Minnesota Hunter Walk in access program - WIA

[Snag]

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2011/06/02/d...ator/#more-5689

Sounds too good to be true.

[BirdWhisperer]

YES, great to see the DNR taking the initiative and making the connection between private landowners and the state. South Dakota has had the WIA program for some time now and it's clearly been beneficial for Game, Fish & Parks and farmers/ranchers alike. Not only will non-landowners gain access to some of the best hunting opportunities (typically on private land), but farmers in SW MN will also get some supplemental income, too. I really hope this program takes off and the DNR can increase enrollment. It may be a little ways down the road, but depending on the type of land enrolled in this WIA program, it could help bring back waterfowler (mostly goose hunting) numbers to Minnesota as it would allow easier access for the average joe to good fields and get some new hunters out there...it's a win-win in my book.

[jnorm1984]

I hope it works...But I really dont think it will in MN. Its not going to bring in enough money for landowners to make it worth it. The top payment is something like $12 an acre, but in most cases it will be more like $8.

[TylerS]

"Landowners with CREP, CRP, RIM or WRP lands can get additional payments by enrolling their lands in the new walk-in access program. The minimum size is 40 acres, with a financial bonus for more than 160 acres of land enrolled. There also is a financial bonus if the land is within one-half mile of other public hunting land, such as a wildlife management area or waterfowl production area. Bonus rates are also given to landowners who sign up for a multi-year contract."

I like that part. Means the chances for having larger, continuous blocks of land goes up. Hope it works! The PLOTS program is Nodak is similar, and I know personally it has been very beneficial for us. That said, with the loss of CRP, so too has much of that PLOTS land.

[graingrower]

I cannot imagine any landowner risking a multitude of liability issues, trusting the descretion of the DNR, and unforseen problems for $12. If individual landowners are that desparate for money, they should privately lease their acreage to a hunter. Funding for this program most certainly should be reconsidered. What deficit?

[Note from admin: You really should read about this program before commenting against the facts on it. The liability issues are not what you describe above in any way.]

[mwal]

Usually landowners are exempted from liability when allowing people to hunt. The state probably assumes that risk with Walk in hunter program. The landowner that charges or leases hunting rights is liable since it now is a a business of leasing to someone. I don't claim to be an attorney so please check out these facts I am just repeating what i have heard over the years. My friend in SD did say that it was in the contract that the farmer was not liable when participating in The walk in hunter program.

Mwal

[BLACKJACK]

I don't like the walk-in program idea, all it does is speed up the process of everyone charging you to hunt, the leasing of land to hunt, which locks everyone out except the person that leased the land. When you go knock on Farmer Joe's door to get permission to hunt, hes going to be thinking about Farmer Bob down the road that gets paid by the walk-in program, and his hand will be out, not for handshake, but for money.

I'd rather see the walkin dollars be spent on buying the land permanently.

[brittman]

I don't like the walk-in program idea, all it does is speed up the process of everyone charging you to hunt, the leasing of land to hunt, which locks everyone out except the person that leased the land. When you go knock on Farmer Joe's door to get permission to hunt, hes going to be thinking about Farmer Bob down the road that gets paid by the walk-in program, and his hand will be out, not for handshake, but for money.

I'd rather see the walkin dollars be spent on buying the land permanently.

I have not run into this problem in ND, Kansas, or SD. There are some issues - but I will not discuss them here - no need to give anyone any new ideas.

[Augusta]

I like both ideas, buying land for public use, and making sure they set aside money to care for the land and a walk in program. I think both will provide more opportunities for all of us. At the very least, I think we should give a walk in program an honest try and see what happens. SD, KS, ND, all have successful walk in programs, it would be nice if we could as well. Maybe then more of our residents will stay home to hunt and support our MN business's. They like our dollars as much as the other states business's do.

[Ufatz]

As has been stated, this program has been successful in several other states and is a win/win in most all cases. I have been preaching for some time that MN should become more aggressive and forward thinking in it's fish and game management (human management) and of course I am pleased to see this.

At least give it a try fellas.

