Do we really care about public hunting opportunities?

[SD51555]

This really should be it's own thread.

I'd argue that most of us have very little regard for expanding access to public hunting opportunities to our fellow man. This isn't a knock on anyone, it's simple human nature. We want to have a successful and natural hunt in the peace and quiet of the untouched wilderness. But do we really want our neighbors get there too? I don't think we do.

If this was a priority, wouldn't we measure the users per square mile as a metric of success? For example, how many people get to hunt a square mile of public ground in Wyoming? 2, 20, 50? I really don't know. How about deer hunting land north of Duluth, MN or anything north of Hwy 2? How many people utilize those lands per square mile in a given year?

Now, what if instead, to expand hunter access, we traded $500 million dollars of land 4 hours away from our population center (which very few people use) for $500 million dollars of land right outside our population center? A parent/child duo could day trip out there and back home, with no more expense than a little gas and some sandwiches. The cost of access would be far less. Wouldn't that be a good thing? You would be wise to assume we couldn't get as many acres, but that isn't the goal. Remember, we're talking about making the outdoors accessible for everyone, and our metric of success is how many people can access it.

The truth is, I think we only want public land just accessible enough so we can get there and nobody else. If suddenly there were programs to give free rides to our favorite hunting spots, free tags for low income citizens, free gear rental, and free lodging, we might not be so happy about what happened to our favorite free hunting spot. But it would do wonders for hunter access.

I've paid big dollars to go fishing in places that poor people couldn't reach, and it was wonderful. I'm guilty of it too, but I'm honest about it.

 

[loshonhora]

if you traded the remote land for land that's closer to population centers, it will quickly fill up with purple haired fat chicks and their dreadlocked boyfriends walking their bandana wearing frisbee dogs.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

if you traded the remote land for land that's closer to population centers, it will quickly fill up with purple haired fat chicks and their dreadlocked boyfriends walking their bandana wearing frisbee dogs.

Don’t forget the bicycle trails going through, then the PETA crowd will be there blocking it off, and making it into no hunting, and it will turn into a drug filled state park.

And if that didn’t happen, there would be 100,000 cidiots with guns looking to shoot 20 deer.

 

[homerj1]

Do we really care about public hunting opportunities?​

Not really

 

[SwampCat]

I am all about a lot of public land - the more the better. A very small fraction of hunters own private land - and most of that land is very limited in species availability - so a lot of hunters end up on public. The more public we have, the more spread out folks will be on public. I think land in difficult to access places is good, because it gives those folks willing to go the extra mile - land that is less traveled. Even though I have owned my own land for twenty years, I cant think of a single game species other than alligator and dove, that I have killed more of on private than public.

 

[b116757]

It’s a dangerous slope your talking about just who’s land is going to be liberated from their ownership for these poor deprived outdoor loving city dwellers to be able to enjoy near the population centers.

 

[SD51555]

if you traded the remote land for land that's closer to population centers, it will quickly fill up with purple haired fat chicks and their dreadlocked boyfriends walking their bandana wearing frisbee dogs.

That's my point. Even if they had to chip in $30/year for a trail fee or a pass like we do for a license of some sort, they are also 'the public' and should have equal rights to use it like us.

 

[SD51555]

It’s a dangerous slope your talking about just who’s land is going to be liberated from their ownership for these poor deprived outdoor loving city dwellers to be able to enjoy near the population centers.

There might no longer be an FFA in that county, that's for sure.

 

[SwampCat]

How many states are actually doing that? No states here in the South that I know of are buying up private land in any quantity.

Is MN condemning the land or just buying from willing sellers?

 

[Mortenson]

I think it's a case of Nimby usually. For me too. Any of you guys who want more public able to admit you'd want to be surrounded by public? Probably depends where you live, as talked about. Maybe a ranch owner in the Rockies would love an extra million bordering him to explore. More public in my area of Illinois SUCKS!

 

[bwoods11]

I used to hunt public land in MN quite often when I was young. It was good . It’s either hit too hard now, or the habitat is terrible.

I feel bad for hunters that rely on it.

 

[SD51555]

Get used to it. The state is going hard in the paint on taking it all. Here's every single appropriation that came outta the LSOHC (sales tax) appropriation for the last biennium. A simple Control-F with the keyword "acquire" shows almost all of this money is going to the gobble, and almost nothing to improving any of the land they have. If anyone wants their kids to have a piece of the dream, you best start leveraging things now while there is some left.

