Question for LandDr (and others)

[Scott M]

Landdr, I didn't want to hijack the ND nonresident hunting bill thread, so I took a quote of yours in its entirety for this thread that brings up some provocative questions for me (and maybe others).

UFDA...MN duck hunters...if you want ducks in your own state so you don't have to be at the control of other state licenses and seasons, then do something about it to have ducks in your own state.

Did any of you hunt ducks in the flooded fields of MN this year due to the heavy fall rains? Looking at the reports and photos, a lot of you did and it was fantastic hunting. Why waite for it to rain each year to have that kind of hunting? Why not make a plan and get it done to have your own flooded fields each year? You could have your own great hunting each year by flooding crops or even planting wild rice, sago, celery and freshwater shrimp.

Flooded crops are one of the easiest and most productive options to bring ducks in. This is tne "norm" out in Washington and Oregon...down in Arkansas, Louisiana, etc...and out east in N. Carolina, S. Carolina, etc. Minnesota has soooooo much opportunity for this type of management due to the soils, contours and available crop land...but I see hardly any of it being done. Seems everyone wants the easy option of just throwing out the decoys, blowing the duck calls and the ducks come in. Maybe spend your time and money on working with a farmer to lease a small patch of crop field to flood that area in the fall...and then drain it again one ice over so the farmer has no "wet issues" in the spring. Who would think of leasing a bare piece of crop land? You would probably get it for a $100 or $200 bucks because no one thinks of leasing bare cropland for hunting. Then...plug the tile or ditch to easily flood the area you want to hunt and watch the ducks pile in!!!

Now this is probably going to work better in central and western MN but it can certainly work in eastern MN as well...especially if there is more of this management to the west bringing ducks further east into MN.

My farms are mostly sand so I can't hold water, but I have a neighbor farmer just across the road that has a low area. He has been trying to farm that low area each year with limited success cause he tries to get into it too early. This last year he got it planted to corn...grew great but he couldn't get it harvested due to the fall rains. I sat in my deer stand and watched the greenheads pile into that small flooded stand of corn like little tornadoes of ducks falling in. That's all it takes!

Several years ago I planted a 15 acre pond into wild rice...it took and now have a great stand of wild rice to hunt in. Each year the ducks pile into this pond after that food source. We have also put some Sago, Celery and shrimp into this pond for some extra attractant. My 8 year old son and I had a blast out there this year! Ducks pile into this pond all day in 2s, 3s, etc. but morning and evening is just incredible.

I have never duck hunted in the Dakotas...I have world class duck hunting right here in MN because I started the projects to make it this way. MN has so much opportunity for this type of management...time to get started!

Land Dr

So here goes... I understand you are running a business, providing enjoyment to hunters, and doing conservation work. I see the positives in your line of work. A good friend of mine works in the private sector for a prairie restoration company. With that said, I have to ask the question. What expectations should Minnesotans have for public hunting? Is it unreasonable to expect to see and shot some ducks? Back in the day, there was the option of "just throwing out the decoys, blowing the duck calls and [having] the ducks come in." Look at the changes on this landscape in the last 40-60 years. To expect hunting to be like Minnesota in 1950 is unreasonable now, but what are reasonable expectations on public land?

I don't want this to come off as a personal attack, I just want to get your (and others) viewpoints. There's no delicate way to put this, so I'm going to put it out there. Do you think duck hunting should become privatized in Minnesota? You talk about flooded fields in Arkansas, Louisiana, the Pacific Northwest. Hunting flooded fields means you either own them or lease them. And if you want to add the foods that undoubtedly attract ducks, on a scale large enough to attract decent number of birds, based on application rates and costs, it's a pretty penny. This is what contemporary outdoor authors have in mind when they continue to write about hunting becoming a rich man's sport.

