Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

This is the North Carolina duck hunting forum. A place to discuss duck hunting in North Carolina and other waterfowl.

Moderators: stumpjumper, fowl_wishes, NCSUDucker

Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Tue May 06, 2014 4:06 pm

I am attaching a letter I sent to the North Carolina Wildlife Commission's Wildlife in North Carolina Magizine. This is one small step in an effort to do something about this law. Anyone who cares about future genration's ability to hunt our sounds and rivers should step up and say that a priviledge few cannot control our waters. If this is revoked it should lessen the crowds and the public hunting areas such as Pamlico Point.

May 2, 2014
To: Wildlife Resources Commission – Wildlife in North Carolina Magazine
From: Jim Broadwell
Re: Article on North Carolina’s Public Trust Doctrine (NCPTD)
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the article in the May, 2014 edition regarding navigable waters and the public’s right to fish in those waters. Anything that raises awareness of the North Carolina Public Trust Doctrine helps protect every citizen’s rights to North Carolina’s wonderful outdoors.
I think it is time for you to extend your coverage of this topic to the area of hunting, particularly waterfowl hunting in North Carolina’s sounds, bays, and rivers. Clarity on this issue would be helpful to all citizens. In addition, a close examination of restrictions that have been imposed on the general public should shine a light on state and local actions that go against the intent of the Public Trust Doctrine.
People familiar with the NCPTD know that the legislature cannot grant individuals exclusive use of navigable water unless it furthers the interest of the Public Trust Doctrine.
§ 1-45.1. No adverse possession of property subject to public trust rights:
Title to real property held by the State and subject to public trust rights may not be
acquired by adverse possession. As used in this section, "public trust rights" means those
rights held in trust by the State for the use and benefit of the people of the State in
common. They are established by common law as interpreted by the courts of this State.
They include, but are not limited to, the right to navigate, swim, hunt, fish, and enjoy all
recreational activities in the watercourses of the State and the right to freely use and enjoy
the State's ocean and estuarine beaches and public access to the beaches.
It has consistently been the law of this jurisdiction that lands and waters held by the
sovereign in trust for the public cannot be conveyed by the State so as to deprive the
public of its rights therein, except for legislatively authorized public purposes furthering
the trust.
In my opinion some counties have overstepped their lawful authority and granted special privileges to a very limited number of individuals that do not meet the criteria of “except for legislatively authorized public purposes furthering the trust.”

Several egregious examples need to be exposed and rectified. In my opinion one of those examples is:
Pamlico County - Safe Hunter Rule – the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has a note in the local rules section that prohits hunters from:

● Take migratory waterfowl within 500 yards of another’s permanent hunting location without permission of the landholder upon whose land the waterfowl is taken.

The local interpretation of this is that a land owner can establish a blind on the owner’s property adjacent to the shore of Pamlico Sound or one of the bays or rivers. Upon establishment of the blind no hunter can hunt within a 500 yard semi- circle of the blind location in public waters. The local interpretation of this rule is that no one can ever hunt public waters near the property owner’s blind location whether it is occupied or not.

As a result several large landowners have essentially stolen hunting rights from the public on huge tracts of public water.

I believe that on its face this ordinance is inappropriate, confusing and misinterpreted. I will add comments regarding the ordinance:

● Take migratory waterfowl within 500 yards of another’s permanent hunting location (500 yards is extremely excessive, most waterfowl are shot within 40 yards of a blind and the shot used for waterfowl is infective past 100 yards) without permission of the landholder upon whose land the waterfowl is taken. (this is where the local interpretation is confusing – If a landowner places a blind on his property adjacent to the water in Jones Bay, Pamlico County how can the law be interpreted to mean that a person cannot set up in water in Jones Bay and hunt? Waterfowl taken by this hunter is not taken on the land of the property owner, the hunter is taking waterfowl in Jones Bay, land covered by the North Carolina Public Trust Doctrine.)

