DNR Stance on Walk-In Hunting Land

[kobear]

ND spends 20% of their G&F budget on the PLOTS program. The figure was $11 million for 1 million acres. I would guess MN would spend three times what ND does per acre, if we can even find acres to lease.

MN had 1.7 million acres in CRP December 2007 I subtracted everything north of Otter Tail and got 840,000 acres in pheasant range.

Is DNR gonna get a lease on 40% of CRP acres? Maybe the guys who won't sign up for CRP will allow JOE C PUBLIC to hunt on their land?

I wish it would happen but I'm skeptical. I'd pay extra $$ if it would work, ND liscense, gas, room gets expensive.

[Hammer Handle]

Good idea, but I don't know if it would fly with a lot of people.

I would be fearful that too many hunters would be on our land if it was open to the public. It is nice to "pick and choose" who and how many can hunt.

You could offer to pay our family triple what the CRP payment is to allow public hunting...and we wouldn't go for it.

[GrousetoBluebill]

Whenever you see: "new/unique funding source" in dnr plans that means Dedicated Funding.

[ImissReeds]

Blackjack, I'll have to give you my two cents again,

One thing I did realize working both for the state and PF is that MN DNR was always more willing to take on smaller parcels than the feds. Some of the reasons being that larger tracts of grassland are more beneficial in protecting broods and nesting birds. Obviously they aren't against small sized habitat improvements, but like most agencies with limited amounts of money they have to prioritize what type of projects are going to have most success.

As far a seeing better utilization of existing state owned WMA's, I'm all for that too, but if anyone thinks we can solve our shrinking habitat woes and hunter access issues by public OWNED land alone, you are extremely mistaken. The key to enough money, habitat, and public access is programs that interest landowners into BETTER managment practices and if possible INCREASED hunter access. Simply look to other states with less money and better hunting opportunities to see some good ideas.

If the MN DNR thinks that record deer and turkey harvests = great management, I don't think its that simple. They can pinpoint the problems with hunter numbers buy whining about youth recruitment, YET they are unwilling to vastly increase public hunting opportunities on private land through a walk-in program seems really stupid to me. The biggest reason kids don't hunt much or long into their life (not to mention adults) is the proximity of GOOD public hunting land to population areas.

Honestly its getting to the point where to have a fighting chance at good quality deer and pheasant hunting past opening day guys are being forced into owning or leasing land. If you(DNR) are going to make it a rich mans sport, you are looking at the demise. Just look at Europe. Some of the more game rich rural local I hit in western and NW MN definately don't have tons of kids growing up there and in some cases, lots of public WMA's and WPA's. Thats not what I'm griping about. How about better opportunities in central MN closer to more population hubs like Willmar, St. Cloud, Hutchinson, and the western and southern Metro where we know there are tons of hunting parents having impossible times finding places within a half day's drive of their home to get kids interested in hunting. The current public lands in these area are very lacking and its hard for a parent to "hook" a kid on hunting with only being able to take them to LQP on MEA and opening morning of Deer season alone. Lets make it easier. Duh...

Look out west to Kansas, Dakotas, Montana to successful Walk-in programs to see how they take care of their own hunters and let out of staters pick up the tab. If the guys who can afford to travel and pay for the land that the less rich hunt on, I see it as hunters taking care of their own. Not to mention that landowners love the added $ and hopefully in the long run they appreciate hunters and wildlife managment more.

[candiru]

We could use prisoners in chain-gangs, game law violators, and others who need to do community service as cheap labor to improve our public lands. But, I am sure our politicians don't have what it takes to do this.

[brittman]

The ND program cost is out of alignment with the rest of the states. Unsure why the program is so costly - not usually ND style.

If KS and SD can do this in competition with large commercial groups - MN should be able to do it too.

To be honest - it does not need to be CRP only. Farmlands with sloughs etc... could work too and lease rate would be less.

In ND there is a huge resistance to government land acquisition by the county commissioners. Over the past 30 years the reasoning has been many (less tax revenue, wetland drainage rules, etc...) But ultimately every acre set aside permanantly is land removed from ag production. The PLOT land being "temp" has been accepted.

[brittman]

HammerHandle - that it the great thing about the program. Landowner participation is optional. I know landowners in both ND and KS that participate. The enjoy the income. They enjoy the idea that locals and other hunters alike have a place to go. They did have concerns about over use of the land, but

1) notice that the heavy pressure was occasional

2) most wildlife moved off the land when pressure was intense and returned when hunted less often. Game populations were not devastated or destroyed. They just wise up.

