Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

This worries me more than CRP loss!


kgpcr4

Recommended Posts

If ND can run 1 million acres in PLOTS, MN should be able to run atleast 500,000 acres walk-in access across pheasant country.

This would more fairly distribute pheasant hunters and reduce some pressure on the WMAs.

Remember that once the WMA is purchased, it takes money to manage the land. Weed control, tree and bush control, signs, etc... requires much money. If the WMA is non maintained than the habitat looses value to wildlife.

Let Pheasant Forever continue to purchase land and turn over to DNR. They are finding, buying, and setting up some nice properties over the past few years.

In addition, sometimes PLOT / Walk-in land is located near WPAs or WMAs - improving access and ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit. I have only heard the talk about a walk-in program in MN, but do not know much about what consideration it has every seriously received. I just got done sending e-mails to my local state reps. I will be curious to see what kind of a response I get back.

In a nutshell, I asked if such a program has received consideration in MN. If yes, why has nothing happened? If no, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with the politicians. Have sent many e-mails to my reps., and have only got one "thank you for writing" response back, its like the dedicated funding , they give you lip service and do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 'we have more fun' FishingMN Creators

I'm all for WIAs.

I'm all for acquiring lands for Waterfowl Production Areas, Wildlife Management Areas also. We need the year round, long term habitat those lands offer.

Join your local chapter of PF or if your from out of town like myself, join a chapter where you do your hunting.

Its the least you could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You start paying farmers for Walk-in areas and in 10 years you won't be able to hunt private land for free, they'll all be sticking their hand out wanting to be paid for hunting. Then it gets to be a bidding war, they'll sell hunting rights to the highest bidder. The average Joe won't be able to afford to hunt, they'll be forced to the public areas, and when that gets too crowded (or dangerous) they'll quit hunting.

Paying for the right to hunt sets a bad, bad prededent. Then when we run into a budget crunch and funding is cut off for the Walk-in areas, the farmers are still going to expect money for letting you hunt, becasue thats what they've been 'trained' to expect by the Walk-in payments. Bad, bad precedent to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 'we have more fun' FishingMN Creators

Blackjack, Heres my take. A farmer that allows WIA does it for three reasons.

1. A few bucks in his pocket.

2. He's warm to the idea of letting the public on his land.

3. He doesn't want to be bothered by hunters asking to hunt.

I don't think wanting a piece of the money pie has much to do with it. If it were true then they'd stand to get a lot more by charging the hunter instead of a small payment for a WIA.

I thinks its more like this. The farmer would allow you to hunt free so why not enroll in WIA to get a few bucks and not have to deal with hunters coming around and asking permission.

Maybe some of these farmers that charge 200 bucks per head, per day to hunt don't really care for hunters.

What if the hunter image were better? Thats something we have control of.

Maybe that would grant the hunter permission more often or possibly enroll in WIA.

What a land owner does with his land is up to him. Its his right to grant, deny access or charge. Hunter Image is huge here.

WIA are not a substitute for acquiring lands for habitat and secure hunting opportunities for generations. They are a good compliment to them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlackJack,

Most times you and I are on the same page... but I still disagree that WIAs will cause more 'pay' hunting. There is no State that has more 'pay to hunt' pheasant hunting than SoDak, and yet there are plenty of farmers out there willing to enroll some of their set-a-side in WIAs. Last I heard over a million acres. Even in some of the best 'pay to hunt' areas of the state. I doubt that this would set a precedent to become all apy to hunt. I do agree with purchasing land as the best alternative, but in reality to aquire land at a rate to have an impact on spreading out the pressure that is currently put on public lands, will not be completed in our lifetime, if ever...

The DNR was madated the last legislative session to explore the issue of creating a walk-in program. They recieved some funds to study this. From the sounds of it, the next step would be to do a study project in some small area(s) of the state and then decide how to fund the program and to what extent they will 'grow' the program to. By the sounds of it, we are still years away from seeing it happen.