Regardless, I believe the ordinance should be removed and North Carolina’s hunters should be able to hunt in waters covered by the NCPTD. It is not for the few but for all citizens.

Below are quotes from either actual cases, NC General Statutes that seem germane to this conversation:
North Carolina has more than 2,200,000 acres of coastal
sounds, salt marshes, and broad river mouths. As one of the thirteen
original states, North Carolina was governed by the English
Lords Proprietor during its colonial period. Naturally, the common
law public trust doctrine was applied to ensure the free use of
the coastal waterways for public navigation, fishing, and commerce.
As early as 1711 and 1719, the first representative government
ensured the continuity of the common law by enacting
laws which precluded any grant of exclusive rights in navigable waters
or the lands beneath them. Those rights under the public
trust doctrine have survived to the present day and are defined as
"the right to navigate, 'swim, hunt, fish, and enjoy all recreational
activities in the watercourses of the State." 134 "
134. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 1-45.1 (1985). Cauffman, id.

“Lands under navigable waters can neither be appropriated by
private persons nor conveyed to them by the State except for a
public purpose when authorized by statute; and that . . . such
lands and the waters above them are held in trust for the use and
benefit of all our people,” (1.)
(1.) Id. (citing Shepard's Point Land Co. v. Atlantic Hotel, 132 N.C. 517, 44
S.E. 39 (1903); Skinner v. Hettrick, 73 N.C. 53 (1875); to Ward v. Willis, 51 N.C.

[State title to the lands under navigable waters] is a title different
in character from that which the State holds [in] lands intended
for sale .... It is a title held in trust for the people of the State
that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce
over them, and have liberty of fishing therein freed from
the obstruction or interference of private parties .... The State
can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole
people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under
them[,] ... than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration
of government and the preservation of the peace .... 62

62. Id. at 452-53


169. 52 N.C. 371. In Skinner v. Hettrick, 73 N.C. 53 (1875), the court held
that since Albemarle Sound was a navigable water, it was not subject to entry
although every citizen had fishing. privileges in the waters. Therefore, while a
beach owner could draw his seine to the beach to the exclusion of others, he could
not acquire the sole right of fishing in the waters of the sound because to constitute
a several fishery there must be a right of soil. Such right could not be had in
Albemarle Sound. The court also pointed out that regulation of the right to fish in
navigable waters is a proper subject of legislation. See also Bell v. Smith, 171 N.C.
116, 87 S.E. 987 (1916) (grant of land bordering upon or partly under navigable
waters cannot confer upon the grantee sole or exclusive right of fishing in such
waters).



Finally, the court turned to an eighty-five-year-old case to
make its point: "Navigable waters are free. They cannot be sold or
monopolized. They can belong to no one but the public and are
reserved for free and unrestricted use by the public for all time.
Whatever monopoly may obtain on land, the waters are unbridled
yet."226 The court concluded that "[h]istory and the law bestow[
ed] the title of these submerged lands and their oysters upon
the State to hold in trust for the people so that all [might] enjoy
their beauty and bounty. 2 2 7
226. Id. (quoting State v. Twiford, 136 N.C. 603, 609, 48 S.E. 586, 588
(1904)).
227. Id. The early controversies leading to the adoption of the public trust
doctrine in this country were also based on the right to use oyster beds. Arnold v.
Mundy, 6 N.J.L. (1 Hal.) 1 (1821). Oyster beds constitute breeding grounds and a
source of food for innumerable species, both aquatic and amphibious. They also
protect adjacent water by acting as filters. Just v. Marinette County, 56 Wis. 2d 7,
201 N.W.2d 761 (1972).



While some of these examples relate to restrictions on fishing, both fishing and hunting are activities covers by North Carolina General Statute 1.45-1. In my opinion these rulings and statutes are precedent for both hunting and fishing since they are equal activities in the NCPTD.