[Augusta]

 Originally Posted By: ImissReeds

Blackjack, I'll have to give you my two cents again,

One thing I did realize working both for the state and PF is that MN DNR was always more willing to take on smaller parcels than the feds. Some of the reasons being that larger tracts of grassland are more beneficial in protecting broods and nesting birds. Obviously they aren't against small sized habitat improvements, but like most agencies with limited amounts of money they have to prioritize what type of projects are going to have most success.

As far a seeing better utilization of existing state owned WMA's, I'm all for that too, but if anyone thinks we can solve our shrinking habitat woes and hunter access issues by public OWNED land alone, you are extremely mistaken. The key to enough money, habitat, and public access is programs that interest landowners into BETTER managment practices and if possible INCREASED hunter access. Simply look to other states with less money and better hunting opportunities to see some good ideas.

If the MN DNR thinks that record deer and turkey harvests = great management, I don't think its that simple. They can pinpoint the problems with hunter numbers buy whining about youth recruitment, YET they are unwilling to vastly increase public hunting opportunities on private land through a walk-in program seems really stupid to me. The biggest reason kids don't hunt much or long into their life (not to mention adults) is the proximity of GOOD public hunting land to population areas.

Honestly its getting to the point where to have a fighting chance at good quality deer and pheasant hunting past opening day guys are being forced into owning or leasing land. If you(DNR) are going to make it a rich mans sport, you are looking at the demise. Just look at Europe. Some of the more game rich rural local I hit in western and NW MN definately don't have tons of kids growing up there and in some cases, lots of public WMA's and WPA's. Thats not what I'm griping about. How about better opportunities in central MN closer to more population hubs like Willmar, St. Cloud, Hutchinson, and the western and southern Metro where we know there are tons of hunting parents having impossible times finding places within a half day's drive of their home to get kids interested in hunting. The current public lands in these area are very lacking and its hard for a parent to "hook" a kid on hunting with only being able to take them to LQP on MEA and opening morning of Deer season alone. Lets make it easier. Duh...

Look out west to Kansas, Dakotas, Montana to successful Walk-in programs to see how they take care of their own hunters and let out of staters pick up the tab. If the guys who can afford to travel and pay for the land that the less rich hunt on, I see it as hunters taking care of their own. Not to mention that landowners love the added $ and hopefully in the long run they appreciate hunters and wildlife managment more.

ImissReeds, man you are like a breath of fresh air. Thanks for coming onto this forum and sharing your expertise.

[ImissReeds]

Brittman makes another good point that in MN the goal of walk in land doesn't need to be only to provide grassland, it would definately be successful it it included willow swamps, cattail sloughs, and woodlots. Unlike SD where pheasants are almost everything, MN would utilize deer, waterfowl, and small game land as well.

One definate benifit to utilizing potential crop land such as CRP and RIM type acres is that it helps break up the "black desert" syndrom occurring again in the farm belt with the increased price of grain. You guys in Renville County can relate, right??? If there is a decent patch of grass out there, it holds 98 percent of the wildlife in the section. The remaining 2 percent are found in the drainage ditches...

It definately would be no cheap endeavor, but to create a walk-in easment program that had additional incentives for landowners to leave land in a more wildlife friendly form would be ideal and admittedly difficult.

[GrousetoBluebill]

Has anyone here served on the Citizen WMA task force a couple years ago?

That identified $22 million per year that was needed for a quaility WMA system. And yet the most ever gotten for WMA's was a consequence of the duck rallies, I think it was $15 million in one year. A $7 million dollar shortful.

If a banquet makes $30,000 you would have to have 733 sportsmen’s banquets in Minnesota to equal $22 million per year.

pf & du each raises a drop in the bucket at best a little over a $ 1 million compare that to $30 million per year. What 500,000 deer licencses is only $15 million per year. You need around $30 million a year for the WMA system and a walk-in program in Minnesota.

The only why you can have a quaility WMA and a quaility Walk-in program is with dedicated funding which would be $100 million per year.

[ImissReeds]

One of the sad things I noticed in the mid 90's (which hopefully is different today) is that the DNR in the area where I had a summer job, my boss said they had lots of money for equipment and WMA maintenance work, but the state office was mandating a hiring freeze and reduction of the work force in the area. That meant when he or his coworkers were retiring they were closing positions and even his office eventually. This was dumb since they already had only one small crew out of the Nicollet office to manage the large multi-county area's WMA's at the time.

