Open private land

[Borch]

Well I've stayed out of this for awhile. I can see both the good and bad in the program. Reality is that the landowner program has a minimal impact on taking away permits from those non landowners who apply for licenses.

I have had long time relationships with landowners who I have met through this program and who allow me to continue to hunt their land even if they no longer utilized the program. I've run into a few negative experiences as well but it has been primarily positive. It is what it is. But I do see that it does give others access to turkey hunting ground beyond the more traditional "public" land.

Maybe MN needs a walking program like many other states have. Who knows.

[germanshorthairs]

I say do away with the program. Even with-out it you could still ask for permission right? Why have the program??

[brittman]

If participation based on % license allocation is that low, then abandon the program based on poor participation.

I have contacted 5 landowners over the past 10 years. Two said yes, one said no, and the other two said sure, but my land does not hold turkeys we hunt over by .... they gave me the landowners names!!

Originally, the program was likely put in place to reward landowners to manage their land for turkeys. But I suspect the number of landowners that manage their land for turkeys is small except for hunter landowner types.

That said - sure set aside 10% of licenses to landowners with no open land program - BUT these landowners are restricted to hunting their own land.

This protects private habitat if it exists through landowner incentives.

Turkeys are pretty mobile and unless they own a large block of land, turkeys will move around naturally and in response to pressure.

[Hotspotter]

 Originally Posted By: brittman

If participation based on % license allocation is that low, then abandon the program based on poor participation.

Participation isn't low....enrollment is. Meaning that the folks who "take-away" tags via the landowner program are much less than advertised. In the zones I hunt, willing landowners break out a sheet of people that I have to work around when gaining permission on these grounds. Most fill up. There are many people who would like to hunt such lands, that don't want to pay anything for them. Abandoning the program would create an even greater stress on accessible land.

It's what I'd call a great situation. Plenty of folks getting access, few landowners "taking" tags.

 Originally Posted By: brittman

I have contacted 5 landowners over the past 10 years. Two said yes, one said no, and the other two said sure, but my land does not hold turkeys we hunt over by .... they gave me the landowners names!!

As stated, there are abuses. I would report such situations. As far as being turned down, did you contact the landowners by phone or stop by in person? Did you do it early, long before turkey season? I know of plenty dissatisfied hunters that miss the boat simply because the early bird already got the worm. I'm not saying this is the case in your situation, but it's a common cause of disgust.

 Originally Posted By: brittman

Originally, the program was likely put in place to reward landowners to manage their land for turkeys. But I suspect the number of landowners that manage their land for turkeys is small except for hunter landowner types.

I spoke with Gary Nelson, DNR Area Wildlife Mgr., Rochester earlier this week regarding the program. Gary presided over the re-introduction of turkeys in MN, and was doing this wild turkey work back in '78 during our first season. Originally, this landowner permit system was derived back then for much of what you say. His take on the situation was similar, in that he felt it has been bad in certain years with abuses, but is generally getting better through enforcement, and is largely a successful program. It's been contested and up for removal several times, and was even changed a few years back to do as you suggested brittman; require those folks to hunt on their own land. That was overturned, as it provided even less incentive for landowners to take part of the program.

Regarding management, any farmer that maintains large trees, wooded cover, alfalfa/grass for nesting, and/or corn and other food sources is managing for wild turkey whether they know it or not. There is varying quality sure, and fenceline to fenceline corn doesn't get it done; but just because a farmer isn't planting chufa and defoliating understory doesn't mean he's not managing for turkey.

 Originally Posted By: brittman

That said - sure set aside 10% of licenses to landowners with no open land program - BUT these landowners are restricted to hunting their own land.

This protects private habitat if it exists through landowner incentives.

Turkeys are pretty mobile and unless they own a large block of land, turkeys will move around naturally and in response to pressure.

I applaud you for proposing a solution. But, if less than 20% of tags are applied for, 5%, 10%, whatever.....the rest go to the general lottery. And, as mentioned, this has been done before and overturned after only one year. For very good reason. There's not incentive for the landowner to participate.

What I would like to see more of, is enforcement action on landowners that cheat the system. That means all of us need to be ready to report rules infractions just as we would if we saw a slot walleye on Mille Lacs taken home.

