Open private land

[Saw557]

Does anybody know where I can get a list of the private land that is open for turkey hunting. I looked on the DNR site and couldn't find a link. I had a list a couple of years ago I think maybe the deal was if a land owner got a permit they had to make their land open to public hunting ???? don't know can't remeber for sure

Scott

[Dave S]

Scott,

you're correct that if a landowner is drawn, they must allow hunting on their land. The down side is, this is next to impossible to enforce. They may allow a person on the land for a day, and the way I understand it, that's all they need to do.

Otherwise if they let everyone on who sets foot on their property, that's a lot of pressure that could decimate the population.

I thought there was a list of landowners, but realized there isn't.

I'll do some digging and see what I can find.

[MarkAlm]

i know it is there but it is not easy to find , check lottery hunts

there was acouple of layers of matter to get to it

[MarkAlm]

go to mn dnr - recreation top left , click on hunting , click on turkey and scroll down to land owner lottery. hope this helps

[Dave S]

Thanks for the update Mark. You beat me to it.

[brittman]

Much of this land still does not hold turkeys. The landowner portion of the law should be rewritten to that the landowner has land that can or does have habitat that will support turkeys.

[Hotspotter]

In the southeast, much if not all, has birds on it at least sometime during the year. I know they've looking into that provision, but many feel there is too much wiggle-room and interpretation in just what "turkey habitat" means.

As for the landowner list, this land is technically not "open" to public hunting. Rather, you still have to ask permission on these lands. Just thought I'd make that distinction.

Joel

[cw642]

Joel made a good point about birds using the land at some point during the year. Even in my area the bird will be feeding all winter on the manure that farmers have spread in the fields . It may not be during your hunting season but most fields are used by these birds. I could easily work it so I could get a landowner permit but choose not to. I have heard of some horror stories about people "USING" your land for other seasons and one where opening morning a guy woke to two cars parked in his driveway.

CW

[Hammer Handle]

I am a land owner, and never "check" this box. As a hunter myself, I don't want any confusion and just close my land to me and my family.

[harvey lee]

I personally know two people that apply in the landowner lottery and then yes, you can hunt a piece of their land but its in an area where no, there are next to no birds. Its to bad so many have to take advantage of this type license, but they do.

[cw642]

The amount of tags is %20 max for any time period that landowners can receive. It seems funny that this is an issue when last year %17 of the total number of tags went unissued. The year before was only slightly better at about %15. I'll bet that all of the landowners that got a tag actually bought it and hunted. So I did the math and if you re figure the unused tags into the common applicants, only %78 of non landowner tags are purchased. Now why are you being hard on landowners when %22 of lottery winners don't buy their tags?

CW

[Dave S]

Harvey's post relates to the original question.

I too know of landowners who have received a "land-owner" permits and wouldn't allow anyone else on their land to hunt. The catch was, as Harvey has mentioned, this land very very rarely, if ever, would attract a turkey. But they still got their permit.

I agree with Harvey in that some land owners apply for the land owners permit just for the sake of getting a tag and don't allow other to hunt.

It's sad, but true.

Honestly, and I may get nailed to a cross for saying this, but do away with the land owner tags and it's not a problem any more. It's a system with too many loopholes.

[cw642]

While I completely dissagree with doing away with landowners permits, I'll keep to the facts. In Area 219, (this is the area I hunt if someone wants to post where they hunt I'll do the math for them)just to show how much of a non-issue this is I took the time to further investigate. 219 has 14 land owner permits issued for this year. 8 time periods consisting of 55 permits is 440 total permits. Only 3.18181 percent of the total is landowner. I also looked at the max in one time period. That would be 11 or %20 of 55. The most issued was 4 for both A & B. So if someone wants me to figure it out for them I will.

CW

[Dave S]

cw,

while I don't deny your numbers, I'll stick to my past experience. I've seen it enough to believe the system is being abused.

[cw642]

Here I did three more just to compare.

AREA, LANDOWNER PERMITS, TOTAL PERMITS, % OF TOTAL

236 , 36 , 1120,%3.21

349,139,3600,%3.86

344,40,1000, %4

219,14,440,%3.181

So for the four I figured out the highest was %4. Why Is this an issue guys? I could tell by just browsing thru the landowner site that many areas are way under that.

CW

I do agree it is abused but we could debate by who. There is a distinct reason why the landowner permits are under the %20 mark. I don't think its because the lack of hunting landowners, but rather the point I brought up about the tresspass for other seasons and the walk on factor. Its a bad system I agree. Landowners should have their own season. Or a no tag season such as Pheasants.

[Dave S]

cw,

don't get me wrong as I'm not trying to be negative or turn this into a heated battle.

The issue is the landowners who get the tags with the intent of keeping the land to themselves.