You don't have to read it, just go through and count the yellows. And this is only one of maybe 8 or 9 ways in which the machine is coming at this.

 

[SwampCat]

I think it's a case of Nimby usually. For me too. Any of you guys who want more public able to admit you'd want to be surrounded by public? Probably depends where you live, as talked about. Maybe a ranch owner in the Rockies would love an extra million bordering him to explore. More public in my area of Illinois SUCKS!

I own two pieces of land. Both have public on two sides. Gives me access to tens of thousands of acres of land right out my back door.

 

[MRBB]

personally I think the more public land there is owned by a state the better period, as it is saving forested land from being developed, as human expansion keep growing, , were loosing land wildlife lives on at a fast rate right now and no end in sight!
considering the fact few land owners own enough land now, to keep all the wildlife they want to hunt on, loosing any land to housing or industrial parks or businesses, will effect all land owners

I wouldn;t want to see any land that is owned now given up,
also, MOST game depts that control land in states have FIXED budgets that ONLY allow them to spend a certian amount per acre, and its a LOW number
which is why so few acres get added these days
most tend to be l;left in a will of sorts or an estate, by a hunter that valued the lands and wants to see them stay wild!

the wealthy will always have means to have better lands, and the rest of us should not suffer due to that! IMO!
owning the land doesn't entitle anyone to the animals on it, we loose enough land, and , the state's coudl start charging land owners for critters being pulled off public lands onto private lands??
slippery slope's can happen folks when greed kicks in! the poor out number the rich, and majorities tend to win a lot of things
and I am 100% in favor of state owned lands run by game dept, to have a FEE other users must pay to use, that should go into a fund to acquire MORE land and up keep lands !

 

[Mortenson]

I own two pieces of land. Both have public on two sides. Gives me access to tens of thousands of acres of land right out my back door.

That's lucky for you. Is it remote? Heavily hunted? Do you see many other hunters or have problems with them getting on or over your lines? I'm not allowed onto the public that borders me because I have landowner only tags.

 

[SwampCat]

That's lucky for you. Is it remote? Heavily hunted? Do you see many other hunters or have problems with them getting on or over your lines? I'm not allowed onto the public that borders me because I have landowner only tags.

No - not remote at all. Less than 15 miles from two towns of 5000 people and 30 miles from another town of 5000 people and a town of 75,000 people. I see plenty of other hunters. Had some problems when I first bought the properties 20 years ago, but not too much problem now. We dont have landowner tags in our state except for the few elk we have. Our general license permits us to hunt public of private.

I consider that I have more negative impact from adjacent private owners because they can bait and public land hunters cant bait.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Hittin the hay and have a lot to say later. IMO if we care about hunting we better care about making it available to everyone. It’s hard enough fighting off antis without it being an activity for only the connected or wealthy.

 

[ChrisA]

Hittin the hay and have a lot to say later. IMO if we care about hunting we better care about making it available to everyone. It’s hard enough fighting off antis without it being an activity only the connected or wealthy.

Fully agree. With the shifting demographics of so many more growing up in urban areas rather than rural that most of us above a certain age remember, we need to do everything we can to help keep this great pastime accessible to as many as possible. I grew up hunting public lands for over 30 years, before buying my own property more recently and still find myself reflecting on some of those great hunts from many years ago. I also remember the frustration of having to share ”my” spots with others, when someone beat us to them, but I don’t see where having fewer opportunities for other outdoor enthusiasts, hunters or otherwise, is helpful when taking the long view.

 

[H20fwler]

I duck hunt a lot, quite a bit of it is on public....so yes I care a lot about public hunting opportunities. Same with most of my upland bird hunting.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

SD,
I use to hunt a lot of public land when I lived in MN.

I am not sure where in the state you live, but there is a lot of state public land within an hour of the metro, with really good habitat as well. I use to live within 5 minutes from thousands of acres of public land. The state was buying up pretty much anything that went up for sale in the area for public land. My uncle, who owned 1500 acres donated a large chunk of his land to the state for public land. You just need to look for it. This is really good prime hunting land as well. We have shot some very nice deer off of it. Until this year, I have bow hunted it every year for the past 20 years, and more if you count my uncles land that is now state land.