Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherburne County votes to allow rifle deer hunting, affirms state law after public input
Summary
Sherburne County commissioners voted April 7 to affirm state hunting law and allow rifle deer hunting countywide after reviewing a public survey (about 74% favored rifles) and safety studies; board agreed to revisit the decision if problems emerge.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherburne County commissioners on April 7 moved to affirm state law and allow rifle hunting for deer countywide, rejecting a local ordinance that would have enforced shotgun‑only zones.
Commissioner Hulse, who made the motion, said he based his decision on safety data and a county survey showing roughly three‑quarters of respondents favored allowing rifles. "Based on the preponderance of evidence, the preponderance of studies, it's become apparent that rifles are at least as safe as shotguns," Hulse said during the board discussion.
Administrator Messell briefed the board on outreach and surveys: county staff received 315 responses in the open comment period, with roughly 241 supporting allowing rifles, 68 supporting shotgun‑only restrictions, and six neutral. She also reported that of respondents who own hunting land, a plurality favored rifles.
Board members noted that property owners retain the right to set conditions for hunting on their land (for example, restricting firearms on private property) and that law enforcement and DNR distances and discharge rules still apply. Several commissioners said they would review the new practice over the next year and could revisit the county position if data suggested safety or nuisance problems.
The motion to affirm state law and allow rifles was seconded and carried by voice vote.
Why this matters: the decision aligns Sherburne County with Minnesota state hunting rules rather than imposing a local shotgun‑only ordinance, balancing public survey results, safety studies and private‑property rights while leaving room for future review if incidents or new evidence warrant revision.