Here is a copy of the letter sent to someone who has hunted for many years in Pamlico county and the type of intimidation a wealthy landowner tries to apply to take advantage of North Carolina’s public water. You may know about this situation and that the landowner is not a North Carolina citizen.





You can clearly see that both the landowners and his lawyer believe that the waters of Pamlico Sound, its bays and tributaries are his. If this is not a blatant breach of the public trust document I do not know what is.
As a result of your unique position I respectfully ask that you champion the cause with both the North Carolina General Assembly and the counties whose ordinances go against the spirit and intent of the Public Trust Doctrine. The hunters and fisherman whose revenues support your agency really need you on this one.
Regards,
Jim Broadwell


for some reason the letter did not copy - no to the other chat site "Portal" and look under Safe Hunter Law. it will get you going.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River


Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby NCfowl » Tue May 06, 2014 6:12 pm

May the odds be in your favor, sir. :hammer:
NCfowl
hunter
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:04 am

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby wahoowilly » Tue May 06, 2014 7:55 pm

Good luck. The NCWRC will be quick to tell you that they are powerless to do anything about it...that's what they told me years ago.

These laws were not enacted by the counties concerned. They are state statutes, called local laws, enacted by the General Assembly. Any revision, amendment, or repeal will require action by the legislature, and that's the rub. Nobody in the GA is going to screw with anybody else's local laws, because it will invite retaliation.

The only realistic way to get rid of our blind laws will be by lawsuit, and will require the will and ability and THE MEANS to appeal it all the way to the NC Supreme Court. A friend of mine, who is an attorney with friends on the Attorney general's staff, was told that the blind laws (all of them) are unconstitutional under our state constitution, but that the Attorney General would defend any lawsuit vigorously, with all the resources at his disposal, because that's his job. That's where the will, ability, and means come in. It will require a whole bunch of time, expertise, and most of all, money to fight it through.

I get depressed every time I think about it.
wahoowilly
hunter
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:57 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Tue May 06, 2014 8:29 pm

thanks Fowl,

Willie, I have admired your stance on the subject of public waters since I joined this forum. I agree that in a regime that was controlled from Dare County by a Senate President that felt more of an obligation to rich Virginians that he did to the hardworking people of central and western NC Counties there was no way to fight this. He and a few others would not let this get through the legislature and as time passed those that followed did not think there was enough public interest (except for people like you and me) to even deal with it.

The crowd that passed and supported this bill are no longer in power and the group that have replaced them had higher priority work on corporate taxes and waste in entitlement programs. The things that just got through the legislature on baiting bears and suppressors for hunting would have never gotten through under a Basnight legislature. the same people that have agreed to the recent changes could in fact take on this cause because it is not a local issue, it is a statewide issue.

I am going to meet personally with a targeted group of members - not the long time old school guys (I worked frequently with them and I know how they work) - If it does not work in the legislature there are other routes. However, i do think we can win. The people that did this don't have the clout anymore.

I believe now is the time to strike. Even if i have to get arrested to make a court case. This can be beat in court.

Think about the language - it really does not say you cannot kill birds in the sounds, bays or rivers. It says (this is a paraphrase because I don't have the actual words in front of me) "without permission of the landowner on whose land the waterfowl were taken." If I see this going nowhere for the next 'long session" when new bill can be introduced then even though I don't hunt there I have every intention this January of setting up in front of one of JJ's unoccupied blinds waiting on the "caretakers" - I am willing to go to court.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby merg » Wed May 07, 2014 7:35 am

Basnight was 10 yrs old when the legislature created the Currituck Game Commisson (1957). The Dare Co Game Commission was created by the legislature in 1977- 7 years before Basnight was 1st elected.
merg
hunter
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:15 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Wed May 07, 2014 8:16 am

this is about the Pamlico county law "Safe Hunter Law' Created in late 80's I think. if I was from Dare I would have respected what he did for that area.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby NCfowl » Wed May 07, 2014 9:58 am

HydeMarsh wrote:thanks Fowl,

I don't hunt there I have every intention this January of setting up in front of one of JJ's unoccupied blinds waiting on the "caretakers" - I am willing to go to court.



