Do you belong ?

[CodyDawg]

Ahh, some great points. One I would like to make is concerning the gripes that there are no places to hunt...that is exactly what some orgs are trying to reverse. As previously stated, PF alone has done thousands of acres. We have the Build A Wildlife Area campaign going on right now that will add another 300-400 acres this year. And there are birds and deer on them. I have hunted them and been very successful.

The Walk-in program will not work in Minnesota I am convinced. Mostly because every parcel is tied up with deer hunting. And if you tied access to CRP, the program would diminish so greatly as to not be viable. So the only answer for MN is WMAs and many more of them.

[Riverratpete]

Don't get me wrong..I'm not against WMA's but compared WMA's to CRP land and CRP is going to look better as a general rule, at least that has been my experience. Why is the CRP all tied up with deer hunting? Deer hunting in this state takes up very little of the calendar..3 weeks for gun at best and in rural areas it's pretty much a wknd thing so I'm not sure whats meant by that...I don't know and I certainly don't have all the answers but an interesting debate because I think were all trying to get to the same place, just diffrent ways of getting there.

[CodyDawg]

Here is my take on why Walk in areas in Minnesota wont work with a few more details. Virtually all private land (which includes CRP) is tied up either by the landowner or his nephew or whatever for deer hunting. So in my opinion, most landowners will not allow unfettered access to their land when they plan on deer hunting. Could you put a window in their during which their was no public access to allow for the landowner to hunt deer? Possibly, but that sounds awfully complicated...you know there would be a bunch of hooligans who wouldnt abide by those rules. So I think the deer hunting issue alone stops the walk in area program cold.

As for CRP, my experience is that some WMAs are better and some are not. For example, I see a lot of CRP that is comprised of a singular species of grass (typically brome), which makes poor wildlife cover. PF is trying to work with landowners to improve their CRP stands, but there is a long way to go. WMAs often have the same problem and PF chapters do a lot of work improving habitat on them as well. I have actually hunted a lot of walk in areas in SD, ND and MT. I will tell you this, the Dakota's walk in programs are often really, really bad. They like to hay them, which leaves 2 inches of stubble to hunt in. As they are set up, there is no advantage to the landowner to create good habitat. He gets paid the same either way. Montana has a much better program, but it too has a few issues (tracking, beating the system, etc). Believe me, the DNR has reviewed the programs and they believe WMAs are the way to go. I certainly hope that someone can come up with a silver bullet.....great debate and keep the ideas coming.

[Pistolero]

I choose NOT to belong to any of the mentioned organizations. It is not that I believe that they is anything wrong with them, there is not. But I decide where my money goes and will not be browbeaten into supporting these organizations. If that makes me a bad hunter in someone’s eyes, too bad! I do not care!

[CodyDawg]

Pistolero,

That is certainly your right. My point is, you better not complain about lack of hunting areas or quantity/quality of game then.

[FOOT]

Pistol, awfully short sighted of you. I sincerely hope you thank everyone who does belong to one of these groups when you pull that trigger and sit down to a good meal of wild game.

[Pistolero]

You both made my point, thank you! You put your organizations on a pedestal, expecting everyone to bow down to them and when they do not you discredit them. Is that how you gain support? Wouldn’t you be better off by asking hunters to contribute if they can, any contribution would be of help? But NO, you choose to belittle them instead. Why? It seems to me that it would not matter to you if I could not put food on my table as long as you get your precious money for your organizations from me. You are doing these organizations a disservice by the comments that you just made too me.

BTW...I thank the appropriate ones when I take game, GOD first, then the land owner. They are the ones that make the biggest difference.

I have not been on this forum for several months and you have just reminded me as too why.

[FOOT]

geez Pistol you sure are defensive. I see nothing in any of my posts that would belittle or degrade anyone.

I don't know of anyone that thinks it is cost effective to go hunting for the amount of food returned. Once the weapon, shells, license, clothing, gas, vehicle, etc etc etc are added you would be better off buying at your local grocery store.

If a person enjoys the sport and can honestly say they do not have the money to support one of the wildlife organizations I would never try to convince them to sacrafice the welfare of themselves or their family. I only ask hunters to do what they can. If you have the money to support several organizations then do so, if you have the money to only support one then do so, if you do not have the money to support any organization then I hope sometime in the future when/if you do I hope you do.

[Pistolero]

Quote:

---

geez Pistol you sure are defensive.

---

Your right FOOT, I was very defensive. I apologize for that.

[jblabsnduck]

Don't forget about Delta Waterfowl, one of the only groups that does predator control.

By the way I belong to Delta, Du and MWA.

[BLACKJACK]

What I don't like is that most of the organizations continue solicting me for more $$$$ after my initial membership. By the time they send out 2 or 3 extra solicitations, I wonder how much of my original contribution is left???!

By the way, I belong to Pheasants Forever, DU, MN Deerhunters, Nature Conservancy, MN Bowhunters, and Audubon.

[FOOT]

Blackjack, they wouldn't do it if it weren't profitable.

I don't know about the other orgaizations but DU puts 86% of the money they raise directly back into the ground for restoration and conservation of wetland habitat.

[CodyDawg]

Pheasants Forever puts back 93% of the money directly into their programs...and it is kept LOCAL!

[FOOT]

Cody, nice to hear about PF and the 93%. I realize it's dollars are kept local but your comparing apples and oranges when your talking waterfowl and pheasants. Most pheasants live and die within 2 miles of where they were born.

Waterfowl on the other hand are migratory and as such it does little good to keep your dollars local.

Don't get me wrong PF does great things, and I belong as well as DU and a couple of other organizations.

[BLACKJACK]

Codydawg, yes PF dollars are kept local - except the $15 or $20 that goes to the National office. But thats a good thing because it pays for salaries for some of the PF lobbists in Washington like Dave Nomsen. Millions of acres of CRP are up for renewal in 2007, whether that is renewed will have a bigger impact on pheasants than a few 40 acre patches or food plots.

[sparetime]

I am a member of Pheasant Forever and a committee member and former Treasurer of the MDHA. Personally, in the county where I live, there is a considerable amount of land that has been purchased and provided for public use. In addition these organizations have the ability to get matching funds from the state. A.K.A. LCMR or lottery proceed money.

Land is expensive. I take some objection to the fact that there seems to be complaints about all the land being privately held, or leased by the supposed "wealthy". Personally, I only own two acres where I live, but I know plenty of people who have had to scrimp to buy the land they have, and have every right to enjoy it as they please. Using private land to hunt needs to be reguarded as a privelage to those who are allowed onto others property to hunt. Gatituted and respect need to be shown to the land owner. I'll step off my soap box now.