I would love to see the DNR do some of the work you are advocating. Moist Soil Management should have been done starting 20 years ago, and on 20 times the scale that the DNR is just rolling out now.I'm in total agreement that foods attract and hold birds. This has been borne out in numerous waterfowl behavior and tracking studies where birds have stayed on waters with food, even in intense hunting pressure. However, I feel that if the solution is to flood private fields for landowners and pay for hunting we are a) pricing out the Lion's share of hunters and treating the symptoms and not the problem. The problem is we don't have good duck foods on our numerous waterbodies to hold birds. Why? Because of land use, and not putting too fine a point on it, agricultural land use. Nutrient choked, tile drained wetlands bounce up and down because they handle more water than was intended since watershed size has changed with the elimination of 90% of our wetlands and they don't grow duck food because they have carp, bullheads, fathead minnows, and algal blooms that shade out submergent plants. Upland nesting habitat around riparian features are nearly gone and all that is left are narrowleaf and hybrid cattail sloughs in lowlands that weren't drained by the time some scant wetland protection laws were in place. It's a black landscape that looks nothing like the "prairie pothole region" that it is still mislabeled as. If people want reasonable duck hunting in this state again, it starts with restoration and tiling and drainage law reform. If we had the Dakotas tiling and drainage laws, we'd never be in this mess. I'm just calling a spade a spade. I don't disagree your methods work landdr, I just think Minnesota waterfowl hunters should be able to have some expectations of shooting ducks on public lands versus private lands.

[LandDr]

Sounds good on a new thread.

You are correct in that I run a business that helps people with habitat management and enhancement. But...I used to work for the MPCA, FSA, SWCD and NRCS (USDA) which I found frustrating...too much red tape, couldn't get done what I wanted to get done, and I was usually confined to working in just one county (there is a lot more land out there than working in just one county). So I quit my government job and started PLM...I was on a mission to get more done and make a bigger impact. That is the core of myself and my business. Govt agencies get funded by your tax payer dollars...non-profits are funded by your donations and grants from your tax payer dollars...I get my funding from working directly with landowners or land users.

Your questions...

"expectations on PUBLIC land"...unless public land is managed better and managed for multiple species, I don't hold high expectations.

For example, USFW lands (WPAs) are managed ONLY for ducks...which usually means no food plots, no feeders and no woody cover plantings for deer and pheasants. Their arguement is..."because it was purchased with duck stamp dollars, then it needs to be managed for ducks"...and they don't allow much deviation from that.

DNR is more multi-species...but a lot of the DNR lands (WMAs) are small...they just didn't buy a lot of land. That is starting to change as they focus on larger tracks of land. But again, there is often not a lot done to MAXIMIZE the carrying capacity of the property. Maybe a small woody cover planting or a small food plot and a feeder...and that is about it...the rest goes into grass. My philosophy and style differs from the DNR. I developed a management philosophy called "PLM's Management by Thirds" which means 1/3 woody cover protecting 1/3 food source associated with 1/3 native grass. IMPORTANT...I design this Management by Thirds on every 20 to 40 acres to MAXIMIZE the carrying capacity for both wildlife AND hunters. Imagine 160 acre WMA with a 10 to 15 acre woody cover planting, 10 to 15 acre food plot (with feeders) associated with 10 to 15 acres of thick native grass on every 40 acre part of the 160 acres...you would have a maze of woody cover, food plots, feeders and native grass! You would have deer and pheasants running everywhere! AND...more people could hunt the property at one time or more often due to the higher carrying capacity. I have asked to design and develop a WMA...but so far I have not been allowed to do this. I often here..."there is woody cover within a mile of the site so none is needed on this property" and other statements like that. Very frustrating.

Expectations on PRIVATE land...I hold very high expectations for this option. BUT...people need to get motivated and need to get on board with it. Best time to get started was 10 years ago...next best time is NOW. Something like 95% of the land in MN is privately owned...therefore the biggest impact is on private lands. Most wildlife in MN are born and raised on private land...that is a fact. Whatever we can do on private lands will help and compliment the public lands. I have projects on private lands adjacent or close to public lands that have definately helped the public lands...definately!

Duck Hunting in MN...I think we are missing the boat up here in the Midwest. We really have some of the easiest projects when it comes to waterfowl enhancements. The land, contours, soils and availability of water is unmatched...but rarely is anything being done with it. As I stated, I have cruddy soil...but I have a couple projects planned for this spring and I will try to work with what I have. I have GREAT deer hunting and pheasant hunting land...just not good for the flooded fields options. HOWEVER, I did plant wild rice, sago, celery and shrimp in my ponds. I now have FANTASTIC duck hunting. My 8 year old got to see some great duck hunting this year over the rice pond...ducks flying everywhere! Where do the ducks come from since neighbors are not seeing the same number of ducks I am? I don't know how ducks know there is rice and other food in my pond...they just do. It is really amazing seeing these ducks drop into these ponds.

However...flooded fields is one of the BEST options MN has going for it. I don't think it is expensive to get these projects going...especially the flooded fields. If there is one duck club or county organization reading this that would like to get a "Flooded Fields Program" going, let me know...I would love to help get a demonstration program going. I think if others can see the results, it will take off from there.

