Let me first say that I recant some about what I said earlier. LEP7MM is correct, I was not concerning when a landowner says you can't be there. Sort of. If that happens, the statutes say you have to get off. Case law does not. I did some more digging into the statues, and case law, and here is what I've got.

For Minn Stat § 97B.001 (subdivision 3 provides for a landowner telling you to leave their property. Subdivision 4 provides for property that is legally posted. I could paste all of that, but it's easier to summarize.)

Minnesota statute § 97B.001 is the trespass statute that deals with hunting (defined elsewhere in the statutes under the broader "outdoor recreation." It provides that "Except as provided in subdivision 3, a person on foot may, without permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee, enter land that is not posted under subdivision 4, to retrieve a wounded animal that was lawfully shot. The hunter must leave the land immediately after retrieving the wounded game."

If it's not posted, you can go get your game, unless you are asked not to. Then LEP7MM is right, a Law Enforcement Official would have to be called, and they could enter to retrieve your game, or negotiate with the landowner. The statutes do not give you the right to go get your game if it is posted, you then have to ask before attempting to retrieve it. If they say no, you would again have to involve the LEO.

HOWEVER, case law (how the courts have interpreted this statute), goes against this literal reading. In State of Minnesota v. Corbin 343 N.W.2d 874 (Minn.App.,1984) The Court of Appeals held that this statute permitted hunters to enter on unposted agricultural land to retrieve wounded deer even though landowner had orally notified them not to do so. The court also said, "We note that this interpretation allows limited entry on unposted agricultural land to retrieve a wounded animal after an oral notice not to do so, but would prohibit a similar entry on unposted nonagricultural land. Because the statute generally defines a more protected status for agricultural lands, an anomaly is created...If a landowner wishes to avoid this temporary intrusion on agricultural land, the owner should post the land, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 100.273, subd. 6."

So basically...it all boils down to this:

The Minnesota Statutes (legislation where the DNR gets its laws from spell it out clearer than the DNR regs. So the "wiggle" room this lawyer thought he found in the DNR regs was put to rest when I read the statutes. But in the courts interpretations of the statutes, at least in the case of unposted, agricultural land, even with a oral denial of permission, you can enter the land to retrieve your game. And remember, just leaving that animal there constitutes grounds for a trespass claim by the landowner as well.

My best advice (for what it's worth) is if the landowner says you can't retrieve it, call a LEO and try to work things out. If it is posted, you have to ask permission, no matter what. If they say no, call a LEO. LEP7MM is right in that a LEO could enter their land to retrieve your game.

Wallygator,


Thank You!!!

Wallygator and LEP,

Thanks for the concise clarifications. This is pretty much what the LEO told my brother. It was a decent 8 pt. buck that he had shot and the LEO said based on his knowledge of this particular landowner, the landowner probably tagged the deer for himself.

No problem wallmounter. That's what we're here for. We want to make sure the best/most accurate information is passed on. But we can never rely on website forums as our only source for regulations or information. In cases like this, our Law Enforcement community is the best source of info here. I based my comments on info relayed to me directly from many CO's.

On another note, the initial post inquired about ditch hunting in MN and the door was opened into deer hunting. Let's keep in mind this is the pheasant forum and I apologize to the OP for this straying off topic.

I agree, and I definitely spoke a little too soon in my first post, sometimes you have to remember to do the research first...and I would be quick to point out that even though case law seems to lean in the favor of the "hunter" in this situation, unless you have money to burn and a lot of time on your hands for the next few years, I wouldn't rely on that as my defense. This would lead you down a long road of litigation, with no end immediately in sight. Instead, be open and talk to people. Some 90% of all cases never go to trial because they are settled, and this should be a lesson to the rest of us for everyday life.

Talk to the landowner, be courteous. Most people will respond to courtesy with courtesy, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. It's amazing where this approach will lead you.

So I wasn't wrong was I......

Why would the LEO be field dressing an animal I shot? If he's entering the property don't you think you'd join him and get it out yourself with him standing by? I highly doubt any LEO in their right mind would just let you stand there while he drug your deer out.

Good info to know in this post though....

shoot2kill, your wrong in the sense that how the legislation is written. but interpitation though suggests that if you were taken to court in past, the court would favor your action. the only thing that i would wonder is that if he didnt let you on his property, then the animal would be wounded or dead and therefore his property, and he would have to have the proper registration to take this animal right???

You sort of answered your own question in reference to my point.

Most LEO's won't field dress your animal to "make it lighter" to drag. They would rather try to find a common ground where the hunter would be permitted to retrieve the animal. If not, then the property owner may be issued a permit in order to take posession of the animal.

The best thing to do is be civil in your approach. Flashing the reg's book in a property owners face is sure to ruin your odds of retrieval. Not to mention the events leading up to the potential altercation could create a bad impression on a property owner who sits on the fence between being anti hunters or pro.

One thing we do agree on is the good info being posted. Hopefully this leads to more successful hunts this fall.

Good luck everyone.

We had a very lengthy post on this topic about a year ago. The bottom line is, if you go out with the attitude that you are entitled to hunt every ditch, you are going to be trespassing at some point.

Unless you are willing to research the various roads and surrounding properties at the courthouse, you have no way of knowing which ditches are public and which are private, and how wide the roadway really is.

Jackpine-

I have been waiting for someone else to come to the same conclusion I have.

THOUSANDS of acres of PUBLIC lands to hunt and people would rather walk the ditch.

In addition I don't like the image it gives hunters.

Also bear in mind that agricultural land that is not platted consumes the right of way or road ditch to the centerline of the road; therefore ditches are effectively privately owned property and like all ag land, does not need to be posted. As an owner/operator of several parcels zoned ag, I have had an ever increasing incidence of tresspassing over the last three years. I believe it is a result of urban sprawl, absentee ownership, and arrogant disregaurd. Neighboring farmers have successfully pressured the local sportsmans club to manufacture and errect road signs that read "NO ROAD HUNTING". This is the first season of their use so I cannot report on their result. Myself, I would much preffer to recind the idea and deal with individuals whom ask for (and don't bother to ask for) permission to hunt on a more personal basis. When in doubt, ask, it's best for the sport and the sportsman.

Excellent post graingrower!

This debate occurs every year. The answer about hunting the ditch in Minnesota is that MOST of the time it is ILLEGAL!

In the rare case that it is legal, if the land adjacent to the ditch is posted, one cannot legally retrieve their bird without permission from the land owner. This means the hunter must flush, shoot and retrieve all within the confines of the ditch.

Please just go find some public land or ask permission. Don't make a farmer angry and ruin the opportunity for the hunters who put in the effort to ask permission.

we had a problem with hunters walking the ditches next to our crp, crep, and tree rows. they were allowing their dogs to enter our property and flush birds that would then fly over the ditch to try to escape across the road to the cattails. after 3 weeks of looking at legal documentation about the road easements, we said screw it and just mowed and baled the ditches off. problem solved.

I am glad to see people with some good common sense posting on this topic. I cannot do anything but totally agree with your principles on this subject, graingrower. Respecting other people's rights and privacy is important if we are all going to get along and prosper. Bagging a bird or catching a fish is the BONUS of a well planned hunting or fishing trip. If we quit thinking we are entitled to rewards and start earning our benefits our world may just become a better place.

Jackpine, great post. you nailed it on the head. You just dont know if is legal or not and you risk staining the reputation of hunters. Go knock on a door or hunt public land, there are a lot of birds out there.