Hundreds speak at Clay County public hearing as board weighs keeping shotgun-only deer zones or allowing rifles

Clay County held a lengthy public hearing April 7 on whether to preserve shotgun-only deer hunting zones or allow rifles following a 2025 change to state law.

County administrator Steve Larson opened the hearing and reviewed three options for the board: take no action and allow rifle hunting countywide (default under the new statute); adopt an ordinance keeping the county shotgun-only; or adopt a geographic carve‑out (for example, using County Road 9 or Highway 32 as a dividing line). Larson said the DNR prefers a clear, simple boundary if the county adopts an ordinance and noted a May 5 deadline for adoption so changes appear in the DNR hunting materials.

The hearing drew a broad cross-section of views. Nick Olsgaard (Clark Township) told commissioners he supports allowing rifles, saying rifles “provide better accuracy, which leads to a more ethical harvest and fewer wounded animals,” and argued modern conditions (higher deer numbers and improved firearms) have made the old shotgun zones obsolete. Several other speakers — including Joel Hildebrand and Jason Hicks — echoed the point that rifles can increase accuracy and humane kills.

By contrast, multiple rural landowners and public‑land users urged preserving the shotgun zone or keeping the pre‑legislative boundary. Jerry Buttenoff described small parcels and dense clusters of hunters on public ground near homes and said, “I strongly urge you to leave it the same or at least when you get out by roll out, there's some hills to stop the bullets.” Kendall Nichols and other east‑of‑Highway‑9 residents described finding slugs near homes and said those conditions increase safety concerns if rifles are allowed.

Speakers raised two recurring practical concerns: enforcement and cross‑border hunting pressure. Several residents asked whether law enforcement responsibility would shift to the Clay County Sheriff’s Office; Sheriff (speaker 22) said the DNR agreed to assist with enforcement if the county adopts a clear line and that the sheriff’s office had asked the DNR for continued enforcement support. Others warned that allowing rifles could boost non‑resident hunting, with one commenter noting North Dakota hunters already travel into Minnesota for opportunities.

The hearing included detailed local points: one public speaker asked whether alternatives such as restricting to straight‑wall cartridges (a narrower class of cartridges with intermediate range) had been considered; another said the county’s DNR wildlife manager currently limits doe permits and questioned whether expanding effective range with rifles makes sense before current management goals are met.

Larson confirmed the board can craft an ordinance tailored to local circumstances and that any ordinance would be revisitable; attorney remarks at the hearing noted an ordinance must be reviewed within a year if adopted.

After nearly three hours of testimony and consideration of roughly 40 written comments, the board closed the hearing and did not take immediate final action. Commissioners said they will review the written and oral testimony and hold a follow‑up discussion at the board meeting scheduled two weeks later to meet the DNR’s May 5 timeline.

The board advised members of the public that the hearing record — including online submissions — will be part of the minutes and that any decision will be posted publicly. The next board discussion on the issue is expected at the April 21 meeting.