DNR Stance on Walk-In Hunting Land

[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)?

[HateHumminbird]

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

[HateHumminbird]

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

[HateHumminbird]

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".

[HateHumminbird]

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......

[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 bitch 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.

[HateHumminbird]

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...

[HateHumminbird]

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.