Do we really care about public hunting opportunities?

[Troubles Trees]

I didn't have a mentor or family that owned land so I grew up hunting public land with a friend and we learned how to hunt from each other, hunting videos and magazines. It was a s**t show of orange everywhere my first year of gun season on public but we still shot a small buck and doe between the 2 of us. It didn't take long to understand we had to go deep and get away from the crowds on weekends if we wanted to hunt in peace. Taking a bike on the trails to get deep was cumbersome but effective until snow flew.

If there wasn't land to hunt, I probably would have never went hunting and although I don't know the numbers I would bet that my friend and I aren't the only ones. Today I only hunt public a few days per year either during the rut or when my spots are over pressured during bow season. Very few people hunt public with a bow, gun season is the polar opposite here in Central NY.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

Where I live now in Wisconsin, I have thousands of acres of state land in a 10 square mile radius of me. As close as 1/4 mile away. About 9 days a year it gets hunted pretty hard, but other then that, it works as a really large thick bedding area. With my land between that thick swampy bedding area, and about the largest track of ag land in the area.

 

[fishin coyote]

Here in Pa. we’re lucky. Our game commission owns 1.5 million acres of game lands and another 2.1 million enrolled in the hunter access program(private land open to the public).
Also the state DCNR has 2.5 million in state parks and forests in which most is open to hunting along with a 1/2 million more in Federal control. Granted some of the parcels are heavily hunted especially those closer to the big urban areas but other tracs in the north central regions see very little use. I also agree that the more you can save from developers the better off everyone is.

 

[Kdog]

I've been hunting/fishing public land the last few weeks and do every year so it is important to me. I have done volunteer work twice at one WMA and have been making annual donations for the last 20 years.

 

[sandbur]

I enjoy the public lands. Some are over crowded in certain seasons and you just need to learn to adapt and go elsewhere.

If you don’t enjoy it, go elsewhere or hunt a different season.

Think of it like ice fishing on public waters or even summer fishing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GMan5465]

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.

We have the Three Rivers Park District near our residence. It is quite an extensive park system that is truly a gem to this area IMO. They used to charge a fee for use and parking but that has since been waived as it was seen as being "restrictive" for some less fortunate people. They still charge for some areas, camping, etc., but general recreation is free. It's great for everyone to have access to it.

 

[Turkish]

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?

MS has actually done a fair amount of this along the MS River recently. Look up Phil Bryant WMA. I personally know folks who lost leases they’d had for generations when the state bought it.

Funny story, one politician spoke defiantly at the dedication ceremony about how proud of the project he was because he believed so strongly in furthering public hunting opportunity. Only a few years prior this same politician (while attorney general) had personal efforts thwarted by the state supreme court and DEQ to make private a large lake. This lake was a popular public duck hunting spot. This AG just happens to also own land and duck hunt there and nearby. This was not his only attempt to block public use of nearby public duck hunting areas.

 

[SwampCat]

Our state adds a new management area once in a great while - but they do buy a piece of property here or there next to existing wma’s from willing sellers. But they are definately not actively purchasing land all the time

 

[Wind Gypsy]

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.

People interpret "Expanding Access" as a lot of things. What I would mean by it is increasing the area and number of places a member of the public can go hunting without buying or leasing the land or having a personal connection with the land owner. To me it doesn't mean making it as easy as possible to access a spot to hunt. We dont need to pave a road through the whole thing and make it so anyone can drive ATV's right up to where they want to hunt. Opening it up to be loved to death can be counter productive but I'll concede that it makes sense to have a portion of the public land easily accessible for folks who are physically unable to get far from vehicular access. Having more options means we are less likely to run into our neighbors. There are 250,000 acres of public land in MN that are landlocked and do not have access, Link -> https://www.trcp.org/2020/08/04/300000-acres-public-land-minnesota-wisconsin-landlocked-private-property/#:~:text=The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership,anglers, and other outdoor recreationists. I'm all for finding ways to get access to land we already have as a priority over acquiring new lands.

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?

Jamming the most hunters you can in a given spot is the opposite of success. Maybe from a habitat and access layout perspective creating lands that support a higher density of hunters would be a success. To me, the ideal situation is creating enough opportunity to disperse hunter density. In parts of the country where big game actually have to be managed (I.E. you cant issue unlimited tags OTC to gun hunt during the rut and keep a game population around) the # of tags issued may be reduced if there isn't enough places where people actually have access to hunt them.

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.

I care about there being quality hunting options for the people who care about there being quality hunting options. Using MN as an example, to act like someone of modest means could go hunt an hour from the metro area but is financially unable to drive 2-3+ hours one way to hunt for a weekend is nonsense. Financially strained minnesotans have done it for generations. Should we strive to have some access that is more convenient for the large population centers, of course. There should also be opportunities for folks who want get away from the crowds and are willing to work for that experience.

The primary reason people stop hunting is loss of access. A metric of success would be minimizing the number of poeple who leave hunting because they don't have access to hunting they deem worth their time.

