Barron County Board Approves New Regulations, Permit Fees for County Shooting Ranges

Changes include daily and annual permits as officials address safety, noise complaints and misuse of facilities

By Joe Morey

Free Press Editor/Publisher

The Barron County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved changes to its parks and recreation ordinance Monday, Oct. 19, establishing new regulations and permit fees for county-operated shooting ranges in an effort to address safety concerns, noise complaints and ongoing misuse of the facilities.

The ordinance was approved with 28 supervisors voting in favor and one absent.

Barron County Corporation Counsel John Muench explained that the changes involve Section 42 of the county's General Code, specifically provisions under Section 42.17 governing firearms and other weapons. The changes primarily address the operation and use of the county's two shooting ranges.

The affected facilities are the Owen Anderson Shooting Range, located at 790 9th Avenue near Clayton in the Town of Arland, and the Barron County Public Shooting Range, also known as the Straw Pit Range, located at 530 29½ Avenue near Barronett in the Town of Maple Plain.

Muench said the county's Property Committee has been examining problems at the ranges since 2020, including individuals who disregard established rules, exceed permitted hours and create concerns for neighboring property owners.

"The property committee has been dealing with this since 2020," Muench told supervisors. "It deals with people that use the ranges and abuse the ranges, don't respect other people's rights."

He said neighboring landowners have raised concerns about excessive noise and safety, prompting the committee to consider several measures intended to improve conditions.

According to Muench, the county has already established operating hours, installed cameras and gates, increased signage and pursued prosecutions against individuals using the ranges when they are closed.

Despite those efforts, problems have continued.

"The committee has imposed hours but people were abusing those hours," Muench said.

The latest ordinance changes establish a fee for using the shooting ranges, which county officials hope will help offset maintenance costs while providing a means of identifying users and holding them accountable for violations.

Under the ordinance changes, Wisconsin residents will pay $5 for a daily shooting range permit or $30 for an annual permit. Non-Wisconsin residents will pay $10 for a daily permit or $60 for an annual permit.

Muench said the fee system is intended to promote more responsible use of the facilities while addressing concerns from nearby residents.

"We have people who want to use [the ranges] to sight their guns or for recreational shooting, but when you have people who shoot for hours on end, that's not what the range is intended for," he said.

Supervisor Randy Cook expressed support for the changes, noting that shooting ranges are used by a relatively small percentage of county taxpayers and that fees could help support maintenance expenses.

Supervisor Dana Heller, a member of the Property Committee, said, “This ordinance change is to give the ordinance teeth so law enforcement has a way to make it more enforceable.”

Concealed Carry Language Raises Questions

While the proposed changes centered on the county's two shooting ranges, discussion turned to another portion of the firearms ordinance after Supervisor Diane Vaughn questioned whether existing language could prohibit concealed carry in certain county recreation areas.

Vaughn said the provision appeared to restrict concealed carry and asked that the Property Committee examine whether the language should be revised.

Muench explained that the committee's review had focused specifically on the shooting ranges and that the other firearms provisions were not being changed.

"Shooting ranges is what we are looking at and section one and two remain untouched," Muench said.

He recommended that supervisors proceed with the shooting range changes while allowing the Property Committee to separately review language concerning firearms possession in county parks and recreation areas.

Supervisor Shelley Effertz also raised concerns about the wording of the existing ordinance, noting that its restrictions appeared to extend beyond county parks.

"It's in the language you can't have a weapon unless it's in a case at a wayside or parking lots," Effertz said. "It had a whole list and it isn't just county parks."

Muench responded that the existing restrictions apply to certain county-owned areas, including parking lots associated with county forests and designated recreation properties, while providing an exception for the county shooting ranges.

He emphasized that the board could leave the existing language intact while the Property Committee examined whether revisions were appropriate.

"Tonight, you'll leave section one the way it is written and part three has the changes and the property committee would take this up for discussion," Muench said. "The only part they have worked on so far is the two county shooting ranges."

Cook then questioned whether the board could amend the proposal to exclude the section addressing possession and control of weapons while voting on the remaining shooting range regulations.

"Is it going to be appropriate to just amend this motion to only include or to exclude item one, possession and control, and leave the rest for a vote?" Cook asked.

Muench explained that the ordinance was being repealed and recreated as a whole, meaning any deletion of the existing firearms language would require careful consideration. "Section 42 is your parks and recreation ordinance completely, and you're repealing the subsection and recreating it as written here."

He cautioned that removing language without a thorough committee review could create unforeseen legal or enforcement issues.

"If you're going to do that, I would rather you send the entire document back to the property committee for discussion because that might have some unintended consequences that you're not expecting," Muench said.

Muench continued, “This language has been since at least 1989 and quite honestly, it's never been an issue. That's why I think it needs discussion whether it's necessary or not."

He advised supervisors against making an immediate change to a provision that had remained in place for more than three decades.

"With just making an open-ended deletion of language that's been there for 30 years, I think [that] might be a little short-sighted," Muench said.

Cook subsequently clarified that he was not interested in deleting the language and said he would trust fellow supervisors serving on the Property Committee to address the matter appropriately at an upcoming meeting.

The board proceeded with approval of the shooting range ordinance changes, leaving the existing firearms possession language in place.