McLeod County board postpones decision on rifle vs. shotgun deer-hunting ordinance after hours of public comment

The McLeod County Board of Commissioners opened a public hearing March 3 on a draft county ordinance that would limit firearms allowed for deer hunting and, after extended testimony and board discussion, voted to postpone consideration of the ordinance indefinitely.

The hearing drew dozens of speakers from around the county who took the three-minute public-comment window to urge opposite outcomes. Residents in southern parts of McLeod County argued for retaining a shotgun-only restriction, citing proximity to public hunting lands and safety concerns. "Rifles will travel more than a mile," said Larry Tongan of Penn Township, who said he counted 21 hunters within a one-mile radius of his home and told the board he feared for neighbors' safety if rifles were permitted. Bob Lindeman, also of Penn Township, urged the board to keep shotgun limits because of flat terrain and denser population near public hunting areas.

Other residents said data and hunting practice support allowing centerfire rifles. "In the last six years I found 19 incidents and 11 involved shotguns," said Carrie Hansen, who reviewed Minnesota DNR incident reports and urged the board to weigh the causes of incidents rather than the firearm type. Randy Raymond cited Wisconsin’s experience after that state went largely to rifles and said incidents did not increase.

County staff and the county attorney described the legal process: the ordinance draft was published in advance, the notice requirements for a public hearing had been met, and the statute allows counties to adopt a local ordinance to remain "shotgun-only" if they take affirmative action. The county attorney told the board that if the county takes no action, rifles would be permitted by operation of state law for the coming season, and that a county could revisit the matter in the future with the statutory ordinance process.

Commissioners discussed enforcement, the practicality of reliance on Minnesota Department of Natural Resources conservation officers, and the optics of adopting or rejecting local restrictions. A motion to adopt the draft ordinance was made but failed for lack of support. The board then voted to postpone consideration indefinitely; the chair announced the motion passed, and the item was postponed.

Because the public-hearing requirement has been met, the board may bring the ordinance back for consideration on a future agenda without reopening the hearing. The board did not set a new deadline or timetable when it postponed the item.

The hearing — one of the most heavily attended items on the day’s agenda — underscored a split in public views across geographic and hunting-practice lines and left the county’s immediate regulatory status unchanged. The board is expected to be able to revisit the draft ordinance at a later meeting if it chooses to do so.