DNR Stance on Walk-In Hunting Land

[brittman]

 Quote:

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.

Depends. Solo hunter or small group lease vs open public hunting? Everything is negotiable.

[sparcebag]

I'll say sparcly populated prairie.I just read the legislative report of this walkin program SD=1.00 per acre walkin payment to farmer Mont somthin like 0.49 cents, average farm SD 1400 acres Mn less than 400.How can ya compare?? the legislature even states it can be used as example but doesnt compare.They also state the needed maintance,added personal for enforcement,maintance,installation of signs and boundaries,arent even considered it their assessments.The DNR is already short handed and broke money wise.the pay as you go could be as low as $17 or as high as $178 per year now there's a gap........ With out considering aforementioned setup, upkeep,enforcement and unforeseen costs.they also say nothern Mn has plenty of area but its people close to the cities who push for walkin.

I say great get the program,but dont include me when I purchase a lisence dont include it in my taxes or from the general fund.Let those who want it pay.Who knows with 1 or 2 year signup contracts with the right to cancel out with a 30 day notice,It could make it or not.I'll guess it wont, but I do believe it will tend to make a farmer think next time I knock on his door and ask permission (How muck can or will this guy pay)

[CodyDawg]

Here is my .02 on a WI program.

Deer hunting in MN is so much different than other states with WalkIn programs that you will have some serious problems developing that type of a program. Very, VERY few parcels with even decent habitat are not hunted. People will not be giving up deer hunting access in MN. They will not want people hunting birds on their deer hunting land around deer season either. So take three weeks or so out of the mix. What are you left with? Not much. I like MTs program better than the Dakotas, as MT gives incentive to the landowner to provide habitat (more hunters = more $$). Many times in the dakotas, I have seen mowed hay fields or pastures as a walkin program. So, if you can find a way around the deer hunting issue, I am all ears.

[brittman]

North Dakotans are into deer hunting as much as Minnesotans. Montana even more so. I grew up in NODAK this arguement is not valid or true, but MNsotans continue to think so.

On a rough basis 100K deer licenses in a population of 700K for NoDak. MN 500K deer licenses for about 4 million people.

In the vast majority of MN pheasant country you are talking 6 days of deer gun hunting - total.

There are those that will lease despite loss of deer hunting opportunities, just like there are those that will sell land ...

I say let go for it and see if this is a real reason.....

[Augusta]

 Originally Posted By: jnelson

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

Joel,

Don't they already have some type of "walk in program" for turkey hunters? I thought that landowners who applied for a tag could get drawn automatically if they offered some of their land for others to hunt. Is that true or am I way off base here? I'm not a turkey hunter (yet anyway, didn't get drawn this year), so please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks

[Augusta]

Keep in mind that a "walk in program" is for all hunters, just because land is pasture and not "pheasant land or deer land," doesn't mean that its "worthless". There are people who coyote hunt, ranchers like that, coyotes kill calves, how about goose hunters, there is another option if a flock lands in that pasture to feed on the grass. Most important of all, the landowner will make the decision as to whether or not he wants to put his land into the program, not us hunters.

[sparcebag]

Agusta, what I just read was the farmer or whoever applies.Then a person affiliated and trained with the walkin program assesses the property and determins if its worthy(the property) of acceptance in the walkin program.To avoid what some statements previously made here refer to, as some walkin in SD is just pasture or stubble worthless hunting ground.Maybe it should be read by all, its in the DNRs site.

It states the property has to have sufficent cover to support upland birds,Nothing about Deer,Geese<ducks but it does state these other birds waterfowl have there own support as WPAs and other programs it also says deer are supported by other support groups and state forest is habitat SOOOOOO what their saying the walkin is for uplandbirds what kind of upland birds can you name that would benifit from this in Minnesota.prairie chickens?Sharpies?Bobwhite? Probably not my guess is Pheasant.So in my analgy its for pheasant hunters mainly.Do you think my goose decoys are going to keep these deprived of land hunters out of my set?

[Augusta]

Sparcebag,

You might want to go back and re-read the reports, they clearly recommend that the program should include wetlands and grasslands, they state this a number of times, so it's pretty hard to miss, and it's clearly stated on the first page where the DNR recommends to the legislature. The Upland hunters are the ones who are pushing hard for the WIA program, so they talk about that and focus their attention on that aspect. As for your decoys in the pasture? But your against a WIA program I thought, now you're saying that you will be using the program? What is your true stand on this issue? What is the difference if your decoys are on walk in land or a WPA, public lake, or a WMA that you hunt?