Therefore, since for instance, despite having tons of excess money for spray, tractors, vehicles, and man hours, they weren't allowed to increase their staff in the summer to accomidate the size needed for thistle control(thistles seemingly all bloom and seed at once and there is no way for one crew to be everywhere), grassland seeding, water level control, etc.

Guys like myself coming out of college were working for no benefits, and nine bucks an hour hoeing weeds around shelterbelt plantings, ripping beaver dams out of WMA drainage ditches, and weed whipping thistles in 97 degree heat just to compete for jobs that weren't there. But they couldn't hire more staff because St. Paul wouldn't let them. Tell me that isn't a governmental snakehead that doesn't know what its azz is doing.

Not that I'm bitter of course... I enjoy dummies spending my money foolishly. I still have lots of respect for the managers, but less and less the closer you get to the politicians in St. Paul.

[BLACKJACK]

I just finished reading thru all the posts concerning the walk-in programs and I'm still not convinced its a good idea for several reasons:

1) The cost. Its going to cost millions of dollars, I'd rather see that money going to buy lands that can be set aside forever.

2) It will speed up the process of hunting becoming a rich mans sport. Why? Because after Farmer Sam signs up his land into a walkin program - free money!!!- , when you go ask his neighbor Farmer Bob for permission to pheasant hunt, the first thing you'll see is his hand sticking out wanting to get paid. Or he'll lease it to some rich hunters from the city.

3) The DNR has enough duties and low manpower without strapping them with another program to administer. And without proper oversight, people inspecting the land before letting the farmer sign up, you'll end up with something I saw in SoDak - Walkin signs around a 6 foot high fence that had buffalo in it!!! Can you imagine that farmer chuckling at coffee in the morning with his buddies???!!!

[Augusta]

I find it ironic that some of the people who are against having a Walk in program in Minnesota are not shy about running to ND or SD to take advantage of their Walk in programs. Just an observation.

[ImissReeds]

Augusta. Great point!

I don't think walk in has made access more difficult for hunters that don't want to lease. In some parts of states it is their only decent options.

Blackjack there are several spots in walk-in programs in the Dakotas I have observed that irked me a little too(ones that weren't in any kind of condition to hold wildlife). I assume that something is arranged with the landowner, like you can graze after a certain time, or upon drought situations. Admidtedly it wouldn't be possible in a livestock pasture.

If you think the millions of dollars would buy lots of land for you, that doesn't jive. At 1500 to 4000 dollars an acre for farmland purchased, or a much, much smaller amount per acre to allow hunter access its a no brainer to me. I do think people don't want to make it an either or situation. Lets keep on pace with the acquisitions and add the walk in program through different funds. Plus the landowners still owns his land and generates tax income to the government. Nothing wrong with that.

[LABS4ME]

I too was a little miffed at some of the "Walk-in" areas in So.Dak as they were just pastures or cut wheat fields. My buddy who lives out there says I'm looking at it from a pheasant hunter's eyes, but many of those fields that look like nothing to me in terms of pheasant opportunities, offer deer, sharptail, coyote and prairie dog hunters a chance at accessing some private property for their respective sport(s).

Also he made note that the payment recieved on the piece also is dependent on the quality of the cover... ie: a pasture isn't going to recieve the same pay as a field of Intermediate Wheat Grass...

Good Luck!

Ken

[ImissReeds]

Labs, I've had some great hunts on walkin for waterfowl field hunts myself.

[BLACKJACK]

You've taken your turns taking your shots at me but I have yet to see anybody address one of my main concerns above which is that it will make 'pay for hunting' spread like wildfire and then eventually hunting will become the sport of the rich. Is that what you all want to see? Unless you know a farmer personally they'll all want to get paid once they see neighboring farmers get paid via Walkin dollars. I usually give the farmers where I hunt something anyway but the price will go up if Walkins come to pass. I can afford it but I pity the younger generation coming along just out high school. Welcome to public land hunting kid!!!

Walkin programs sound great and wonderful but there is no such thing as a free lunch - they have to get paid for. If a totally new source of funding is found, great, but what are the odds of that? When more money gets spent on roads and bridges, then there is less money to spend on education and health care. I'm afraid the same will happen with the conservation dollars, money will get taken from other programs, especially funding for new public hunting lands. At the very least, I doubt if money would be allocated for the additional DNR people needed to monitor and administer the program, it would just get dumped on already overburdened DNR. Do we have enough dollars now for Clean Water programs, land acquistion, forestry, fish stocking, etc?