We need to get the feds to re-up the CRP program first before we worry about a Walk-in prgram... or we'll be back to ditches and fence rows... and it may be coming! Without CRP, we do not have to worry about a Walk-in program. My friend in SoDak let me know this past weekend, that in 2 years almost all of their CRP contracts will expire... as it stands now, they are anticipating removing around 50% from the program. That'll be a net loss of about 1000 acres of wildlife habitat from their farm alone. They still have a couple WIAs on their land and they also run a small guiding operation for the 1st month of the pheasant season. I don't go out there till they are done deer hunting which is also about the time they are done with pay hunters. So in one instance alone, you have a farmer who has WIAs, 'Pay to hunt' guiding operation, and occassionally lets "Joe Blow" on to hunt the same land for no fee. I did not know this farmer until I asked to hunt their land at the end of the season one year and over the last 7 years we developed a friendship. This is in the 'heart' of good pheasant hunting in SoDak... not some out of the way area. He has little cash incentive to put some of his land in the Walk-in program... it's more just away to let the public have a little slice of good pheasant hunting. Generally farmers are 'good eggs'.

Remember, some guys like the 'pay-to-hunt' concept. It reduces the amount of time needed for them to be a successful hunter and gives them guaranteed access to good land, they don't need to raise a dog for their one hunt a year and plain and simple, they are probably not hard core hunters... I'd still take them in our ranks over any anti-hunter.

Good Luck!

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting debate. While I haven't personally decided where I stand on the issue, one topic hasn't been discussed; and that's our instant-gratification hunting style and how it feeds into the walk-in and other such programs.

It's nurtured by all of the hunting shows, where in one short 1/2-hour, we can kill a flock of honkers, a monster whitetail, and a turkey on different ends of the continent.

Great private lands are available to hunt in many areas, but they're getting more and more difficult to find and get access to. Difficulty is something we increasingly shirk from, especially if it cuts into our Sunday afternoon football. Scouting, map-reading, research, and knocking on doors has become a lost art; today's hunter wants to be able to grab their gun, drive to wherever they'd like to hunt, and smash them....everytime. It's what we've become "conditioned" to expect.

And increasingly.....they can have it. Especially if paying big bucks to be on prime land. They can have it. Everytime. With a big enough pocketbook. But how can you blame outfitters? They provide a valuable service to many of those willing to pay to have other people do the homework for them. There's no crime, or shame in it, but an un-intended result is land wars, increased costs, and and lease-happy areas of the country that lock up all of the best hunting grounds. Whoever said capitalism was fair?

Walk-in areas provide several great pros, especially in terms of habitat, and hunter access. And, you don't need to be rich or even well-off at all in order to hunt them. However, nothing comes problem free, and this is no exception. I'll support Blackjack in saying that walk-in areas might get landowners to expect a govt. payment, but so do outfitter groups that are willing to pay the same landowner to keep others off. In that respect, I'd rather see more public lands, walk-in areas, and WMA's also; betterment of the whole rather than a select priveledged few.

If forced to choose b/w walk-in vs. public lands, walk-in seems to be the best bang for the buck. But again, are we thinking strictly financially and personally, or are we putting much forethought into future benefits, cost savings over time, and the overall health of the land? Do we have to choose one over the other?

Our numbers are less, but we're much more mobile in terms of hunting than generations past. We're increasingly urban and suburban in our numbers. We'll drive to SD or Manitoba and drop thousands for "special" hunting opportunities, but insist on better local hunting and instant access for next to nothing.

Maybe walk-in areas are a good way to bring hunting and access to more people, and everyone knows that it's our "right" to have access to the best land for the least amount of effort/time/money (tongue in cheek). But before jumping on the bandwagon, I'd like to hear from all facets (landowners, hunters urban and rural, and the non-hunting public) in several states where these programs have been in effect for years.

