DNR Stance on Walk-In Hunting Land

[brittman]

You missed the point, even at $2K in will not happen. Now at $3.5K - no way.

The only way to add 200K - 300K acres is a walkin access program. Adding a couple hundred acres makes no real difference to the entire hunter base.

Hopefully there are not to many buying land at these prices, I believe there will be a good set back in a year or two, maybe five. Ethanol is not sustainable. Without subsidies the cookie crumbles.

The smart farmers are leasing land right now, not buying.

[BLACKJACK]

Tonight as I was cutting the entrance hole out of some woodduck houses, I was thinking about this topic and it occured to me 'what the he11 am I thinking'???! In 30 years I'll be lucky if I'm not eating split pea soup in some nursing home!!

Why worry about the future generation? Why think about buying 10,000 acres of PERMANENT hunting land in the next thirty years when you can rent 100,000 a year for next to nothing?????$%?! What a dummy I am! And of course funding for Walkin Programs will be permanent like Soil Bank and CRP! What, you're telling me that Soil Bank doesn't exist anymore???! What, we're losing CRP funding? Hundreds of thousands of acres of CRP are going out of production? What happened to that funding???

Surely they won't cut funding for Walkin programs!!!!! Its definately more important than CRP and roads and bridge funding and education and wars in ????? you name it. Surely President Pawlenty will see the need for Walk-in Areas in ten years??! He's not trying to cut the budget again, is he????!

But hey in 30 years I'll be eating split pea soup so sign me up, I'm now a believer in Walkin programs!! To heck with the future generation, lets live for now (or at least the next 10??? years).

Walk-ins are good!@!!!!!!!!

[ImissReeds]

You guys from Kandi county sure get worked up arguing with yourselves. I can tell from the excessive puncuation:)

I don't want this thread to become anymore of a overbearing opinion push than we already have made it.

As long as we are talking long term thoughts though, as we should be, my idea isn't to knock any ambitious goals of the DNR permanantly acquiring publicly owned land. That would be great.

Wouldn't it be great as well to find a way to immediately increase access for todays hunters and not to hope for what it will be like in 10 years, as we lose more and more hunters along the way?

How can the Kandi boys think that Walk In Programs make hunting a game for the rich? That makes no sense at all. Blackjack, if a farmer's land doen't qualify for Walk In or the Walk In allocations for the year run out, do you really think that landowner that didn't get money will only let you on for money?

I doubt it, your not the government, you didn't make him apply too late. Let him know that hunters are the reason Walk In paychecks were even created in the first place. Also that the main goal for the program should be to improve the quality of hunting in MN for THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO LEASE OR PURCHASE LANDS THEMSELVES.

Keep in mind guys, that in other states the Walk In programs haven't created an either PURCHASE IT or RENT IT debate. Its a separate fund and an additional opportunity, thats it.

[sparcebag]

do you really think that landowner that didn't get money will only let you on for money?

Let him know that hunters are the reason Walk In paychecks were even created in the first place

Well If your gonna do all this talkin to the farmer,thats not in the program..Why have the program? Just go knock and ask permission,After all if the farmer would have enrolled,but was only late as your example states.He'd probably give permission anyway

[sparcebag]

Here's a question for all who are involved in this thread,Simple ques.please reply TRUTHFULLY;;;

How many farmers do you know personally?

How many do you know as occasionally speak with?

Have you ever asked a farmers opinion of this program?

Do you have farmers fields abutting your property or within 40 acres?

A personal question please no quotes from DNR, Politicians, etc.

[ImissReeds]

Sparcebag, why?

I grew up near a small MN farming area, next to a farm, probably my first 10 jobs were on a farm. About 1/3 of my relatives were or are farmers, and one of my best freinds farms over 1500 acres in Renville county, and yes we have talked about the Walk In Program numerous times. He thinks it stupid that MN is dragging their feet on this one, and hopes this program is a success here soon.