Hope you got a spot in the blind for me :biggrin:
NCfowl
hunter
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:04 am

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby TooTall » Wed May 07, 2014 10:27 am

merg wrote:Basnight was 10 yrs old when the legislature created the Currituck Game Commisson (1957). The Dare Co Game Commission was created by the legislature in 1977- 7 years before Basnight was 1st elected.


It's obvious that we need to do something about the Safe Hunter Laws in Carteret and Pamlico counties (as evidenced by recent talk of this "law" spreading to Craven county). However, once we start making a big stink about the Safe Hunter Laws, the higher-ups from Currituck and Dare will begin to stand up in its defense to protect their own interests.

I do believe most duck hunters, even people from the coast, don't really mind having the blind laws in Currituck and Dare, but if the Safe Hunter Laws are repealed, what's going to keep the blind laws in the northeast from being removed next? The slightest hint that blind laws in the northeast are in danger will bring rise to some old money and strong political backing for the wrong side of things.
Garrett Trentham
User avatar
TooTall
hunter
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby merg » Wed May 07, 2014 1:11 pm

HydeMarsh wrote:this is about the Pamlico county law "Safe Hunter Law' Created in late 80's I think. if I was from Dare I would have respected what he did for that area.


So Basnight, sometime in the late 80s (you think), when he would have been a 1st or 2nd termer, (wasn't pres pro tem until 93) singlehandedly forced Pamlico County to create blind laws against their will. Then, in later years, the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners (or who?) moved to repeal the law but Basnight (and cronies) refused to let it proceed? Interesting. Where can I find more info on this? Do you have a link?
merg
hunter
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:15 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby wahoowilly » Wed May 07, 2014 2:31 pm

Safe Hunter Law was passed in 1981. JJ bought his land on GCI in 1980. It was him, Graham Dozier, Jones Island Club and interests in Carteret County who got their county commissioners to petition the GA for the law. They lied to their commissioners about reputed shootings which never occurred, but since they were some of the largest landowners in the counties, and in a position to invite guests of their choosing to share in the privacy the law rewarded them with, it was a nobrainer.
wahoowilly
hunter
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:57 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby wahoowilly » Wed May 07, 2014 2:39 pm

Every county in the state has local laws that benefit powerful local interests. If you and I are in the legislature, and I move to repeal, or modify, to your (or your power broker constituent's) detriment, a local law in your county...you will, at your earliest convenience, retaliate against me in a way sure to embarrass me by doing the same to a local law in mu county. Basic politics 101.
wahoowilly
hunter
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:57 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Wed May 07, 2014 7:24 pm

to Wahoo Willie, I really appreciate the background. (I am serious not sarcastic). I understand and agree with your point about local laws. I know I am butting my head against a wall that many stronger men than I have hit before. The odds are that I will not have an impact. I just do not have enough sense to not try. I am willing to go to court where this can be won.

however, i did get a very interesting message back about my letter.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby wahoowilly » Wed May 07, 2014 9:24 pm

HydeMarsh wrote:to Wahoo Willie, I really appreciate the background. (I am serious not sarcastic). I understand and agree with your point about local laws. I know I am butting my head against a wall that many stronger men than I have hit before. The odds are that I will not have an impact. I just do not have enough sense to not try. I am willing to go to court where this can be won.

however, i did get a very interesting message back about my letter.