Can the DNR guarantee that all 139 landowners in area 349 allow at least one person to hunt their land?

[harvey lee]

The percent of numbers are not being debated.. The program is I believe that if you are to apply for a landowner lottery tag that you will need to let others hunt. Of those, some allow you to hunt on land that does not have a turkey population or is ver, very, low.

Thats the issue, not how many do it but the fact that its abused.

Yes, a few allow hunters to hunt on good land but others abuse the program. From my point of view, I would lobby to end the freebe program as it is not fair.

[cw642]

My whole point is the landowner permits are such a small percentage, and all the permits that dont get used way outnumbers them. Also what do the other %96 of people bring to the table. Do they let you hunt on their 1/2 acre lot in town?

Farmer Bob has a field. During the winter turkeys feed on the grain and manure in that field. But they roosted in the woods across the road that he also owns. It provided food for the winter months but doesn't hold any birds during the 8 week hunting season. So is his land not worthy to get him a landowner permit even tho it fed a flock of 50 all winter? Now lets say he's got a buddy who lives in town. He lets his buddy hunt his land but only if he can also hunt. No its not Joe who knocked on his door but he's letting someone hunt right?

If Joe Nobody falls breaks his neck, and because the state says he has a right to hunt on my land can I loose everything? Or does the state have to pay for his claim? I agree it is a horrible program. Landowners should not be told to let someone they don't know on their land.

I guess I just cant see being upset about 1500 of 38,000 tags state wide. That 1500 would be if nobody let others hunt and ignored the rules. I'm sure some do and some never get asked. Like I pointed out if the same percentage of tags as last year do not get purchased it will total almost 6500. That number is more alarming to me than the 1500 that might not let Joe Nobody hunt his land and got a landowner permit.

CW

[Dave S]

cw,

in my reference to landowners, I was referring to one in particualr that I know who has 40 acres in the middle of nowhere. Simply put, no turkeys.

As far as the numbers, nobody here has disputed that. You're in that arguement yourself. There was a thread a while back that mentioned that the anti's are entering these lotteries so the actual sportsmen/women have more competition in the lotteries.

Also, why complain about those who are drawn and don't purchase their tags. Things happen. It did for my sons and I last year and we weren't able to hunt. If I'm not going to hunt, should I still purchase the tag? I don't think so.

[harvey lee]

I don't see where I need to bring anything to the land table as I am not in that drawing. I go through the lottery under different terms than some landowners who choose to a different program.

I also agree that no one disputed your numbers.

[Hotspotter]

So here we are in agreement. Abuse exists and landowner participation in the program is incredibly low. Thanks for the facts Chris.

My problem with the situation is we all take a handful of bad experiences with these landowner tags, translate it to the whole, and then proceed to convince ourselves that the program is unfair because we do not personally benefit. With that, I have an issue.

I mean not to single you guys out either, Tom and LEP7MM. These comments are more directed at the hundreds of folks I've heard complain of the system for years now.

I'm on both sides of the debate. I've hunted a full third of the permit areas in MN, many of those on landowner-permit land. I have been turned down many times, and have seen abuses personally, first-hand. The flip side is that this is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. I have been granted permission to well over 100 locations via this program. Plain and simple, abuses exist, but it is the best program we have for the little we invest towards access to this land (opportinity cost, not $$$ cost).

I also own land, and do not participate in the program for several reasons. Our experience was that people treated it as public land; and not just for turkeys. We were and still are a continual target for deer, morels, coon, pheasant, and turkey hunting. Trespassers caught have confirmed they believed (whether true or not) our land was public because they saw it published as such on the DNR HSOforum through the landowner turkey tag program.

Basically, from our experience, the landowner puts up with far more than he/she recieves when following the rules. Those that don't are few/far between. So when complaints arise about how unfair you have it because you know of some guy who abuses the program; think to the majority of private landowners (remember better than 90% of our turkey habitat in MN is in private holding, more than 95% in the heart of the turkey's range). Think of how their crop residue feeds the birds you'll hunt this year. The trees they don't decide to slick-off the hillside are the roost trees you're hunting, or the one you're putting your backside against.

It costs you the "potential" opportunity at a tag, and Chris showed that they don't decrease your opportunity by much (esp. in the latter half of the season). For little to nothing, you get a roadmap to some great turkey hunting if you're willing to do the legwork it takes to get it, should you choose to use it. You don't have to pay increased taxes, an entrance fee, or even extra stamp/license $$$ for this insider-information on access.

If someone has a better idea for more efficient, cost-effective, more fair (both-sides), and ultimately better access to more land for turkey hunting, we would all be very interested!!! I may be wrong, but I'm of the opinion that it likely does not exist. That's coming from a landowner who chooses not to participate in the program, and a turkey hunter that loves many of the fine turkey hunting opportunities provided him in the past 15 years.