[hanso612]

Augusta, I will most definately use walk in areas if they are in the area I hunt. I think there are better long term uses for the limited conservation dollar. I see no hypocracy or contradiction in believing one and doing the other. I for one would like to see a clarifiction on the ditch hunting rule in Minnesta and force the legislature to take a stand. Pay farmers not to mow ditches and incent them to plant native grasses. Use fines for illegally farming the ditches to help pay for the program. Adding a few more wma's or large blocks of walkin land will do little to help overcrowding, but imagine being able to hunt ditches next to fresh cut corn without tracking down an absentee landowner or corprate farm board Not only could we have a constitutional amendment protecting our right to hunt, but we could also preserve a place to do it. I have seen many more eggregious uses of emminant domain and would support this one even as a land owner whos land would be hunted by all.

Just hate to dam without offering a solution of my own. Hans

[sparcebag]

Augusta I used that as example.I am against the cost of this nowhere program.Can you in all your knowledge explain where the DNR and all executors of this will get MONEY.Or do you believe the DNR is lieing when they say they cant afford many needed upgrades or current management plans.

[Hotspotter]

Augusta:

You are correct, but as always, the devil's in the details.

There is a landowner permit which sets aside 20% of all tags in each permit area/season for landowners and tennants. In exchange, these folks are required to allow public hunting on their parcels. Their name, legal desc., and acreage is submitted for public distribution.

From my very unscientific analysis, experience, and reading what's been written on many of these pages, the program is somewhat ineffective. Similar to the thought that there are many WMA's that hold pheasants, but perhaps they're not providing enough opportunity.

Both landowners AND hunters seeking these lands have expressed disgust for different reasons. I've been on both sides of the debate as a hunter seeking these lands, and a landowner interested in securing a turkey tag every year.

Legally, if a hunter let's his son and a friend hunt B season, after he hunts A, he has allowed public hunting, and is not required to allow further access throughout the rest of the open seasons. There are also abuses such as landowners listing barren ag-land with no turkey habitat, landowners saying it's full when it's not, and claiming tenants that do not live on the property.

The flip side of the coin is that hunters can be a lazy bunch. Once your name, legal desc., and acreage is posted region-wide, you're a target. We did it once, and will not ever do it again. Now, you have folks asking to squirrel hunt, grouse hunt, pheasant hunt, deer hunt, and turkey hunt. And those are the folks I don't mind! There's the many that consider it "public" land that requires no permission (which it does), and I cannot tell you the number of hunts I've had messed up from trespassers that played dumb and acted like they thought it was public. Pile on animals that got loose from not closing gates, access to our fields blocked by someone parking there, and numerous rut-jobs and erosion problems from two different parties that thought it was public and they could cut firewood there.....in March, when the fields were so sloppy, you couldn't help but rut them up.

For years, as a landowner, this grand priveledge was yours but you were required to ONLY hunt on your property. That's since changed, but is not worth all the hassle IMO. I apply in the general drawing like everyone else.

So, sorry for such a long answer.

I will concede that garnering permission for pheasant hunting appears tougher in many areas than for turkeys. I still think that's a function of a restricted season, and there being less of us however. The DNR does that to ensure a quality hunt. Maybe we need to limit pheasant stamps to ensure a quality hunt?

My thought on opening it to other hunters is simply for equity. If folks expect all hunters to pick up the tab, I don't see it unfair that all hunters benefit. I think it's also more politically appeasing to have multiple interest groups (like possibly the MDHA and/or NWTF) behind you; let alone all the support from their members.

Thoughts?

Joel

[sparcebag]

With the increase in land prices it is difficult for the state to offer competitive prices so landowners chose to sell their land for money or not enroll at all. It is not unusual for a small group of hunters to offer the landowner slightly more than the state offer with the understanding that instead of being open to public hunting the landowner will only have to be concerned with a small group of hunters. Landowners opening their lands to public hunting also have many of the same problems associated on state lands open to hunting. These issues include over use, littering, driving vehicles in areas off limit to vehicles such as farm fields, hunter conflicts, etc. When these problems reach a certain level the farmer either drops from the program or becomes involved in a lease with individual hunters.

this was obtained from the michigan walkin program which I believe is a better comparison than the dakotas,mont.,kan.

[Augusta]

I'm surprised to hear of all your troubles with the program. I've spoken to several landowners and hunters in my area, and they all seem to like the program, the landowners, simply because they get to hunt, and they are not bothered by hunters asking for permission to hunt. The hunters like it because they have a place to hunt. Most turkey hunters in my area take advantage of the program, in fact, as a "new" turkey, I was told by several hunters to "sign up early" to hunt the private land, as it fills fast. Now granted, I haven't taken advantage of the program yet, but I am optimistic as the land that I had "scouted" looked awfully good and had some nice turkeys on it. But, it will have to wait until next year..or so I hope...