I wish you only success. Please keep us informed.
wahoowilly
hunter
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:57 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby Splashin' Divers » Mon May 12, 2014 8:05 am

Good Luck, The senator and house rep. for Pamlico County are all in favor of the safe hunter law. Our Senator just so happens to be an active hunter and realizes that this law needs to be in place. Also, his campaign accountant is a old timer that duck hunts several days a week in Pamlico County and was involved in getting the law passed in the 80's because they saw the way things were going. Bottom line is, Pamlico County duck hunting is safer because of this. In case you were not aware, our senator is the senator for Pamlico, Craven and Cartaret County. Also, our county commissioners are in favor of this law as well! Good luck getting this done away with.
Splashin' Divers
hunter
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: Eastern North Carolina

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby Dingbatter 2 » Mon May 12, 2014 8:55 am

I don't have a problem with the law. I started hunting down there about 10 years ago. It took some time, but we now have 4 blinds that we built and maintain. We checked with the local hunters/residents about locations and any potential problems about building a blind and never had any serious issues. In fact, one of our blinds was built on top of an old blind that the owner didn't want anymore since he was too old to keep it up. It takes a lot of time and money to maintain a blind down there. At least when you scab a strangers blind pick up your trash when you get done. It wouldn't hurt. :wink:
"When I get to heaven, tie me to a tree
For I'll begin to roam and soon you'll know where I will be..."
Dingbatter 2
hunter
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Mon May 12, 2014 8:58 am

Splashing, i talked with WRC about safety and they said the way rules written it could not be about safety. you and I both know the way the law is written your statement about safety is BS.

For safety's sake I wish there was a statewide rule:

I think that it is not unreasonable to have rules that, instead of giving greedy people exclusive rights to public water, ensures a quality outdoor experience for all. I would recommend a rule, or a ‘local law’, in which no one should hunt within 200 yards of an fixed or floating blind that is occupied more than 30 minutes before legal shooting light and is marked as occupied with a “green” light visible at 200 yards. I also believe a stiff penalty should be imposed on those that post the green light and do not occupy the blind. In my opinion it should be more stringent that the trespassing law.

What troubles me most is that people like you do not see, or refuse to see, that one individual is taking what belongs to us all. Perhaps it cannot be overturned in the legislature but based on 'Credel' it should be overturned in the courts.

No one should hunt on the private property of another without permission, no one should have exclusive rights the the beaches, sounds, bays and rivers of NC.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby Splashin' Divers » Mon May 12, 2014 9:15 am

Safety or not, the rule applies! And I also do not think this would be won in court. Hey, all you can do is try! :hi:
Splashin' Divers
hunter
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: Eastern North Carolina

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Mon May 12, 2014 3:03 pm

Splashing, perhaps it cannot be beat in court but the law professors and judges I have talked to think that based on the precedent cases for both fishing and oysters that these local laws would not stand a serious challenge. The issues has always been that the people these laws favor have many more resources than the typical public water duck hunter.
Other than Steelshot Scott most duck hunters are not willing to challenge. The question is someone prepare to fight for every citizen?

It has been mentioned in the past that the NC Attorney General would have to defend these laws. Not sure this is so based on the AG's defense of citizens when wealthy people in Currituck tried to keep citizens off the beach.

He may have to defend the local laws, i don't know, but I am going to ask him.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby wahoowilly » Tue May 13, 2014 7:52 pm

HydeMarsh wrote:Splashing, perhaps it cannot be beat in court but the law professors and judges I have talked to think that based on the precedent cases for both fishing and oysters that these local laws would not stand a serious challenge. The issues has always been that the people these laws favor have many more resources than the typical public water duck hunter.
Other than Steelshot Scott most duck hunters are not willing to challenge. The question is someone prepare to fight for every citizen?

It has been mentioned in the past that the NC Attorney General would have to defend these laws. Not sure this is so based on the AG's defense of citizens when wealthy people in Currituck tried to keep citizens off the beach.

He may have to defend the local laws, i don't know, but I am going to ask him.

