DNR over stepping there power?

[Cody Gruchow]

The mudder-truck event near Isanti, Minn., got a little out of hand.

Now, a landowner faces a criminal charge and a costly wetland restoration because he allowed modified trucks with giant tires to chew up his land while beer-drinking spectators cheered.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) this week ordered property owner Chad M. Hunt, 31, to stop damaging the wetland and cited him for driving his mudder truck in it.

DNR officials are taking action under the state Wetland Conservation Act, which is rarely used in cases of off-road vehicle damage. Under the 1991 law, property owners can be ordered to restore altered wetlands.

"In a case like this, what we want is the restoration," said DNR conservation officer David Schottenbauer, who investigated the damage. "We want it fixed and we don't want it to happen again."

Mudder trucks have jacked-up suspensions, big engines and no mufflers. They are meant to be driven in mud. Hunt, who owns one, said that he invited 10 to 12 mudder trucks to the May 3 event and that a crowd of spectators packed his 9-acre property off Hwy. 47 in Stanford Township.

As the trucks spun and mired themselves in mud, a neighbor complained to the Isanti County Sheriff's Office about the roar.

When Deputy Chris Caulk arrived, he counted 70 cars, saw lots of drinking and heard trucks so loud that he had to question Hunt inside a building so they could understand each other. The big trucks plowed through 100 to 150 yards of wetland, which was 2 to 3 feet deep, he reported.

The DNR later took aerial photos. They show a tangle of muddy ruts that wiped out most vegetation.

In an interview, Hunt said he likes driving in mud, and has been doing it on his land since he bought it three years ago. He denied that his mudding area is a wetland, saying it contained only weeds that grow back each year.
All the mud guys are getting singled out," said Hunt, who compared mudder trucks to all-terrain vehicles. "The ATV guys, they can go tearing the hell out of woods and swamps ... but guys like me, we can't go out in that swamp or whatever."

Hunt, who said he also drives a truck for a living, believes he got caught only because of the noise. He said the free event attracted more people than he expected. He said everything was cleaned up the next day.

He is scheduled to appear next month in Isanti County District Court on the driving-in-a-wetland charge. If found guilty, he could face fines and jail. In 2004, two men were sentenced to 30 days in jail after damaging a wetland on public land in Crow Wing County.

In the Isanti case, a prosecutor is still reviewing whether additional nuisance-related charges will be filed, said County Attorney Jeffrey Edblad.

Capt. John Hunt, who supervises DNR's wetland enforcement, said wetland restoration, which is overseen by local and state officials, often costs thousands of dollars. Hunt, who is not related to the suspect, said he has heard of one restoration that cost $30,000.

Many landowners don't know about the law, he said.

"Just because you own the wetland doesn't mean that you control the wetland and can modify it or change it," he said.



anyones comments on this?



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Spinach]

I agree with the law and don't think the DNR is overstepping its boundaries.

[Randy Kaar]

looks to be pretty ripped up to me, not just a little mud
pit.

randy aka bh

[BuckorBust]

whether you agree he did wrong or not, the one thing that bothers me is the daily interference by our goverment in our personal lives. If this was public land I could see a problem, but being private land I don't. I could see a citation for the noise. I know one thing many people drive through wetlands everyday, with atv's, trucks, and whatever else. So lets say you are on your own land and you are going to go to your deer stand, you are taking your atv out to your stand to hopefully  help drag your deer out if you are successful, well on the way to the stand you have to cross a small marsh area, now you are in direct violation of this law. the government goes to far I feel. If this man wants to play in the mud by all means go have some fun, but show some consideration for your neighbors and keep the noise down. Next thing you know are tax dollars will be paying for designated mud pits   

[Randy Kaar]

there is one in gilbert mn  atv and 4x4 trucks. but i think
it is a strip mine site.

randy aka bh

[kenhuntin]

Thankfully destroying a wetland is not someones private business.