Another thing that Gary mentioned, for those of you who wish to axe the program, is that it must be purely legislatively driven. Meaning, that you need to get your local legislator involved if you want to see something changed. You can be sure I will agressively and actively promote the continual of the program, but everyone's voice must be heard.

Joel

[Hotspotter]

Another untold story that Borch and I were chatting about is the numerous turkey grounds we've found through this program, that we would've otherwise never knew existed, or had the time/energy to check out.

We've both maintained some great landowner relationships as a result of this program, long after they've broken away from the program or decided not to turkey hunt anymore.

The benefit of this program for myself and others continues even after these farmers quit applying for a landowner permit.

Joel

[Hotspotter]

I caught up with Bill Penning, MN DNR Farmland Wildlife Leader regarding the landowner permit issue.

In my past dealings with DNR wildlife managers and conservation officers, I had not heard this perspective, and have been incorrect in my assumption that the DNR supports this program. It appears more that they are mandated to carry it out.

Bill informed me that DNR has testified before the legislature that they would just as soon do-away with the program because of the administrative headache it presents them. Complaints for both sides (landowner and hunter) are rampant, year after year, and a big reason that applications are due in December is to ensure that landowners applying for these permits actually own land.

He also mentioned that he would appreciate the legislature defining "qualified" lands.

In response to my positive experiences in many permit areas throughout the state, as well as positive experiences by others, Bill responded in saying that there were no current metrics to measure "success" of the program. In response to the rule requiring landowners to hunt their own land, the backlash was apparently quite large, and he even called it an "administrative nightmare."

Thank you Bill for your insight!

Joel

[Hotspotter]

Rather than superimpose my opinion on the post regarding Bill Pennings words, I wanted to delve a little deeper.

He mentioned that there's no metrics to measure the success of the program, which in my opinion, doesn't mean it's unsuccessful, it just means they have no way to assess how well it's doing.

It seems that this program is somewhat handcuffing our DNR's ability to perform their management tasks, and ultimately acheive their biological goals. At the same time, how do we achieve better access to private lands in the lease and outfitter-ridden hunting world we've come to know? Esp. in the face of $5+ corn and $10+ beans??? What incentives are we going to give to landowners to provide access? Like it or not, they get to control who enters and does-not enter their land. Maybe Brittman's (and many others) support of walk-in hunting grounds is more a viable option than I've previously considered? But at what cost?

This information gives me pause, yet I'm quite reluctant to believe that there are other proposals, programs, and ideas that yeild as much available turkey hunting land as such a small cost in terms of taxes, fees/licenses, and/or manpower.

Thoughts?

Joel

[brittman]

Joel, I hunt the same zone every year and have been drawn seven years straight. Gobbler kill succes rate for me is 50%. Have two farms and a vast amount of public land to hunt. I have opportunites on Toms every year and consistently pass on Jakes in my lap.

Good share of landowner names on the list in my zone are repeats.

Each and every year:

I actually pull the landowner data ASAP and then scout each "new" one with my PLAT book in hand. Can scout via Google Earth and actually driving the area. The majority of properties that are listed in my area may hold some feeding turkeys, but property lines indicate you are tresspassing the minute you step into the adjacent woods.

In response to another one of your questions: I have called them first, but the two properties that I hunted on - I stopped by before my season and introduced myself. Both have since been split and developed eliminating any repeat visits.

[brittman]

WE have killed turkeys on KS walk-in lands. All properties were woodlot / ag mixes. None that we hunted were large tracts of woods.

Interesting story. Last day at mid-day, we pulled the truck over and walked down on a small wooded creek on a KS Walk-In. Called for a little bit, decided cover too sparce. No gobbles or response. We headed out.

Drove by the area about 90 minutes later and there was a HUGE tom in full strut - right where we had been set up and were calling. KS turkeys wander.

Unfortuantely we were headed home (I had my two and my partner had one) and he had to get back to MN.

[harvey lee]

From my expierence's in hunting in Montana, they have a walk in program. I have been told it's funded by the hunters license sales. I have no problems accessing almost any land and the non resident can hunt in many locations for many if not all species.