There was no local law forbidding the public from using the beach. Therefore the AG had to represent the people. In the case of local laws, the GA has passed the law, making it necessary for the AG to defend it. At least, that's the way a lawyer friend explained it to me.
wahoowilly
hunter
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:57 pm

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby snc1100 » Tue May 13, 2014 11:28 pm

I think that every true waterfowl hunter out there have feelings on topics such as these. I live and hunt primarily out of the south eastern region but occasionally make it up north. I am fortunate not to have laws such as these in place down south but can see both sides of the fence. We can all agree the coastal hunting is better in the northern part of the state but that is not to discount the hunting in the south. There are birds to be killed for those willing to work for it. With that being said I feel that everyone should look at the situation from the other side. If you are a person fortunate enough to have rights to a blind or belong to a group locking down an area, would you feel the same on this issue if you weren't and were not allowed to hunt in those areas we know favors the hunting? And also if you were the guy who put the time and money into securing a prosperous area to hunt, would you want a bunch of goons setting up 100yrds away from you or jump shooting birds you are ethically trying to take right in forint of you? I feel like the laws need to address the real issues. Not limiting the rights of those willing to be ethical, curtious hunters but be more regulatory on those who are doing the opposite. Ill take it a step further and say that there needs to be more enforcement and "boots on the ground" to regulate the activities of unethical hunters and more stiff punishment to those who violate ethical hunting practices. I know this is a losing battle but we must stand up for what is right. First the north east maybe next the south east. The public waters and land, and the wild game on it should be for everyone to use. We can't turn our heads to the real issue here. It's not the ethical hunter causing the problem here, it's the ones who are unwilling to work for a hunt and the ones who lack a simple give a damn about the people around them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
snc1100
hunter
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:14 pm
Location: Southern nc

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Wed May 14, 2014 10:09 am

Wahoo, good input thanks!
SNC100, nice post. I would like to add that the priviledged people do not own the public water. I am in no way a "rich" person but I have saved for a long time, sacrificed acquiring other things and bought some land on which to duck hunt. Beyond the border of my land I should have no expectation of being able to stop others from hunting. Landowners in Pamlico county can tie up large amounts of public water and never hunt the blinds. If they do not want to have others hunt near them they should move away from the public water deeper into their property. you and I both know that to have ducks they would probably have to build an impoundment (if they don't already have one) to attract ducks. In addition they would have to deal with CAMA and a host of other government entities. Such is the price of privacy.

If someone bought a farm next to me, should I have the right to tell them that they cannot hunt within 500 yards of an impoundment I built on the property border? (this is only intended to point out the insanity of the point of view where a private land owner builds a blind on private property and feel it gives the blind owner some right to the adjacent public water.)
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby Splashin' Divers » Wed May 14, 2014 2:17 pm

Lets be honest. The only "public water" that anyone is concerned with being "tied" up is the "public waters" that produce ducks. Well guys those "public waters" produce ducks for a reason. Either there is a food source, little hunting pressure or human interaction or whatever, if it was not regulated, there would be just as many ducks in those areas as there are in most public areas, not many. So continue to try and beat the bushes, and continue to try and get laws that fit "your agenda" and see what happens. In 15 -20 years duck hunting will be non existing.

I sometimes wonder why we have the 500 yard law myself, and sometimes I wish I did not have to abide by the law, but in the long run I understand it is there for a reason. I see the benefit of the law a lot more than I see the disadvantage. With that said there are plenty of places to duck hunt in Pamlico and Carteret Counties, without violating the 500 yard law. Unfortunately, there is just as long as a list of people that want the law to remain in place, as there is that want it removed. Find a spot and build a blind, find a spot and put some effort into it. Anything worth having, is worth working for! Most of the places people are complaining about "locking" up public waters, are spending 10's of thousands of dollars a year to make these places successful! From pumping impoundments, fixing dikes, growing grain, building and brushing blinds. There is a lot of effort and money that goes into a great hunting location. It is not something that happens over night. Respect the law owners, and you would be surprised what happens. I have the opportunity to hunt most of the private hunting clubs throughout Pamlico County several times a year. Not because I have a lot of money, not because I am some famous duck hunter, but because I am willing to help these clubs when they need help and I respect there property.
Splashin' Divers
hunter
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: Eastern North Carolina

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby HydeMarsh » Wed May 14, 2014 7:24 pm

hello Splashin, Your post confused me. I do not have "an Agenda". My goal is simple, not to take one inch of another person's property but not allow greedy individuals take what belongs to the citizens of this state.

