Winona County holds public hearing as residents debate allowing rifles for deer hunting

Winona County commissioners convened a public hearing on the proposed repeal of the county's shotgun-only deer-hunting restriction, drawing dozens of speakers who offered sharply divided views on safety, enforcement and hunting access.

The board opened the hearing and asked speakers to state their name and address for the record and to limit remarks to two minutes. Opponents of allowing rifles cited safety concerns near homes and rough bluff terrain. "My wife and I found a spent projectile laying on our west deck of our house," said Otis Jacobson of Fremont Township, who said that proximity to state land makes rifles unsafe for his property.

Supporters argued rifles provide more accurate, ethical shots and extend hunting access to people with physical limitations. "I'm having my right shoulder replaced on Friday...so I'm not gonna be able to hunt with a shotgun anymore," said Andrew Myers of Rollingstone, who urged allowing rifles for disabled hunters. Several speakers said modern rifles and scoped shots can reduce stray or multiple shots; Nora Huxtable, a member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, added that allowing rifles could also help herd control for chronic wasting disease management and warned that making Winona an exception could create a confusing regulatory "checkerboard."

Speakers also raised enforcement and cost questions. "If the board does create a county ordinance ... who will be enforcing it? Does this fall under the Winona sheriff's department?" asked Josh Stos. Multiple speakers noted that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) currently handles game-law enforcement and that county-level enforcement could impose costs on the sheriff's office and local courts.

Bo O'Hanlon, who identified firearms instruction and guide experience, told the board that reckless discharge is already a felony under state law and said that legal penalties and hunter education limit the county's need to restrict rifle use. Others urged caution because of local topography: "There's a lot of hills and valleys...rifle bullets do travel much farther than slugs," said Brian Holman of Utica.

Several commenters cited neighboring Wisconsin's experience, saying Wisconsin eliminated shotgun-only restrictions years ago without a noticeable rise in hunting fatalities; Merrill Schrader referenced Wisconsin's 2013 change and argued rifles are generally more accurate than short-barreled shotguns using slugs. Commenters also raised environmental concerns about lead deposition from spent shot and slugs.

The board closed the hearing by voice vote after a motion and second; no formal action to change county policy was taken that night. Commissioners said they would continue to consider the matter and indicated a decision could come by May. Staff and several commissioners noted that further clarification on enforcement responsibility and legal limits would be needed before any ordinance or statement of action.

The public record for the hearing will remain open to the board as it weighs whether to follow state law (which now allows rifles) or to seek a local exception; the county directed staff to follow normal procedures for any future agenda placement and communications to clarify the county's position.