 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
Somebody Isn't Thinking . And Accidents Happen
I've had an interest in politics ever since I ran for class president in high school (I lost).
Our family enjoys spirited political discussions over the dinner table, especially when the oldest son is home. Being 20, the young man tends to run a little counterculture.
For the first time this fall, all four of our children will be old enough to vote in a presidential election. The youngest turns 18 five weeks before Election Day.
I guarantee we won't all vote for the same candidates.
On one point, at least, we seem to agree: we all concur that if everybody around the dinner table - or on a city council, or a county board - consistently votes the same way as everybody else, somebody probably isn't thinking.
So why was I bothered when the Hugo City Council voted 3-2 on June 16 against conducting a staff investigation of whether there have been violations of city shooting ordinances in and around the Paul Hugo Farms Wildlife Management Area?
According to the city attorney, cities have historically been allowed broader authority when crafting regulations governing the discharge of firearms within city limits.
State statutes prohibit shooting from and across a public right-of-way; DNR Hunting & Trapping Regulations discuss hunting near homes. Cities are given an open invitation by Minnesota Statute 471.633 to regulate the discharge of weapons within their borders - that's different than "hunting," which is the act of taking of a wild animal.
Consistent with DNR regulations, Hugo's ordinance prohibits the "taking of a wild animal with a firearm" within 500 feet of a building occupied by a human or livestock, or a stockade or corral containing livestock.
Does this ordinance have implications for traditional hunting grounds within the city? In view of that fact that the character of Hugo is changing, quite possibly. The north end of Bald Eagle Lake, which has been prized by generations of duck hunters, has filled in with houses.
A number of homeowners have had to dig shotgun pellets out of their siding, and at least one family declared that its children would no longer catch the bus on Ethan Avenue in the fall due to the few duck hunters who, unthinkingly, fire toward the shore.
I was bothered enough by the council's decision not to take action, to do a little investigation of my own. "Google Maps" reveals that the nearest homes surrounding the WMA on Rice Lake appear to be located more than 500 feet away from the property line.
But local farmers pasture their cattle up to the boundary of the WMA. Does a pasture fit the definition of a stockade or a corral?
Only dialogue - and perhaps a bit of good legal advice - will yield the answer. But answers don't happen without questions.
Alice Waller's petition to ban the discharge of firearms on all public lands and waters clearly didn't have the support of the Hugo City Council. That's certainly understandable on the face of it: many of those favorite hunting spots are located in very rural parts of the city.
But Hugo's changing land uses demand that the issue of the discharge of firearms in more highly populated areas be addressed, and soon.
Personally, I find it alarming that Hugo's ordinances appear to allow the discharge of firearms on private property for any other reason than the taking of a wild animal, regardless of the proximity to homes, schools and parks.
The way I read the city's ordinance, target practice with a .22 in the back yard appears to be legal, regardless of the shooter's proximity to local homes. Target practice is not the same as the "taking of a wild animal." The DNR does not regulate target practice: cities do.
The council's justification for not investigating possible shooting violations around Rice Lake is that nobody has complained. Like many other smaller cities, Hugo has historically responded to ordinance violations on a "complaint-driven" basis.
When taken to the extreme, however, the implication of that policy is that a serious accident would need to occur before the city begins to address the discharge of firearms near the housing developments within its borders.
That would be unfortunate.
I suggest that the council consider requesting that the Washington County Sheriff's Office begin paying particular attention to complaints involving the discharge of firearms within the city. Perhaps these complaints can be itemized in a year-end report.
The Citizen's own Police Reports revealed some time ago that a person was discharging a firearm at the corner of Everton Avenue and CSAH 8, just east of Festival Foods.
According to law enforcement personnel, this was legal.
But does it make sense, as cars and early-morning bicyclists whiz by?
Other cities tie the discharge of firearms to their zoning maps. It seems logical that the discharge of firearms may be inappropriate in areas of rapid development.
And for the hunters who live in Hugo to label anyone who desires a dialogue on the matter as being "anti-hunting" would also be unfortunate.
Hunting is a great sport.
I have found that most hunters are law-abiding, tax-paying, communityminded neighbors.
But that doesn't change anything.
Accidents happen.