[camoguy24]

i figure its his land he pays taxes for it....he can do whatever he wants with it

[The General]

I hear the "It's his land he can do with it what he wants".  But I don't want my neighbor building a bunch of Turkey Barns next to me.  So I'm trying to see how this would hurt someone else.  I can see the noise thing.  Does it cause property values of others to go down?  If a duck can't find some water in MN to sit in besides this guys it's a pretty stupid Duck.

[camoguy24]

^^^^^^agreed

[kenhuntin]

If it was as simple as a place for a duck to sit it may seem trivial. Pheasants,shorebirds ,songbirds and the like are nesting now. These places are mostly crucial to filtering ground water from contaminants starting with plantlife and aquatic invertabrates. It basically purifies his own well water from fuel and oil spills. Wetlands are very important to support a healthy population of all things living. As humans we are the stewards of protecting life on Earth. It just does not seem worth it to admire a truck with mud on it.

[Cody Gruchow]

in a month you wont be able to tell that anything happened anyways

[EagleEyeJack]

Very Glad to see the DNR doing their job!! 

[Cody Gruchow]

what im trying to get at is why this guy? i know of 2 schools that are built right ontop of wetlands that are alot bigger than this guys property. with all the construction and housing develpoment(spelling) going on in the metro wetlands are being destroyed all the time. great example the new 312 highway, they filled in the creek next to the high school to build the highway, guess were that creek goes, it goes right into a swamp aka a wetland. and another point is why should this guy have to pay tax's on this land but to only be told he cant touch it or do anything to it. if it was me, if no ducks or geese could be hunted out of it the next best thing would be to have some fun and go mudding, maybe not to that extent. i just want to know why a of a sudden this guy? when its going on everywere.

[Spinach]

The law is the law Cody.... Although it is rarely enforced, it is still the law.

Just like if you don't were your seatbelt and get pulled over, you can't say why me? there are thousands of other drivers not wearing theirs either. You just happened to get caught and the officer decided to uphold the law that time.

This guy broke the law and has to pay the penalty, I'm sure their is more to the story than we know, his neighbors were probably sick and tired of the noise and parties, it finally caught up to him.

I live in the city, we have city laws forbidding bonfires here, they have to be no larger than 3x3 and you can only burn untreated wood, no garbage, debris, grass etc...... We also have a water restriction that we can only water the lawns in certain hours and on certain days. If I lived in a different county or in the sticks, i can have a bigger fire and water my lawn whenever i want. I have no choice but to follow the laws they put into place or move........ I choose to follow the laws myself.

We have restrictions on swingsets (can't have them unless they are the rainbow style, cant have any sheds either unless the roofs and paint match the house. Our houses have to be certain colors too, they wont allow any non earth tones and you have to get approval before you replace the siding or paint.

The point I am making is that I own this property and land and I still have to do what the city says and not break there laws.

[thunderpout]

Im guessin the DNR is making an example out of him.  I think the law was really intended to keep people from draining wetlands so they could use the land for personal use, aka growing crops, getting a bigger useable lot etc. ... That and The common but illegal practice of atv'ers ripping up water holes on public land/privately owned land with trails going thru them, and turning them into mud bogs. It takes years to regrow vegetation for cover, nesting and food for waterfowl, so I understand the DNR's take on it if its public land, and Ive seen the damage atv's can do, it takes just a few people to ruin some nice areas, Im an atv'er so Im not against rideing around on designated trails in our forests, and in areas where they dont easily damage habitat.  But, Im not sure where I stand on this as its his own land and hes not removing the wetland or turning it into a lawn or a cornfeild, but then again, its kinda like removing weeds or filtering vegitation on a lakeshore so ya can have a pretty sandy beach.  Although thats affecting a public lake, where this is his own pothole.  I do know that our potholes are drying up/disapearing in our state, which is why duck #'s have been going down over the years.  I have a feeling there's gonna be a good court battle over this....