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where I stand on this issue. However, my thinking is that the average land owner that is willing to allow hunting on their property is the same land owner that will participate in the walk in program. The land owners that do not want hunting on their property will, for the most part, not participate.

So, in the end, if someone allows hunting on their land and they get a few dollars out of the deal, then I don't see a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will tell you that I have shot turkeys in KS and many types of birds in ND and SD on walk-in access lands.

BUT - it still takes scouting and strategy. As someone pointed out above - not all walk-in land is created equal. Those that scout, research, etc... will be much more successful.

Same goes for any public or private land area. I have been consistently successful in MN hunting turkey, grouse and pheasant on lands heavily hunted. Scouting, strategy, timing, and well trained dogs ....

What walk-in land will provide is

more acres to hunt ...

spread out hunting pressure ...

harvest more birds ...

quality of experience will improve ...

Of course for those that already lease land in MN or have the time and resources to pre-season scout and develop landowner relationships - there must be a fear that "their" land may go public.

Land that my brother and I had almost sole access to in ND did just that ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brittman:

You make good points and suggestions.

Regarding fear of land becoming publicly accessible, there's also the contingency of landowners that are much more willing to allow one or two groups of hunters in regularly, but not an influx. Another group yet that wouldn't want to deal with the paperwork, headaches, and rules/restrictions. Many types, and different strokes for different folks. Hopefully those folks against Walk-in areas wouldn't fight them to "protect" their own lands.

To play devil's advocate, an underfunded walk-in program I believe will concentrate rather than spread-out hunting opportunity. Especially those WIA's nearest metropolitan areas, quality of experience might actually decrease, with fewer birds harvested. Maybe that exists today because the carrying capacity of what we have in terms of WMA's isn't what we'd like it to be. Hopefully a well-designed WIA program would include enough acreage? Maybe that's what this is all about? Getting more than enough acreage, whether it be WMA, WIA, Private sources, other public lands to ensure a relatively undisturbed, quality hunt?

Do it well or don't do it at all may apply here. Many public lands, esp. in such areas starved of these places, end up being a "tradgedy of the commons." Everyone owns it, yet nobody owns it, creating a type of free-for-all attitude so common with publicly owned lands. Maybe WIA's would help avert this problem by distributing pressure as you mentioned Brittman?

I think the adage "do it well or don't do it at all" really applies here. Poorly funded/applied could make situations worse rather than better.

Regarding your comment Ken and CRP, I'm pickin' up what you're throwin' down. Unfortunately, the discussion there goes towards the juggernaut farm-bill, as well as our agro-economics....cheifly, that with $4 and $5 corn, there's little to no incentive to keep even the most marginal of lands out of production. Is ethanol really the answer?

Unless they finally create an incentive, a subsidy based upon quality farming. Not quantity farming. It goes against the free market and lines of thought that have been put in place for generations. This is the crux of the issue in my opinion. When ag. subsidies become based not on production, acreage, or commodities, but based on healthful food, water/land/air quality, and long-term sustainability AS WELL AS production; then sportsmen in particular will enjoy increased success and access in the field.

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

We need to get the feds to re-up the CRP program first before we worry about a Walk-in prgram... or we'll be back to ditches and fence rows... and it may be coming!


Labs, I agree with you on the renewing the CRP!!!! Now with ethanol and the raising of corn prices, they'll need to substantially raise their CRP payment rates or farmers are going to raise corn instead.

What I'm hearing people say is that 'outfitter and hunter leasing is already here' so doing lots more pay to hunt (like a walk-in program) is not going hurt. I think that may be true in North and South Dakota but I don't think that there is much leasing/pay to hunt here in MN. But once Walk-in programs start in MN, they'll all want to get paid to let you hunt. Now if they would all join the Walk-in program, great but you know some will think 'I have this prime deer hunting woods/duck hunting slough and I can get more $$$$ for it'. Then the common man is priced out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much leasing of pheasant land and duck sloughs in MN. The leasing tends to focus on prime areas and as you venture further from these prime areas, less so. Throw in Potlach's lease program and the leased MN acres continue to rise.