Again...if we can use private lands to move the flyway more into MN, public land will benefit from it...there will be more ducks in the area.

I wish I could work on public land more...I have a lot of ideas and options for public lands...both is the water as well as uplands. However, USFW and DNR have their own ideas and working with the private sector so far has not been one of them for the most part.

One last note...working with "water" is one of the most difficult options. Much of what you stated with the issues of our current state of our water. But...there is some water out there that can be worked with...my ponds for instance now have the food sources restored. There are other ponds out there that are potential projects as well. But water has a lot of variables and is more challenging that working with flooded fields.

Your comments were not taken as an attack...good comments and questions. I am just glad someone is listening and interested in conversation regarding it. Spring is around the corner...EVERYONE needs to look at their property, their neighbors property, their relatives property, property where you hunt, etc., etc. and start talking with these people about exploring some "WIN-WIN" projects. I have offered to look at aerial photos as no cost to give some ideas...just need township, range and section number...but so far I have not received a single legal description. I don't understand that...hopefully soon.

Land Dr

[Augusta]

Just an absolutely excellent response, I wish more people had your vision LandDr, until then, we are going to be stuck in the same rut.

[BoxMN]

Yes, agree with you Augusta. I just wish I had land to try this with... But I do have a buddy with old farm (160 total acres), and he has been working to reestablish it via CRP, hardwoods, spruces and a small holding pond, and restored an about 20 acre slough. We shot a decent number of ducks now, but still needs some work. I will say this, after he took the fields on hillside out of production and into CRP, it was less than one year tha the lake cleared up SIGNIFICANTLY and now full of sago and near crystal clear. Too many fish to get the shrimp back so far though.

Land Dr, I will try to get the legal description and email to you for any ideas. He doesn't have money, but he does have a beautiful area that could be incredible some day.

Thanks for getting these ideas out there. I agree the MN could be duck hunting Nirvana again, way out in future. (Side note, I remember duck hunting in 80's when the rest of the country was in drought and not seeing any ducks - they were all in MN in the lakes! Incredible hunting, so water levels have a lot to do with it, as the hunting got worse, we noticed higher water in our spots and saw more fish and loss of shrimp and sago, and NoDak got lots more water to hold the ducks - that was our thinking anyway.)

edit - tried to PM you Landdr, but you are over your limit if you could email me at [email protected] thanks.

[LandDr]

Thanks for the comments.

Just provide me with the T, R and Section number...I can pull up the property from there and take a look at it. It doesn't take much to do that.

High water...you are correct, the high water has allowed a lot more fish species to survive. That is why I stress that spending the time and money on "water" is difficult. Definately consider enhancements in these water areas, but the biggest and fastest bang for the buck is going to be in the "Flooded Fields Program". If this was implemented on a large scale, it has the potential to dramatically increase the number of ducks.

Keep in mind...this is to improve "hunting opportunities". We also need to keep working on the nesting/brooding options and successes. Can't be all shoot and no reproduction. But that is another program.

Land Dr

[Tom7227]

Great thread.

I have hopes that the Legacy money will help a lot with these problems, and that the water quality money will also go towards cleaning up the messes. I've been to a number of WMA's that are just horrible and unproductive. I was willing to write that off as a lack of funding. With the monies available now that excuse won't work for long. Seems to me that one of the problems is going to be trying to find qualified people to do the work that needs to be done. I think that the future is rosy for companies that have the personnel, skills and equipment necessary to do restoration work.

One of my major issues is what I see as the constant badgering of the professionals in these areas by people who have personal agendas. Too often the results are disappointing. It irks me to no end to read articles and comments chastising the DNR with claims of incompetence. Foolish politics and a lack of funding is what gets in the way in my opinion.

One thing else that I have thought of is that it seems unreasonable to me to compare what is available in other states - particularly North and South Dakota - with what is available in Minnesota. Those states have a fifth of the population. They don't have anywhere near the development and use of resources that Minnesota has. I don't think you can expect a lot of ducks in an area that gets pounded during open water with boats and personal watercraft nearly constantly. The numbers of hunters, fishermen and outdoor types in Minnesota is multiples of what there is in those states and the pressure on wildlife is just many times more here.