I personally have no issue with paying a small fee increase to access land espically when I am a non resident and I can drive out west and start hunting without asking or driving tons of miles to get permission and be told no.

From what numerous landowners have told me while hunting there, they are happy with the program and so are the hunters.

We have even be lucky enough to camp on a few landownerrs property and also use one of there freezers for our kill.

This could possibly be a wonderful program for all states that might want to end some of these issues. I'm sure they have a few issues as all programs seem too.

The other nice part of this is, one needs not pay any guides for land access. Seems to me to be a win win for all.

[brittman]

Agree.

[DonBo]

I too have hunted these areas in Montana. It is called BLM (Bureau of Land Management) It is up to the landowners if it is walk-in only, or I hunted several ranches that you could drive into. It is funded by a fee put on all non-resident licenses.

The landowner gets paid for the number of days hunters were on their property. The landowner has no liability if a hunter is injured in any way and he is insured if a hunter kills a cow, or breaks a fence or whatever. The pay scale is different for each ranch depending on the number of acres open and the quality of habitat available.

Pretty good deal for all involved if you ask me.

[Hotspotter]

Brittman:

I understand what you're saying about the same landowners each time, and to a person like me or you who has hunted the same properties year after year, the program probably has only marginal benefit. However, go to a new zone, or put yourself in the shoes of a new hunter looking for land access in a new zone? Didn't you discover at least some of the land you hunt on now due to the landowner permit program? Maybe not, but I know I do.

I would likely be more supportive of abandoning the program, knowing what I know now, should the savings from ditching the program be translated into lesser license fees. More appealing yet would be to put these savings towards another landowner/partnership (call it walk-in, call it what you want) that perhaps works better?

My concern with Walk-in is our land values in turkey country. MN land prices are orders of magnitude in difference from land values in Montana, the Dakotas, and anywhere else Walk-in programs have been successful. See the DNR report on Walk-in. To provide landowners with enough incentive, we'll need a pretty penny. Is what we have so broken that it's worth scrapping in order to pay more for an unknown here that's been shown to be ineffective and costly in areas with comparable land values to our own?

Time-in, time-out, I come back to the philosophical rift between our increasingly urbanized hunting population and rural landowners (of only some of which hunt). I'm of the opinion that we need to work-with these landowners, be personable to these farmers; not provide them a social or monetary payoff so we can just come and go as we choose. The latter is more convenient to us, but is it really healthy for the dynamic between suburban and rural america? The increasingly provincial attitude of rural folks is in no small measure a result of the lack of time we all seem to have, the conveniences we "need," and the greater demand we place on hunting experiences that take rather than work-with or give-back.

These are just opinions, and who knows what's right.

Joel

[Hotspotter]

Here's a link to the walk-in hunting report, though not designed to look at turkey habitat and associated land-values:

Walk-in Hunting Report - MN DNR

Here's a survey of states that currently utilize a Walk-in hunting program.

State Survey

[harvey lee]

I dont believe that we will ever see the day that one can access private property without any issues without reimbursing the owner. For a small fee, I have no issues with it at all and also realize to access most private property, one will need to do so.

If it comes down to the value of land versus the fees collected then we are in a no win situation as we cannot be charged the moon and no program will ever work. This needs to be a two way street. One is not looking to purchase the land but only use it for a day or two.

[hanso612]

We need to make more private land public either by buying it outright or taking it through iminent domain. I have argued before for the right to hunt all ditch right of ways like the Dakotas. I have argued for all train track right of ways to be public. And I have argued for landfills to be used once as a landfill and them used as a WMA afterward as in some Colorado sites. I also argued against Potlatch leases and believe to my core that we need to have vast areas of timber land set aside for future generations. Plastic toilet paper is going to stink. Thes lands need to be for timber harvest, carbon sink, oxygen regeneration, wildlife, and most of all open to public hunting.

I have argued that it more important to preseve habitat for wildlife than it is to protect private property rights. All stream and lake shore should be open to the puplic to walk up and down the shore without creating a disturbance and every lake should have a maximum of developed feet of shoreline. Some needs to be left wild and open to the public. If you can not see this you are either selfish or have no progressive vision but you are probably very practical.