To take it one step further, I know farmers from Kittson County, Rugby & Lakota, North Dakota, and several around Webster & Roslyn, South Dakota. They are ALL for the program and of the ones in the Dakotas several participate. That is why I argue the point of how could MN hunters be against such an obviously positive choice???

NOBODY on this site has "enlightened" me as to why we shouldn't like it yet.

[hanso612]

They tried a walk in program in Illinois and hunters soon found out the rental payment and outbid the State. Farmers, who in the past were likely to let walk-ons on there propert were also likely to sign up for the walk in program. When these already easily accessible farms were leased for a few dollars more the hunters lost even more possible land to hunt. Check out last years Pheasant Forever TV for a first hand example of how a bidding war is the ultimate conclusion. Hans Olsen

[Augusta]

hanso612,

You might want to research your statments. According to the DNR report on State's Access plans, Illinois considers their Walk in program to be a success, in fact, they are "gaining" new hunting land every year. They had 250,000 acres for 2007 alone.

[hanso612]

Augusta, I often get myself in trouble repeating something I learned from what I thought was a reputable source. In this case I read the Access to Minnesota Outdoor Plan from the legislative report linked from above and watched an episode of Pheasants Forever TV. Both Stated this same difficulty. As a landowner in the heart of Minnesota Pheasant territory with property adjacent to a WMA-It would take significantly more dolars than the CRP rental rata for me to open my land to the public. Walkin programs might pay a tenth of that per acre. I also know I would quickly try to outbid the state for land near mine and would be willing to pay the same rate per acre as Potlatch leases in northern Minnesota.I know others who would pay much more for a good Pheasant lease. Why would a farmer open his land to everyone for a small fee instead of leasing it to a group of people he knows for significantly more?

As an aside, I often grant permision to hunt my land to those who ask. Have a young pup, young buck just out of gun safety, or an old timer along and your usually invited on.

[Hotspotter]

 Quote:

That is why I argue the point of how could MN hunters be against such an obviously positive choice???

Positive for who? Who is it more positive for? Who stands to gain, who stands to lose? How do you suggest it will be funded? A stamp for everyone who hunts pheasants? If I'm obliged to pay your access fee in order to legally hunt my own land, will you pay to leave corn up for turkeys on my land that you don't hunt? Granted, this is a doomsday scenario (IMO), but it's no more extreme than the rosy picture painted here.

Blackjack and sparcebag have some real points that can't be glossed over. Where I live, land is more on the line of $4-6k per acre. Property taxes are a real challenge, and farmers aren't greedy to expect what their neighbors are getting. It's easy to say that they "won't" be competetive and wanting others to pay, but it's actually much easier to look at CRP, CREP, and other subsidies and the long history of neighbors complaining to FSA, BWSR, and the DNR to get what their neighbors are getting.

I mean not to be argumentative, and I support some form of walk-in-hunting. However, it's pay to play folks. I would love it if somebody launched a statewide program utilizing hunter dollars to improve my hunting, but I paid a premium to do that myself. When I wasn't so fortunate, I worked my butt off securing permission whenever/wherever I could. I worked harder at keeping those landowners happy than I did even at securing permission. In a perfect world, we'd all be able to travel wherever we wished and hunt good cover for free, but that isn't a reality anywhere that land prices outcompete hunters and their ability/wish to pay for their hunting as the report states. The question is, would it work in some portions of MN (western) and not in others (eastern, near urban areas)?

On a more positive note, I'd be interested in some sort of fee-based access or pass that allowed you into new WMAs or Walk-in Lands. Sure, it would be less acreage, and it wouldn't be everything at first, but who said we had to jump in headfirst?

Joel

[ImissReeds]

Joel, I know you say "you don't want to be argumentative," but it seems your thought process is set that its "pay to play."

Rather than just pose numerous unanswered questions in your "non argumentative" post, why don't you explain you thoughts a little more thoroughly, I'm not getting them all as clearly as I'm sure your intending.