Joel

Looked at my records. It's more like 1/4 of the permit areas and 60+ landowner permit lands That's the fisherman in me

[harvey lee]

I have never benefited from these tags and never will as I have places to hunt any plenty of them. I do understand that many benefit from this but will never agree with the program in whole due to the fact that some and probably more than I personally know abuse it. Just because it works for some does not make it a great program for all.

Yes, it works for some but, the progran does need a fix. if no one ever states anything about the wrong things about any program, it will never change and the abuse will only grow.

If all fisherman always followed the laws, we would not need all the laws that are now in place. Same with the turkey program or for that matter any other. We start out with a program and fix as we go and this program needs a fix.

If it doesn't hurt another hunter from recieving a tag, thats fine but the abuse is still ongoing.

If the landowner puts up with so much as you state, there is a choice and that is to not allow anyonee on their land and that is exactly what we do in North dakota where I deer hunt. We could enroll in the different programs but I do not feel that the hassle is worth it as it seems so many will not follow the rules. That is a choice we make and live with. If we did choose to enroll in any hunter program, it would without a doubt be wrong to do what would be simply in our favor to gain a tag.

So, as long as it works good for some, your telling me Joel that the abuse can continue.

As far as the wildlife eating crops in the field, thats the way it will always be and will never change. It really bothers me when people think that since the wildlife eat on their land that they might or should have total control over all wildlife.

We will need to agree to disagree on this one.

[Hotspotter]

 Originally Posted By: harvey lee

So, as long as it works good for some, your telling me Joel that the abuse can continue.

Tom, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You can disagree if you like, but I never said that.

What I will say, is that it works for more than just some. It works for the vast majority. If you think yours is the first complaint to the DNR regarding this program, you'd be off the mark. In repeated conversations with wildlife managers and conservation officers, most recently at our DNR safety training banquet, with CO Kevin Prodzinski, the program is very successful at providing access to vast amounts of land for the majority of hunters out there willing to take advantage of the program.

I urge those who know of abuses to do something about them. Just like someone keeping an extra limit of walleyes, these abuses should be reported. I reported one three years ago of a landowner who wished to charge me additional dollars as an entrance fee after making use of the landowner permit. The problem was rectified through enforcement.

It's easy to sit back and say something is broken, but a much different task to propose a means to fix it. Right now, enforcement is used to fix whatever problems arise. If folks don't have a problem with the lack of enforcement of the rules, but have a problem with the rules themselves, we would all like to benefit from their wisdom and foresight.

I'm not of the opinion that the program is perfect and couldn't use a facelift, but DNR officials need to get the most they can from what little they have. No one said the program is flawless, just the most efficient we currently posess.

Thoughts for improvement?

• Stricter enforcement?

• More descriptive land requirements (certain % wooded cover)?

• Increased license fees for landowner easements?

• More?

Joel

[Hotspotter]

 Originally Posted By: harvey lee

As far as the wildlife eating crops in the field, thats the way it will always be and will never change. It really bothers me when people think that since the wildlife eat on their land that they might or should have total control over all wildlife.

We will need to agree to disagree on this one.

Let me clarify my comments so folks don't think I posess total control over wildlife on our land.

I'm simply of the ilk that respect should be shown for the folks that are there providing habitat for our birds the other 360 days of the year. They don't posess any more rights, other than those to their land; and they don't own the wildlife just because they potentially choose to spend a part of their time on the land they own.

However, our wildlife groups big and small preach about conservation this, habitat that; when the reality is that private landowners in this neck of the woods are the breadwinners in terms of available habitat. Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that the level of success of the wild turkey in MN, directly hinges upon daily decisions made by these landowners.

In regards to this topic, the general attitude of the wildlife managers I've spoken to is that they so value the additional acreage and access they provide, they're reluctant to tighten any rules which might further restrict landowner participation in the program.

Maybe this appears as special rights? Perhaps this is the source of the inequality debate? I'm not sure?

Maybe the DNR realizes how important private lands in MN are to the success of wild turkey hunting here?

I've been wrong before many times, and I'm prepared to be completely in the wrong here again. I mean not to dominate the topic, and am sorry for my wordiness. Turkey hunting is my truest passion, and this is a topic I've personally debated with myself, and many others. These opinions are only that, and could be complete bunk. I just hope people think about the big picture when calling for the removal of any program such as this.

Joel

[cw642]

I think the answer is, we do away with landowner program for turkeys. It should be changed to the standard that the DNR established for pheasants. Its a simple fix, no tag needed hunt on your own land. Then landowners could apply for a tag also (just like pheasants) and hunt one bird with their tag on any land in their area just like everyone else. Simple and fair to the landowners. The common guy who uses this info for a decent place to hunt is SOL.

CW