[Hotspotter]

Augusta:

Thanks for taking a positive stance on it, and I agree, there are many positives to this program. I know of several folks each year for whom it works wonderfully for. Just because my experiences were bad does not mean it's a bad program. Similarly, just because there's alot of people here complaining about it, doesn't mean it's overall negative My intent is to show that it's not foolproof or necessarily sufficient for the increasing number of turkey hunters we have each year.

On another note, scout the legal desc. of the land via air photos before putting too much time in pounding on doors. Some of the best land is 40-80 acre chunks, and some of the worst is the uber-attractive 360's. The bigger tracts are also the first hit-up. Good luck. I would be interested to hear how your experience went this year. Drop me an email anytime, or send me yours.

Joel

[CodyDawg]

brittman,

This is a valid concern that needs to be addressed. 100K deer hunters in ND vs 500K in MN. 5 times as many. I have spent considerable time in ND during deer season and it is NOTHING like MN in terms of hunter density. Given the smaller size parcels, on average, in MN, this compounds the problem. Their could be a perception, real or imagined, that other types of hunting will push deer off of the property. I am not saying it is insurmountable, I am saying it should be addressed.

For example, I do pheasant hunt my land. But if I didn't, no way would I let pheasant hunters on that land just prior to deer season. So it is not just the few days of deer season, but perhaps 2 weeks prior and the entire 9 day season. That computes to a fairly substantial percentage of the hunting season.

[grab the net]

AFter reading the posts on this topic, it would appear that the biggest fears are:

1. A walk-in program would promote Land owners that choose not to be involved in the strictly voluntary program to start charging for access to their land.

2. It would detract funds the DNR may use for purchase of permanent WMA acquisition.

3. Some people feel it would only benefit pheasant hunters and not all hunters.

I think the key word for the walkin program is voluntary sign up. There are some landowners who would take advantage, non-hunters who would like the added income from their cattail slough or CRP acres. If you hunt your own land great, don't sign up. But to say that your license dollars should not be used to gain access for others, just because you have yours is not fair. I don't fish walleyes very much so I should not have to pay as much for a fishing license. Part of my license money is used for walleye rearing so they can be stocked into put and take fisheries, ( no natural reproduction), same logic.

When I have looked at the walk-in program in SD, I see that the landowner can dictate what activities are allowed on his property. Small game hunting only, no trapping, no big game hunting, etc.. It does allow control for the landowner.

Most County Government is not that crazy about more land being taken off the tax shelf. Land owners that are not ready to sell there property to the DNR may want to utilize a Walk-in program to see how it feels first, see how the land is used and treated. More access now in the form of a walk-in program should at least be explored.

As far as a quality pheasant hunt in MN goes, I think it has been as good as it gets the last 6 years. One or two bad winter storms and the loss of CRP will have us all looking for something else to do in the fall, or travelling west out of state if we want to bag a rooster.

[BLACKJACK]

 Originally Posted By: Augusta

But your against a WIA program I thought, now you're saying that you will be using the program? What is your true stand on this issue?

Augusta, sure I'm not for Walk-in areas for several reasons but if my tax payer dollars are being spent to finance them, I'm going to hunt on them.

What if your employer decides that once a month hes going to throw a big get-together for all employees. You might be against that idea because you'd rather see that money spent on a pay raises for all employees but since the party is happening regardless, would you go? Probably.

What if the state decides to expand one of your local highways from two to four lanes, you think its a big waste of money, but would you use that new expanded highway? Of course you would.

Being against something doesn't mean you're not going to use it if it comes to pass.

[Augusta]

Funny how you anti access people work, you campaign against access, but once it passes, then you guys are the first to express you god given right to use it....I think they have a term for that.....

[BLACKJACK]

 Originally Posted By: Augusta

Funny how you anti access people work, you campaign against access, but once it passes, then you guys are the first to express you god given right to use it....I think they have a term for that.....

Augusta,

Through the ages a common practice has been if you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.

When someone on FM disagrees with you, instead of coming up with a thoughtful and articulate response, you resort to using sarcasm and name calling. Fortunately the readers and contributors here on FM are pretty astute and soon start to gauge people by the content and helpfulness, or lack of content, in their responses and will soon start ignoring and skipping responses made by some individuals.

Have a good day!!!

[sparcebag]

I could'nt have said it better BJ,Ya a opinion is respected,Going beyond is well??

To coin a phrase:

----

men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.

[hanso612]

In Augusta's defence, I can say it was his strong words that incited me to make my first post. Lively debate inspires people. One's beliefs should be maximly consistent. I try to point incongruencies whenever I find them, to a fault myself. As long as it is the actions or ideas that are criticised this "calling b.s." futhers discusions. One can not back down from an argument just because his arguments are shown to have flaws. Fixing the flaw in the argument is were growth accurs. Augusta, I appreciate your conviction and hope others don't shy away from a good fight for fear of being politically incorrect or being labeled bullish.

Lets argue ideas and not personality. Hans