I believe the program would work in some parts of the state much better than others and I am also aware of the high rates of land, but I also have met several non actively hunting farmers that would prefer many people benefit from their land rather land just a "few rich guys" from the cities (not directing shots to any 952, 763, or 612ers).

I just think to shoot down the thought of a public access program without exploring it thoroughly and knowing all the facts is just ignorant and stubborn. Are you going to tell me there isn't valuable farm land with high taxes in Kansas (where there is a viable Walk In program)?

[Hotspotter]

ImissReeds:

Let's stick to the debate, not the debator, before the thread gets locked. I'm sure we can all make our points without attacks.

 Quote:

I just think to shoot down the thought of a public access program without exploring it thoroughly and knowing all the facts is just ignorant and stubborn. Are you going to tell me there isn't valuable farm land with high taxes in Kansas (where there is a viable Walk In program)?

No, but I will tell you that there is much more high $$ land in eastern states such as New York (per report). The report also stated that our land prices in MN were closer to those in eastern states where other programs have either been tried and have failed, or aren't instituted to begin with.

By pay to play, I simply mean that those who directly benefit from the program should shoulder the brunt of the load. I don't mean they should necessarily bring their pocketbooks to the farmers door.

My intentions are simply to voice the opinion that it's difficult to support raising the price of a pheasant stamp (to create a Walk-in Hunting Program), in order for me to hunt my own land or neighbors that don't participate in such a program. And to be honest, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a small increase, as I do believe in the betterment of the whole. I would also voice that it's even more difficult to pass this cost onto ALL hunters.

However, I have long heard the cry of folks not having enough local land to hunt. Yet, they're the same folks that will take two forays a fall into the dakotas, spending more than $1k each time. Somehow, breaking out the checkbook is easier once a state line is crossed. They make a conscious decision to spend their dollars out of state each year, rather than offer local support in the form of this program or others.

I believe that more public land is a good thing, and it's a fact that our long-term benefit in terms of bang-for-buck is in purchasing, not renting the land. Do short term costs outweigh long-term gains? I'm not sure. That said, I wouldn't oppose a hybrid approach that many editorials have abhorred, stating it wouldn't give them enough land to play with. Like I said, do we need to jump in head first?

My primary concern is that we add yet another game/fish law which robs Peter to pay Paul. Each hunting group has its own interests, and I will do quite a bit in the name of "hunters," but subsidizing their hobby at some point becomes difficult. We have turned into our own special interest subgroups, ignoring greater goals in favor of our own special hunting needs, access being only one of them.

Seriously, there's nothing more I'd like to see than pheasant hunters everywhere banding together to solve this problem, agreeing to shoulder the cost for better access and hunting. I also understand that our collective whole as hunters has so much more purchasing power than does simply our pheasant hunting contingency.....so do pheasant hunters.

It just seems that everyone who thinks the WIHA is only positive has not considered the concerns of land-owning sportsman, and other land-owners who wish not to have their land made temporarily public. That includes the farmers that currently farm with conservation in mind, but don't want to subject themselves to an onslaught of hunting requests from deer, turkeys, squirrels, etc. because your nearby acreage is listed in a state mapbook.

Does it not seem backwards to you that many of the very folks who keep the pheasant population alive through the fall/winter months would be the same people we'd charge in order to let them hunt their own land via increased stamp fees? Have they not paid enough? And again, how willing are you to pay an extra $75 for a deer license to benefit my access if you already have a great place to hunt? Say you're one of the many that owns land up north, you plant food plots, and incurr many land/deer related expenses. Worse yet, say you were paying extra $$ for a deer license to increase turkey hunting opportunities in the SE part of the state when you live up north?

Maybe it's just dollars and cents. I personally wouldn't have a problem with $5. But $20 additional starts to burn. That value changes for alot of people, but I think we can all agree that a nominal increase would not be too much trouble.

This is why I'm interested in a walk-in program with a required sticker or yearly access fee. Anyone without a sticker parked at one of these WIHA gets ticketed? Other suggestions or solutions to help hunters who need access pay their way?