When I was in ND some locals were complaining that Minnesota duck hunters were ruining the sport because they were hunting over water and chasing the ducks off the roost. The method they prefer is field hunting. Trouble is that it seems that option is nearly impossible for a non-resident unless you pay to hunt, something many can't afford. When I have 4 or 5 days to hunt I simply don't have the opportunity to properly scout an area and get permission. The locals may be right that it screws up duck hunting to hunt the water but I see it as nearly the only option for non-residents.

Another thing that I think should be considered is trying to partner urban hunters with out-state conservation groups. The urban guys have money and many would be willing to put in some time in the field doing work. The rural guys most likely could use the extra dough and helping hands, but there isn't much to facilitate that sort of connection. I wish that PF and DU would start a program to buddy up folks and get things going.

Great thread. Keep tossing it around and maybe some ideas will take off.

[LandDr]

I tried to apply for some of the Legacy money...then found out the only eligable applicants are government and non-profits.

It was very frustrating that I could not apply for the funds as a private company, yet government and non-profits that sell seed, trees and services (act like private companies) have full access to these funds.

Something wrong with this picture. The govt and non-profits that lobbied for the increase in sales tax to have the funding are the same organizations that have set up the funds so only they have access to it.

In addition, EVERY successful applicant is REQUIRED to work with the MN Conservation Corp to get the work done. The private businesses that pay taxes, offer jobs and are assets to the local communities are being descriminated. Very frustrating to see this going on with our tax dollars.

[Scott M]

landdr,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Seeing things from your vantage point helps. It sounds like you've been boxed into a corner by government bureaucracy. As I stated earlier, I don't doubt your methods work and are needed, my concern remains on pricing out hunters in an already expensive sport. I realize this is entirely out of your control and wouldn't want to deny you the ability to make a difference and a dollar.

It's not unknown that we're operating in policies and mandates that aren't helping duck hunters. Farm bill reform would be a grand place to start on the topic if I'm going to get into pie in the sky talk. Next would probably be statutes revised about using public waters for drainage. Yet another would be maintenance on public lands. All of the previous three sentences are topics in and of themselves that deserve pages and pages of articulation but are merely listed for now.

Since so much of our wildlife is born and raised on private lands, we need to see better management practices from that end. Working lands are largely shaped by markets and subsidies and the wildlife side of the equation has been sorely underplayed. It goes beyond hunting and fishing, it stretches into human health, natural resource based economies, sustainability. You could argue sustainability is the all encompassing word there. It's in everyone's best interest to create programs and policy that ensures there is a future economically, environmentally, socially.

Briefly on maintenance of public land...The state is coming under some heat after internal and external audits show a lack of maintenance and the capacity to do maintenance on state lands. Why not open up maintenance contracts to private enterprises? The level of work expected could be spelled out in the contract. For instance, Rod N Gun club XYZ gets a contract to do mowing on XYZ WMA while a more expensive and sophisticated project contracts PLM to install "Management by Thirds" on XXZ WMA. The devils in the details but an option like this provides the maintenance. The question is how to pay for it. Legacy amendment small grants program? Other ideas?

I hear you on the constitutional money. There's a lot of hand-wringing over people making money from it, particularly in the private sector. Realistically it's just as likely that someone from a non-profit can leech those dollars as a private enterprise makes money from it. I agree with you about that being an inequity. I think the state has their hands tied legislatively a little bit with the amendment. I believe the MCC thing is to try and get the cheapest labor out there, but you are cutting your nose off to spite your face by doing so for the reasons you listed.

I wish I had some ideas to get more of your work on the ground, particularly on public land. Maybe Open Fields? Farm Bill incentives on private land, on a scale to make an appreciable impact? Start a nonprofit?

Speaking of non-profits, you mentioned your history with gov't agencies. Have you talked with MWA, DU, PF, MDHA, Delta, etc. about funding some projects? Have they approached you? What role is there to be had with non government organizations?

[duckster]

I have been following this thread with interest because alot of what you are talking about I have had some experience with. chise31 makes a good point about working with other organizations to get work done. I also agree that habitat on private lands is huge and we need to be looking for ways or incentives for landowners to improve habitats on their lands.

When we tried to get some work done I learned that you have to be persistent and work the system. The best results were achieved by finding an indivdual that really was interested in working with us and improving habitat. We ran into several individuals that just weren't interested in helping because their focus was else where. One wildife manager told us that he really didn't know anything about ducks but was really excited and interested in Prairie Chickens.... Trying to work with this organization we ran into nothing but excuses and road blocks. This was at the same time that there was all the talk about the shallow lake intiative and improving Minnesotas waterfowel habitat. It was in word frustrating..but we learned in a hurry that it was mostly personality driven and we had to find someone who was receptive to the idea.