[Cody Gruchow]

i understand what both of you are trying to say, but it all comes down to and makes me wonder if our family really does own the land that they are paying for or not.

[thunderpout]

Cody, you do make a good point about the school being built and the changes made there to suit their needs.  It does seem when the government wants to build, put in a road, approve a massive housing development or a sprawling shopping mall etc., to increase incoming taxes "for the benefit of the city", the habitat quickly gets overlooked in the intrest of $$$... Then we are criminalized for doing the same...or less.  Im just glad Im not the judge that has to make the decision on these issues....

[Cody Gruchow]

they can classify a ditch with water a wetland (class 1 i think), i think they just pick and choice who will get slapped with the fines. im not bashing the DNR in anyway im acually studying to become one but i know there are bigger fish to fry than this guy

[camoguy24]

can the guy even sell this part of land to the goverment or is it kinda like the sidewalk law?

[Finlander]

This guy is not being made an example of ! A few (3 or 4) years ago this also happened SW of Onamia . I was at this private property mud run with some friends who have Mud trucks which I helped them build . The land owner had made a pit and pumped water into it and was spraying water with a tractor around the edges to keep it wet . Well , some guys got bored with it and moved to a nearby wetland . It was solid cattails , weeds ,water and mud . They were getting stuck not to far out and the tractor would go get them unless they were way out there . I knew of the wetland act and wondered how they were getting away with it.  I was only there for the one day and the DNR showed up the next day and shut down the wetland intrusion . They still have mud runs there but not in the wetlands . They made their hole bigger with more obsatcles.

  A few guys got busted a couple years ago for driving their mud trucks in a wetland and right into the lake which it connected with . They claimed they were washing them off . This one I read in Cuffs and Collars .

  The same thing with people buying a little 5-10 acre parcel and the put dirt bike tracks on them and run them day in and day out without any concern to their neighbors. Then you read all the arguments in the paper when someone wants to outlaw tracks because of noise .

 I agree with the law and think it should be enforced .  If people want to do this kind of stuff on their own property they should check the laws with the DNR and build their own pits that don't drain into a wetland . The guy in southern Isanti Co was in a wetland and all of that wetland connects with a small lake just west of his property . The topo maps show it .

 One of my friends with a mud truck feels he can do whatever on his own land also . He tried getting me to go together on an 80 acre parcel up south of Isabella 5 years ago . I was considering it until I learned of his plans for big mud truck runs through the property. The property was 40% wetlands with a trout creek running through it. I told him he could not do that because it was against the law and he said he could do whatever he wanted on his own land . So I told him I wanted no part of it and let it go . He was mad and dissapointed but now understands because I bought my own piece up north .

 This has nothing to do with a duck finding water . It is all about water quality. Without the wetlands being disturbed they can do their job . The Minnesota River is a prime example of poor water quality because of what some farmers had done over the years . All it takes is a few people that don't care and it's gone for a generation or more .

 ATV's are the same . Depends on the operator and the path they pick to follow .

[Cody Gruchow]

if the dnr really wants to get picky they can claim that little mudhole a wetland also sense it collects water. but i understand what you are sayint though. great post

[thunderpout]

Finlander, I meant making an example of them as in so other people dont do the same thing, which is a good idea i think... best way to advertise it is to put the thumb screws on em, not just slap em on the wrist and make em say Im sorry, cause then its too late and the damage has been done.  Then the press gets ahold of the story, and the word gets out that rippin up stuff and wrecking habitat is a big no-no!  Did you guys see the article I think last fall about the areas ripped up near the north shore by atv'ers?  they had aerial photos showing multiple areas not on trail systems that were ruined.  The state closed down large areas of Nemadji St Forest a few years back because of the same crap... I used to grouse hunt there alot and I'd always see full size trucks driving back in the atv only areas, and that ticked me off somthing huge!  Its that handfull of people again ruining it for others and giving off road enthusiasts a bad name... and when atv/off roaders wonder why land owners are reluctant to let new trails be put in, they wonder why there's the big backlash.... Im sure, as others have said, that the main issue was the noise ticken off the surrounding neighbors, and the ruining the enviroment route was the best way to come down on the land owner.