In your post you say "Lets be honest. The only "public water" that anyone is concerned with being "tied" up is the "public waters" that produce ducks. Well guys those "public waters" produce ducks for a reason. Either there is a food source, little hunting pressure or human interaction or whatever, if it was not regulated, there would be just as many ducks in those areas as there are in most public areas, not many. So continue to try and beat the bushes, and continue to try and get laws that fit "your agenda" and see what happens. In 15 -20 years duck hunting will be non existing."

(Ducks go where they want to go and any citizen of this state that is willing to put in the time/work to scout and find ducks should be able to hunt them if he finds them on a sound, river, bay, or any other body of water covered by the North Carolina Public Trust Doctrine. I will still be hunting in 15 to 20 years if I am still alive)

In addition I favor a statewide law that tries to ensure a quality outdoor experience for all citizen. In waters covered by the NCPTD I believe that there should be a 200 yard distance from an occupied fixed or floating blind. the blind should be occupied at least 30 minutes before legal shooting light or the person setting up near it had the right. To indicate that a blind is occupied the people occupying it should place a colored light visible at least 200 yards.


you also wrote:
"I sometimes wonder why we have the 500 yard law myself, and sometimes I wish I did not have to abide by the law, but in the long run I understand it is there for a reason. I see the benefit of the law a lot more than I see the disadvantage. With that said there are plenty of places to duck hunt in Pamlico and Carteret Counties, without violating the 500 yard law. Unfortunately, there is just as long as a list of people that want the law to remain in place, as there is that want it removed. Find a spot and build a blind, find a spot and put some effort into it. Anything worth having, is worth working for! Most of the places people are complaining about "locking" up public waters, are spending 10's of thousands of dollars a year to make these places successful! From pumping impoundments, fixing dikes, growing grain, building and brushing blinds. There is a lot of effort and money that goes into a great hunting location. It is not something that happens over night. Respect the law owners, and you would be surprised what happens. I have the opportunity to hunt most of the private hunting clubs throughout Pamlico County several times a year. Not because I have a lot of money, not because I am some famous duck hunter, but because I am willing to help these clubs when they need help and I respect there property."

I have spent a ton of money buying land, fixing impoundments, planting corn, building blinds. I reap the benefit of this on my land. Water covered by the NCPTD is not my land, nor is it yours, or some very priviledged land owner from Virginia Beach. No one can build an impoundment in public waters. you cannot plant corn there; although, when I scout it often appears someone is trying by the amount of spilled corn I see in the water. i agree there is a lot of money that goes into great hunting places. private hunting places. If you cannot afford a private place then hunt public water. however, the greedy people that can try to claim what is not theirs take it away form the citizens of the state.
HydeMarsh
hunter
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Neuse River

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby Giant Killer » Thu May 15, 2014 9:02 am

I always find it funny that regardless of which board or discussion it always includes keywords "rich landowner", "Virginia Beach", or "JJ".

But love it or hate it...JJ's impoundments are responsible for holding a large majority of birds "in the area" (as are many other "rich", "private", clubs or landowners) Now go and let the yahoos setup every 100 yrds along JJ's banks, and sky bust everything coming in there (like they do on the gamelands across the ditch) and JJ's will be just as empty as Pamlico Point. Be careful what you wish for...
Giant Killer
hunter
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:21 am

Re: Pamlico County Safe hunter Law

Postby NCfowl » Thu May 15, 2014 10:24 am

Lets all be honest...mostly this is about JJ's..... We all know he doesn't manage his impoundments well at all. Especially his natural places and WE ALL KNOW why the ducks are on the outside sitting close. I mean come on :hi:
NCfowl
hunter
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:04 am

Next

Return to North Carolina Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Percy86 and 5 guests