So we kept working on it over 5 years and trying to get the project done. I had the best results working with DU and US Fish and Wildlife Service. DU in particular jumped on board and helped us with, equipment, supplies, expertise and working with the governmental agencies involved. At long last we were able to get the work done and started to see improvements in the habitat.

The experience taught me that we have to somehow make it easier for a landowner to make habitat improvements because the effects extend far away from property boundaries.

Good discussion

Duckster

[shnelson]

I have offered to look at aerial photos as no cost to give some ideas...just need township, range and section number...but so far I have not received a single legal description. I don't understand that...hopefully soon.

Land Dr

Hey Land Dr,

I had emailed you back in april about some property my relatives own that I was wondering what my options might be with it. I don't know if I ever received a response back after providing the location details, just figured it wasn't doing anything with but after reading this thread my gears are turning again.

[LandDr]

Working with govt and non-profits...unfortunately that rarely happens because the govt and non-profits administering and facilitating the programs/projects are also selling the seed, trees, installation and maintenance. They don't want to work with the private sector...when they justify their existance by keeping it all in house.

Cheaper labor...it may seem that govt and non-profits are cheaper labor on the surface, but we all know how expensive it is to run the govt and non-profits. When you look into it, it is actually much much more expensive and the tax payers are left with the bill. Many non-profits also have very healthy salaried employees. They don't like to talk about that...but it does not take much research to see the financials of a non-profit (check out the Attorny Generals HSOforum to view their tax statements). There are non-profits that do not opperate like this as well...such as MN Waterfowl for example. Do some research and it is an eye opener.

The whole govt and non-profits using tax payer dollars to compete with private businesses is just another reflection of what is wrong with this country. And guess who you have to talk to to get it changed? Yep...the govt and non-profits. "The fox guarding the chicken coup".

But...back on task here...we need to spearhead some demonstration projects for this spring.

Land Dr

ps...shnelson...please send me an email so I can do an email search to see where those photos are or if I got them. April is a busy time of year for us so not sure if I got them or where they are. Thanks!

[shnelson]

Refreshed the email chain LandDr - looking forward to hearing your thoughts though the situation might have gotten a little more complicated for me!

[B. Amish]

Working with govt and non-profits...unfortunately that rarely happens because the govt and non-profits administering and facilitating the programs/projects are also selling the seed, trees, installation and maintenance. They don't want to work with the private sector...when they justify their existance by keeping it all in house.

Cheaper labor...it may seem that govt and non-profits are cheaper labor on the surface, but we all know how expensive it is to run the govt and non-profits. When you look into it, it is actually much much more expensive and the tax payers are left with the bill. Many non-profits also have very healthy salaried employees. They don't like to talk about that...but it does not take much research to see the financials of a non-profit (check out the Attorny Generals HSOforum to view their tax statements). There are non-profits that do not opperate like this as well...such as MN Waterfowl for example. Do some research and it is an eye opener.

The whole govt and non-profits using tax payer dollars to compete with private businesses is just another reflection of what is wrong with this country. And guess who you have to talk to to get it changed? Yep...the govt and non-profits. "The fox guarding the chicken coup".

But...back on task here...we need to spearhead some demonstration projects for this spring.

Land Dr

ps...shnelson...please send me an email so I can do an email search to see where those photos are or if I got them. April is a busy time of year for us so not sure if I got them or where they are. Thanks!

could you be more specific about the competing thing with private business? how? why?

[LandDr]

In 2001, my company had a track record of 10,000 to 11,000 acres of native prairie being planted state wide every year for 3 years straight (1,100 to 1,200 in my own county alone). We had 16 tractors, 13 native grass drills and were getting A LOT done. We also had @ 54 employees...so we were also providing a lot of jobs, paying taxes and contributing to our local, state and national economy.