Joel

[Augusta]

jnelson,

I know this is off topic, but I saw in one of your previous posts that you hunted the PLOTS land in ND, can I as how well do you did? I'm curious, just thinking about going out there myself sometime. Thanks

[Hotspotter]

Augusta:

Never hunted any PLOTS land in ND, sorry about that. I've hunted some great National Grasslands out there in the western part of the state though.

Joel

[Hotspotter]

Another idea to make this more palatable and appealing to all sportsmen would be to possibly seek out wooded areas as well as traditional "pheasant" areas.

I'd be much more open to gathering money from all sportsmen if there was an equal opportunity focus for all game species. Many of the same programs, like CREP, RIM, etc., have great deer and turkey habitat as well.

Why not secure more funding and open up these areas to Walk-in Hunting?

Joel

[brittman]

Kansas has a nice Walk-in program for spring turkey. We shot 3 of our 4 birds on these lands.

Again, not all are created equal and it took scouting to find the land that would produce. What you see from the road is not necessarily what you get in the back "40".

[Hotspotter]

I've heard you mention this before, and it doesn't just appeal to me because I like turkey hunting. I'd just like to see a Walk-In program benefit all of the people that pay for it. Why not do it for deer/turkeys/small-game as well?

Joel

[ImissReeds]

Jnelson, we did discuss earlier that in MN especially, other lands should be looked at for this program besides pheasant type grassland.

[BLACKJACK]

 Originally Posted By: hanso612

Why would a farmer open his land to everyone for a small fee instead of leasing it to a group of people he knows for significantly more?

This has been one of my main concerns about paying for Walkins from the start, once one farmers sees his neighbor collecting money for walkins, hes going to want to get paid for allowing hunters access. The best hunting spots will be controlled by the well heeled and the of the hunters will be forced elsewhere.

[ImissReeds]

Blackjack, not the case in the Dakotas at all!

Walk ins have made it great for the freelance hunter to hunt until his legs fall off before he runs out of turf. To me its a little negative and backwards to think that any addition to public land will cause more lease/access problems on the remaining land. Backwards...

[B. Amish]

of course walk in land would up the price for lease. a walk in program is basically setting the bar as to what the price will be. is anyone going to lease land to a private person for less than the walk in program offers.

[sparcebag]

Why and how do you compare Mn. to the dakotas?Kansas,now if it were Missouri I'd accept that your close to comparison,but the true prairie minn hardly has any true prairie.

I believe if all the $$ is sunk into starting this walkin,It'll cost a fortune just to get all legalities straight then more for sign up,and lets say they expect,yes expect 5000 sign ups 120 acres each,but in reality only get 2500 sign ups with 80 acres each.With all the start up funds they could have PURCHASED perminent land.What foolishness!Then people complain how their money is spent! In one of these disscussions someone even stated we pay farm subsities so we are paying the taxes already we should have open access to all farms that are subsitized.Talk about GREED and IGNORANCE

[brittman]

A few issues on turkey:

MN has so many zones, how do you pick and chose and not offend? KS has 3 zones.

According to MN DNR access and hunter density is not an issue with turkey hunting, that is why they keep increasing the # permits per zone.

[brittman]

Sparcebag: ?????

The western states have very little true prairie left either. What are you talking about here? I have hunted from Mapleton to Saint Cloud to Windom and find very little difference between MN and eastern ND, eastern SD and NE KS.

MN is considered right in the long stem prairie ecosystem.

To make a real difference in decreasing MN hunter density you need to add more than a couple thousand acres. You need to add a couple 100,000 acres or more. Leasing at $10 acre vs purchasing at $2500 acre. Money well spent, especially if it is primarily supported by user fees!

[Augusta]

A little off topic here, but I have to make a note to myself, forgive me.

Note: When you retire Augusta, cut fingers off so you won't make a fool of yourself on the computer....

Ok, I'm done......