right to charge a trespass fee on city owned lands but not county, state or private. As a tax payer, IMO I would be upset that I'm charged a fee to hunt lands owned by the city which is the same city I pay taxes. It could be argued that every user of this property must be charged this fee.
Eau Claire was charging a hunting permit which the WDNR is the only agency that can, therefore the WDNR withheld the grant.
If I were a resident of Eau Claire, I would hunt without purchasing the permit(unless it was a trespass fee). If cited, the case would be tossed as I did not break any state law as EC ordinance would be unconstitutional. Therefore, EC ordinance is just a money grab and they have no way to enforce it(unless on city owned land for trespass fee).
There's also a yardage rule from schools and hospitals, which has always been in place. It's a long way (far longer than needed for bow/crossbow), which could make it illegal to hunt some areas.
RutNut@work's Link
Another article on this. I'm baffled how the city justifies the fee as a safety thing. They are just collecting a fee, not teaching a hunter safety class.
"I'm baffled how the city justifies the fee as a safety thing. They are just collecting a fee, not teaching a hunter safety class. "
Local governments are great at money grabs....Bike and dog license to name a couple. What benefit do either of these provide? Just another tax over and above already high taxes.
The DNR rep stated it was illegal to charge for a private land owner, IMO he could also include state and county owned lands. The city has no right taxing them as they do not own or manage them either.
"The city has hired Dunn to draw up a management plan to help deal with the city’s high deer population."
And why does the city have to hire anyone? The WDNR would assist regardless. Charging permit fees or any fees is counter productive.
"But Zellmer said, under Act 71, the city cannot require a permit for someone to hunt on their own land or on private land where they have permission. It follows that the city cannot require a map for the permit process or a fee."
Big difference in private land vs. city land. They would have a right on city-owned land, IMO, to require a permit.
Naz, the issue is they are illegally charging the fee for people to hunt all lands that are within the city limits. But as Geitz pointed out, city government are great at pointless money grabs.
Geitz, I agree it should be attached to a hunter safety course.
Cities whether right or wrong already in some ways control what we as property owners can do and cannot do on our own properties. They already charge you to do improvements up to an including changing a light bulb it seems.
I think City owned lands is a slam dunk as far as an access fee if incorporated as such.
This is clearly a matter of the interpretation of the law.
The City I believe has had a long standing ordinance that had prohibits the discharge of a "bolt" or an "arrow" and then when faced with a uncontrollable deer problem, opted to authorize bow/crossbow hunting.
Act 71 is fairly new and was enacted on 2013. Some are first hearing about the law.
It may very well end up in court. Interesting.
Well if a City can charge...why not a Township, Village, County...etc?
There is no hunting at all on city owned land in Eau Claire. The permit is only for private owned land.
RutNut@work's Link
Looks like the city council's greed is biting them in the a$$.
If they would allow hunting in the city with no additional permit I am betting that the problem would probably go away.
I learned the other day that in Stevens Point all you need now is the property landowners permission to hunt in the city of Stevens Point with archery equipment.
It will be an interesting fall when the city hunters head out to lower the urban population.
Sounds like it was a good thing that hunters needed a permit in the past. It made it easy for the biologist to get the opinions of all the people that actually hunted in the city. Even if the city looses their battle with the state over charging hunters a fee they should still require all city hunters to get a free permit. That way the hunters will probably be a little more likely to know and abide by the rules for city hunting.
RC, read the WHOLE thread. Jeff, I agree a way to keep records is a great thing. But charging the hunters to do it is not.
Rut -
I did read the entire article and I agree that it makes the Council look good and still showing the deer hunt in a positive light for hunters interested.
BT, in the first article it talks about how the city council is illegally charging bowhunters a fee. They make it as tough to legally hunt in the city limits as possible as the majority of the council are against hunting. Now that attitude is biting them in the ass because the deer population in the city limits is booming. They are going to severely need those lowly bowhunters that they tried to rob and bully.
"BT, I read the whole thing as well and agree with your comments. I don't see the drama."
That's funny RC as you create drama everywhere.
Geitz's Link
Stevens Point changed their stance on hunting late last year. You can bowhunt within city limits as long as you have the landowners permission.