Often it is done discretely without contracts. This of course is risky and presents liability issues for both sides. What one does to avoid paying taxes ???

Agree do this right or do not do it at all....

Joel - if hunter days stays constant, pressure on WMAs would decrease proportional to time spent on walk-in areas. One would hope trampling declines.......

Bottom line ... adding quality acres improves hunter satisfaction - simply because you have choices in where you and your dog can spend the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read Outdoor News they were talking about walk-ins and how they may start a push for them in Minn, The sticking point was naturally money. Land is somewhat cheaper in the Dakotas which means they can pay less money to the owners. At least there talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Joel - if hunter days stays constant, pressure on WMAs would decrease proportional to time spent on walk-in areas. One would hope trampling declines.......


This assumes that pressure is constant, both numerically and geographically. The areas where land values are highest (rent or purchase) are the areas where competition and pressure is greatest, i.e. nearest larger cities.

I'm in agreeance that more quality acres are a good thing, but not necessarily that WIA's are the only, best, or most-effective ways in achieving this goal. Longer term easements and outright purchases while initially more costly, provide several distinct advantages.

I think we essentially agree upon the same things, just different ways of applying these methods. I'm not against a WIA program, and am admittedly uneducated in terms of their success in other states as I've only hunted a few of them in the Dakotas for pheasants. I'm still not settled however, that WIAs are the best way to acheive these goals?

My concerns are:

1) Band aid vs. permanent or at least longer term solutions

2) Poorly funded, implemented, inconsistent program

3) Health of the habitat/land

4) urban/suburban vs. rural relationships - provincialism

That last one has been avoided as well, though it's valid, from whichever side of the fence you're standing on.

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If MN seeks advise from ND, SD, and KS - they should be able to build a good program.

If they take a maverick or ignorant - we know it all approach then we could be in trouble.

I know Georgia and a few other states have a separate fee associated with public areas ... Maybe MN charges $10 or $20 for the walk-in access program. Separate from the pheasant stamp. Walk-in fees go to leasing land ... Pheasant stamp to purchasing land or maintaining current land.

Pay to play....

One other point I made before is some prime habitat just will not be sold out of the family, but same would be willing to open to hunting via walk-in access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live down here in Iowa and I believe Public land is much better than the walk in private areas. We have plenty of public areas where I hunt and they say the number of hunters is going down. I'm not going to pay some farmer to hunt on his land when there is plenty of land we all own full of game. I already shoot all the birds I want, so what if once in a while I have to share the area with a couple other guys, to me that's just having fun. Most other hunters are good guys and we have a better time than I do alone alot of times! My concern with the walk in areas, we pay money to hunt areas that might not even have any game. With the public areas we have much more control over improving the habitat and it truly is OUR land so no one to bother us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting. The DNR is proposing to use lottery funds to finance the purchase of the vermillon state park from US steel. There would also like to use the same funds to purchase WMA's, and other wildlife or forest related lands. Would you buy a couple more scratch offs if they did that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO....they can't afford to keep the parks we have open, let alone open a new one.....State parks get little funding now and we are worried about another one....seems assnine to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion. I'm a little late on it, but a few thoughts:

Land: More demand/finite supply. An asset that can be manipulated for income.:(

Hunting: Activity regarded by some as a right and a necessity for a sane life. grin.gif By others, an activity that people will pay to do if needed. mad.gif

Reality 1: The more commercial it gets, the less likely it will fade away or be legislated against.

Reality 2: It is generally cheaper to pay to hunt for a few months than it is to buy and own the amount of acres one would like to have at their disposal.

Reality 3: Public programs or private enterprise - I budget to be able to hunt some better ground. It sucks, but I NEED to hunt. I plan for it like retirement since thats what I want to do when I retire. I will support good public acquisitions as well as pay lease fees if needed.

This world keeps changing and for many of us, THESE are the "Good old days" right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.