For years we incented -through tax break- timber companies to leave these lands open. Now they make more money from the leases and this leased land is off limits to the public even though their tax dollars helped the company to survive. It's a slap in the face and will ultimately lead to the European style of land use. Hans

And don't even get me started on human population control. We can hide blindly behind political correctness today and avoid these tough decisions. We won't have to set policy but our kids will have to make some vey hard choices. Nothing like passing the buck because we won't be here for the bill.

[brittman]

I have killed every one of my MN gobblers on public land. My private properties often hold birds in winter, but they either dead, move along or are pressured out by the time I get to hunt. This land is a friend of a friends. No DNR influence!

We are the only ones who ask to hunt there, but I expect local uninvited visitors - verified with foot prints...

I usually hunt them to "let up & rest" my public spots for a day and/or hunt them when it may rain - since the birds tent to go out in the fields in the rain.

Still one of these days - these properties will pay off.

I agree with your comments. That is why MN needs to be very careful as they increase the number of permits in each zone! You could not hunt my public spots on weekends anymore!!!!

[brittman]

To be honest, I would not want to see any MN walk-in hunting areas dedicated to turkeys.

Pheasants!!!

[Hotspotter]

How about sharing spots with the turkey guys Half grassland/slough, half woodland mix?

I wholly agree on the permit # increase issue!!!

Joel

[Hammer Handle]

I am glad our land is all private. Our lakeshore is all undeveloped and the woods and tall grasses are well taken care of. Except for an occasional need to drive a truck or tractor down the "road" in the woods, no ATVs or snowmobilers are allowed.

I will never "check" the box to open up hunting and never have. Just last weekend, we found a turkey blind in our woods (well hidden, but the snow gave it away). I just don't understand why people feel they can just "sneak in" and hunt.

We took the blind and left a note. Yesterday the guy called wanting his blind back. He claims "I was ditch hunting" even though his blind was 60 feet from the road. And, he was surprised you can't "ditch hunt" on my land anyway.

Should I give the blind back?

And, this guy did ask permission to hunt...and I said "No" as my wife and I are hunting late in the season. If we had a chance to hunt before him...we would have allowed him to hunt.

[Dave S]

I may be wrong, but if the blind is on your land, it's your blind. He knowingly trespassed to put it there in the first place.

Is it right to keep the blind? Maybe not. You may not know what you're dealing with and to avoid any issues later on, it may be in your best interests to give it back, but with a stern warning to stay out.

[huntmup]

If you are hunting a later season why not let some one hunt an early season. The birds seem to travel durning the spring anyway. What's on your land now more then likely will not be there later.

I'm hunting season E, I will be taking a nephew season A, a buddys wife season C and another nephew the last season. This is all on 70 acers.

One nice thing about Turkeys is you can call them in from a long distance. I called this one tom in from 3/4 to a mile away. He crossed a plowed field full trot, stopped 15 yards out, lifted his wing, whiped the sweat off his brow and took a full load of #4's to the noggin. And this was after I let 4 people hunt 4 seasons befor me.

As for the blind, give it back. It's not worth the sh!t you would probably have to put up with. If it happens again call the DNR and let them bust his a$$.

Good luck on your hunt.

Dan

[Hammer Handle]

My brother and is wife are hunting first season.

My wife and I are hunting a late season.

I don't want anyone in between for birds do hang out in our woods a lot and rarely leave the woods. It is my wife's first year hunting and I don't want the birds spooked so that she can get her first bird and be hooked like I am.

I told the guy that I will give his blind back, but only if he confesses to tresspassing and gets charged with it.

[tealitup]

Contact the DNR now and have them come out take the blind and call the guy (if you have his number). It is one thing to get mixed up and end up on private property - its another to ask and get told no... then say "screw that I am going there anyways."

It is your choice as a landowner to let people hunt your property. Its a respect and principle thing. If he does it to you he will do it to someone else. If it was me I might of spray painted the blind blaxe orange.

I had a bear guide place 3 baits on my property up north without permission. I saw a trail and walked right up to a hunter in a portable stand. After talking to him - he was a client of the guide who would drive them on an ATV on our driveway and come back at night to pick them up. The clients were told not to come out before dark

[Hotspotter]

Was it a Double Bull?

Joel