Also in 2001, our local SWCD decided to get two native grass drills and start selling seed. I pleaded with them and the non-profit organizations that were assisting with the funding to not do this as it would directly compete with my business as well as other private businesses. They didn't care and went forward with it. During the next three years we planted 86, 64, 35 and 12.5 acres respectively during the next 4 years in our own county. The county SWCD on the other hand had over 2,000 acres the next three years and 1,900 acres the forth year. This government agency funded by our tax dollars took over 95% of our local business away from us. Furthermore, all the counties around me except for Stearns Co also got native grass drills and most of them sold seed. They seen the opportunity to make money and they used our tax payer dollars to finance it with no regard to what it would do to existing private businesses that were creating jobs, paying taxes and being an asset to the economy. In 2006 we had to downsize to try to rebuild again. Two years ago our SWCD went broke and had a -$35,000 at the end of the year. They went to our County Commissioners and asked for a bailout. Two companies went to that meeting and pleaded for them to either not give them the funding if the SWCD continued to compete with private businesses...or give them the money IF they would get ride of their equipment and stop selling products and services in direct competition with private businesses. What happened? They gave them close to $80,000 for a bail out and did not require them to do anything different. what a joke. Is this America where hard working people making a difference get treated like this? I find it appauling and disgusting that any business would have to deal with this.

The past few years a certain non-profit has developed the so-called habitat teams that sell products and services that directly compete with private businesses. They don't like me talking about it or telling about it and they don't work with me because I talk about it...but it is not right so I am going to let people know. There is no justification for a non-profit to be selling products and services in direct competition with private businesses that pay taxes, provide jobs and are assets to the economy.

Why are they doing it? They tell you it is because it is part of their mission statement. Truth is that they make money doing it and supports their bottom line.

I would encourage people to stop supporting non-profits like this that have high paid salary employees, especially at the top, and start supporting grass roots local organizations that have more of your donations going into local projects. Or...work with someone in the private sector to get some projects done knowing that these private businesses are trying hard to get as much done as they can, providing jobs and paying taxes.

Very frustrating.

[B. Amish]

ahhh, i see. when you said gov't, i was thinking more in line of dnr or usfws and not swcd.

[LandDr]

The USFW Service stays to their land for the most part. They may include some private land adjacent to a burn they are conducting on Federal land, but that is mostly the extent of it. They do rent drills out that takes away some business. They should not be in the equipment rental business.

DNR rents out more equipment than USFW and we have had some issues in the past with them selling seed, providing planting services, etc. but that seems to be less with the limited budget. There are a couple DNR staff people as managers that are more sensitive to the govt. competing with private business, especially as they say "we can't get our own work done on our own land". These contacts will usually assist with any conflict issues but it would be nice to have a directive from the top down that provides more direction to local offices and staffs on these issues.

The private businesses really appreciate more awareness of this...and your support.

[LandDr]

Shnelson...thanks for the legal and comments. After pulling up the aerial photo, one spot really jumps out at me as a high potential duck spot. In the center of the property there appears to be a gradual slope area going to a wetter area (can see what looks like a drown out at the bottom. The soils go from Tp - L - Hu...if a berm was developed along the bottom slope (RED line) to contain the water along with a control structure for an outlet, this area has potential to be drawn down, planted to crops (later planting) and then flooded in the fall. This property is located on the east side of the state which is not as good of a flyway as the west side (my opinion only), but should bring in a lot more ducks than are currently there. I also circled some low areas that might be good for wild rice and/or sago. They look to shallow for shrimp.

I really like the flooded crop option on this property. A berm could possibly be made even with a plow but a dozer would be easier and quicker...might only need to be 3 ft high or so. You could make the control structure out of a round steel pipe cut in half with channel iron on each side to slide boards down into to set the water height.

You also have a lot of great options for some conservation programs to develop some woody cover and native grass options. These programs would pay around $70 per acre along with a $100 per acre upfront payment and up to 90% cost share for the projects. That is pretty attractive but depends on how it compares to your local cash rrent prices for crops.

Looks to be an excellent whitetails property as long as the food sources are there. Any of the habitat projects would just increase the carrying capacity that much more and hold that much more wildlife.

Very nice property!

Land Dr

[shnelson]

Thanks for looking it over so quick LandDr!

I haven't been able to pull up online GIS for the property to determine where it starts and ends, but it has got to be pretty uniform to .5mi x .5mi square with a couple easements.

Glad to hear it has potential, ducks would be a plus but I share your opinion that we don't get much in eastern MN.. though I think the next 20 years could prove in my favor if I did it right. If I could manage it for pheasants & deer (which are already abundant) in the meantime, it's something I think I would pursue. Especially considering the possibility of dropping the ag use completely from the property depending on circumstances, not sure which way things are going to fall with it yet.

There is a creek that runs through the woods that I think could assist in flooding - not sure what the legalities are on something like that though.

Can you shed some light on what T - Tp - L - Hu stand for? Tried to look up a key for soil types but failed...

Thanks again!