[Harmonica Bear]

Love the walk in program in SoDak, but not so sure it will work as well here as in SoDaK or ND, KS etc. The reason: population. Those states have less people (even with the influx of non-residents), more land and areas too hunt, but not near the pressure walk in land in MN would get due to its proxinity to a major population center not having to pay non-resident fees. Not sure I'm very clear, (typing this rapidly). I can go to a walk in area in SoDak and not see another hunter the entire day, maybe two. I'm sure its the same if not better in ND as well. I can't see that ever happening in MN. That leads to properties being over-run/used, over-harvested, and most likely some carelessness and damage. Property owners don't like that....

[candiru]

As soon as someone starts using these areas to shoot clay pigeons, targets, cans, or leave behind garbage, carcasses, or human waste it is over.

I agree, comparing MN to sparsly populated states like the Dakotas is hard to do. I do hope it works, I just have my doubts.

[TylerS]

Love the walk in program in SoDak, but not so sure it will work as well here as in SoDaK or ND, KS etc. The reason: population. Those states have less people (even with the influx of non-residents), more land and areas too hunt, but not near the pressure walk in land in MN would get due to its proxinity to a major population center not having to pay non-resident fees. Not sure I'm very clear, (typing this rapidly). I can go to a walk in area in SoDak and not see another hunter the entire day, maybe two. I'm sure its the same if not better in ND as well. I can't see that ever happening in MN. That leads to properties being over-run/used, over-harvested, and most likely some carelessness and damage. Property owners don't like that....

Not sure about "better" in ND. Depends largely on where you are. If you're in a popular (i.e. internet-advertised) place to hunt, you'll easily see several group push the same PLOTS land in a day. If you're out away from the crowds, however, it's just like anywhere else and you might be the only soul who hunts it in an entire fall.

As for property damage and whatnot, that may be dependent on the number of acres enrolled in the program. More places to hunt = dispersal of pressure. Will some areas get hit more than others? Absolutely, especially those close to large wildlife refuges or metro areas. But with more options means less chance that the same spot will get pushed over, and over and over again. Heck, in Nodak, sometimes the stuff close to town hardly gets touched because everyone driving by thinks exactly what you or I would think: "I bet that gets worked a ton." With everyone thinking that, guess what? It never gets hunted. Food for thought...

[TylerS]

As soon as someone starts using these areas to shoot clay pigeons, targets, cans, or leave behind garbage, carcasses, or human waste it is over.

I agree, comparing MN to sparsly populated states like the Dakotas is hard to do. I do hope it works, I just have my doubts.

Then it would be wise for ethical, conservative hunters who enjoy more access to take the high rode and pick up the garbage they see that other slobs left behind. Is it fair? No. But if you want to see more public land open to sportsmen, it behooves us to be proactive instead of reactive. I bring a box of garbage bags every time I'm out hunting, and usually come home with at least one bag full. I don't drag it with me out into the field, but often you can tell where people park their vehicles based largely on the refuse left behind. Picking up after those d-bags is a small thing to do, but it can pay dividends toward landowner relations down the road...

[Riverratpete]

I think the Walk In Programs a great idea and worth a shot. Theres always going to be someone griping about other people, over use, etc etc. I sincerally hope the state gives it a good try before they start listening to all the naysayers and whiners.

[Augusta]

I think the Walk In Programs a great idea and worth a shot. Theres always going to be someone griping about other people, over use, etc etc. I sincerally hope the state gives it a good try before they start listening to all the naysayers and whiners.

+1 I must be the only hunter that hunts public land that nevers sees garbage left by other hunters. I have yet to see that and public land is all that I hunt every weekend during the hunting season...I do see a ton of garbage in our road ditches left by users of the roads.....

[Harmonica Bear]

I'm not opposed to walk-in areas at all. My gut feeling is it will not have the same positive effects as the programs out west.

[brittman]

I'm not opposed to walk-in areas at all. My gut feeling is it will not have the same positive effects as the programs out west.

Long overdue to try. My fear is that they will not secure enough acres to make a measurable difference. 7,000 acres is not much in the grand scheme of things.