I also don't want additional license fees tacked onto hunters, especially not so some farmer can laugh all the way to the bank for getting paid walkin dollars for their buffalo or cow pasture!!!

I also know the price of land, I call realtors all the time when I see hunting land for sale. Land that sold for $500 12 years ago is now going for $2500 and acre. I'd rather see a million dollars go toward buying 300-400 acres PERMANTENTLY vrs renting land via walkins

[Augusta]

 Originally Posted By: Tom7227

There are three sections to the report the DNR has prepared. You can download all of them at

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/walkin/index.html

The comparison data from other states give their costs, acres covered etc. I haven't read the entire report but suggest others read the information before strong opinions are formed.

Click on the link and go to the bottem of the page and you will see some reports that the DNR has issued. As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, the DNR is recommending a walk in program based after SD program. Anyway, this is some very good reading.

[sparcebag]

Blackjack I at least argee with ya But show me 10 acres at only 2500 per and its gone right NOW!!I want a home on 10.

I feel if the DNR does start the walkins What farmer in his right mind is gonna sign up! First of all look at the WMAs & WPAs after that first weekend,there trash pits.Also theres no way you can compare SD,ND,KS.MT,To Mn.there mostly barron unpopulated,poorer farming land.Farms here are closer to each other,What farmer wants a steady flow of slob hunters (Not all hunters but the 2%ers)constantly tromping there land!!

If any of these guys here who are pushing this had any acrage of their own do ya think they"d enroll!! I DONT THINK SO!!

DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!...... BUY MORE LAND MAKE WMAs & WPAs.

I'll lease 200 acres of prime deer woods.$250.00 a acre per year no one else hunts it,no vechiles off road, haul your trash out.leave it as it was when ya got there,its bout 30% red oak 10% white oak 30% maple. popular ash make up the rest scrub brush all high ground.Or buy your own at maybe 4-5 thou per acre!

[brittman]

 Quote:

Blackjack I at least argee with ya But show me 10 acres at only 2500 per and its gone right NOW!!I want a home on 10.

That is a problem too. To many people want 10 acres outside of town and urban sprawl is occuring in Benson and Willmar as much as it is occurring closer to the metro.

[brittman]

Read the report.

If the DNR has even a reasonble chance of securing their goal of 210,000 acres of WMA land over the next 10 years I would abandoned the idea of walk-in, but is this reality.

At $2K per acres for 21,000 acres per year equals $42 million !!!

Even at $1K per acre you are at $21 million per year.

Then expect that each year over 10 years.

Any one out there a betting man ........

[sparcebag]

They wont get land in my area for 2K not when the going price is farmland cheapest bout 3500.00,anything wooded I'm willing to pay 5K a acre but I cant find it less than 6500.00 thats cheapest 8A lot for 100,000.00????

Ya should upgrade your numbers 21,000A @ 3500= BETTER BUY NOW!!Its not goin down!!

If they do walkin it'll be like CRP all the acrage will disappear in 10-20 yrs then their right back to nothin.

[Augusta]

Brittman,

You are correct in your assessment. The DNR needs to add 20,000 acres per year in 10 years to meet their goal, but at this point, they are only averaging 5,000 acres per year and this is not expected to increase at the moment. I too would be in favor of purchasing land, instead of a walk in program, but it just doesn't seem feasable at the moment and the DNR admits this.

[BLACKJACK]

sparcebag, the less acres you buy, the higher the price. You may have to pay $4-5000 per acre for <10 acres but if you buy 40 acres the price will be roughly $2500 per acre and if you buy 200 acres your price will be $1500 per acre. These are rough figures, the key is to get up to the assessors office and look at what has sold in that township in the last 6 months. That gives you the true value.

Another problem is that realtors tell the sellers that I can get x amount per acre, it may be 25% too high but they want the listing. Again the key is get up to the assessors office and find out what land has sold for, its public information.

Good luck!

[sparcebag]

I know I'll pay more for fewer acres Thats OK I expect that.And Ya those realtors Ha Ha Ha I know about what my lake lot is worth and they tell me I'll get 20K more than I expect then come back and want me to reduce the price to close to my expected,After they had a signed paper Ha Ha Ha.Then comes their cut that they wont move on!! I told em I'll lower my price if you'll lower your percentage,then the EXCUSES Ha Ha Ha