[Finlander]

 I would think that if you had permits to build the pit and it was site inspected by the DNR , they could not turn the tables on you legally .Especially if the permit and applications are still in possesion .

 Thunderpout , I still don't think it is the DNR making the example out of them .Yes, it could of been the Sheriffs dept., the neighbor or someone at the mudrun that leaked it to the press and the press is responsible for this whole thing of making an example . It only takes the right tree hugging liberal reporter to blow the whole thing out proportion . They have the right to do that and it seems that is the only version that everyone hears or reads . That is the only way to get some peoples attention .

 I am not a conservationist  , but I do believe that some of the laws they pushed are for the better of all of us . I do not agree with all of their views . If only you could hear some of the conversations I have with my cousins who are loggers . The things they have to do now for prevention of erosion has made them complain in the past . But they can now see the good it does years later as we deer hunt their old sales .

 I like my motors, trucks and toys . But I like to be responsible with them  . I don't own an ATV yet . I too have seen the damage they can do when I'm in the woods near my cabin .

  I also have seen ATVers get mad at me for driving my truck on a road or trail that is marked for ATV's but also have a road sign at each end . Then come hunting season, there are a lot of trucks on those same trails . Heck , some of those trails were built by my cousins for logging . We only use the ones that are not designated ATV's only except when snowmobiling .

[Roosterslayer]

See cody if wetlands are filled in to be built on such as schools, the schools have to find and donate the same amount of land back to wetlands, same goes with roads. I believe that mudders should have a place to play, but i have seen first hand that more times then not it ends up happening where it shouldn't.

[huntr42]

I had a run in with a different part of the wetland law,on my property I have a very very small lowland field with a smallkind of bog on one end ,this land ajoins a township rd,I had the idea I would have a guy with a trackhoe turn the bog into a small pond for the ducks and other wildlife,also would have the trackhoe put the dirt and muck in a line to kind of hide pond from the road hunters.when I notified the county they came out and said that I could build the pond(gee aint they nice to give me permission to to it on my own land)but!! I would have to haul the dirt and muck away by truck and that I couldnt pile it to hide the pond from the road because of a law meant to protect bigger wetlands please understand between the field and bog we are talking about less than an acre.so no pond for the ducks and critters as I refuse to haul away the dirt and muck by truck when it was there in the first place.once again we have the state flexing their muscle for no reason,

[deadeye]

Hunter42, that happens frequently when digging or building a pond.  Usually not a problem to dig but you must put the diggings on "high" ground or they will charge you with filling in a wetland. 
Doesn't matter that you are just moving it from one spot to another the key is filling in a wetland.   By the way, I don't think the DNR is the heavy here.  I think the County water board requests the DNR to ticket a violator.
 

[huntr42]

actually the county told me it was a state law

[Finlander]

Would'nt they let you spread it out on the remaing field ?

[huntr42]

no they wouldnt even tho I told them it aught to make great loam for the hayfield

[HD]

They will let you spread it over "high ground", (But, this may vary from county to county) but not use it for fill in "low ground" ........I would check with local county officials.
When I dug my pond, they had specific rules about where it could go and what you can do with it.
They came out and took pictures of the area and mapped out, what I could and couldn't do.

The one fella from the county told me there is a rule of thumb they use: "If it has a cattail growing in it, you can't touch it"

And you fella's are correct about the "bending of rules" for roads and schools and the like....They do have to replace what they destroy. I got a buddy that is putting in a road, and I have been going to the hearings with him to help him out..........and all of this stuff has been dicussed.

If this guy went mudding in an area that was low and deamed a wetland, he will have to fix it and pay a fine. And if they can prove he had prior knowledge of it being a wetland, he could face jail time.

Hunter