 

[SD51555]

MS has actually done a fair amount of this along the MS River recently. Look up Phil Bryant WMA. I personally know folks who lost leases they’d had for generations when the state bought it.

Funny story, one politician spoke defiantly at the dedication ceremony about how proud of the project he was because he believed so strongly in furthering public hunting opportunity. Only a few years prior this same politician (while attorney general) had personal efforts thwarted by the state supreme court and DEQ to make private a large lake. This lake was a popular public duck hunting spot. This AG just happens to also own land and duck hunt there and nearby. This was not his only attempt to block public use of nearby public duck hunting areas.

MN had a case of the same thing. A very vocal socialist outdoorsman senator slipped into a game a fish bill, a provision to tighten up walleye regs on the lake he had his cabin. That was the end of his career. I was at the bar on that lake when he came to beg mercy from the locals that fish that lake.

Ethics panel reprimands Minnesota Sen. Satveer Chaudhary

The chairman of an influential state Senate environmental committee was reprimanded by colleagues Wednesday for pushing a special fishing regulation into law specifically for a lake where he owns a…

www.twincities.com

 

[bwoods11]

Iowa has excellent public land . The state is smart in that they let farmers crop part of the land and in exchange leave standing corn or beans for the deer & turkey. In my area of Minnesota …they actually allow cows in to public land and all the wildlife leaves.

I would take my odds of shooting a bigger buck on public in Iowa then private land in Minnesota (factoring in a November rut hunt).

They manage their land better, and they of course don’t have a early gun season so that allows bucks to get way more age.

 

[Mortenson]

Lotta guys could afford a little piece to call their own, if it was a priority to them. I know guys like that. They prefer toys, vacations, and meals out instead of a land payment. I'm not in favor of tax dollars going to buy public lands. If it comes from a foundation or donation then super.

 

[SD51555]

The subsidy has been $5000/hunter over the last twenty years, to purchase lands and easements. In that time, after $3 billion dollars in land grabs, hunter numbers have still fallen since the year 2000. By that metric, I'd say we've blown a ton of money, failed, and created lots of additional poverty in MN.

 

[SwampCat]

The subsidy has been $5000/hunter over the last twenty years, to purchase lands and easements. In that time, after $3 billion dollars in land grabs, hunter numbers have still fallen since the year 2000. By that metric, I'd say we've blown a ton of money, failed, and created lots of additional poverty in MN.

Are hunters the only ones who use the lands?

 

[Mortenson]

Are hunters the only ones who use the lands?

The public in my immediate area, yes. And govt snipers.

 

[SwampCat]

Land purchases are not really an expenditure of money, but a trade of money for land. Just like a private individual can not deduct the purchase of land on his taxes because it is considered a trade of equity. $100,000 dollars in paper money for $100,000 of dirt - all of it is worth $100,000.

The $3 billion dollars of tax money in MN was traded for $3 billion worth of land. MN still has $3 billion worth of equity - and probably a whole lot more based upon current land valuations. Most folks on this site consider spending money on land to be a good investment. Why is it not a good investment for the state - and the public gets to use the land. I would much rather our state use tax dollars for public land purchase than paying it out to people who choose not to work - like they did earlier this year.

 

[bueller]

I venture to guess that a large number of today's private land hunters began hunting on public hunting before seeking private hunting land of their own. Without public land access hunter recruitment would drop off exponentially.

Someone earlier (maybe on a different thread) mentioned seeing two hunters sitting back to back on a hill and thought it was a sad sight. I've been in similar situations and feel the assumption that those hunters did not have a good hunt is likely inaccurate. Maybe it was not the most productive hunt, but great memories were probably still made.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

Land purchases are not really an expenditure of money, but a trade of money for land. Just like a private individual can not deduct the purchase of land on his taxes because it is considered a trade of equity. $100,000 dollars in paper money for $100,000 of dirt - all of it is worth $100,000.

The $3 billion dollars of tax money in MN was traded for $3 billion worth of land. MN still has $3 billion worth of equity - and probably a whole lot more based upon current land valuations. Most folks on this site consider spending money on land to be a good investment. Why is it not a good investment for the state - and the public gets to use the land. I would much rather our state use tax dollars for public land purchase than paying it out to people who choose not to work - like they did earlier this year.

I can think of a few, for one, when it is owned by a private land owner, he pays taxes on those acres. Those taxes help with local schools, roads, etc.. Then when you take tax dollars and pay for new land, you are spending tax dollars, then in return. collecting less taxes. In MN, hunting land is taxed rather high, so once that land is bought by the state, that is a quite a bit of tax dollars no longer coming in for schools, and other things. Which in turn makes everyone elses taxes go up.

As I said before, where I use to live in MN, the state was buying up a lot of land in the area, anytime any woodland went for sale, the state bid it high, and drove up tax value for everyone else in the area. School levis that were already on the books, increase per tax payer a lot, to the point it drove people out of the town. So the whole thing was a snowball effect. It was one of the main reasons I got out.

Just as an example, my taxes when I purchased my home in the town was $1200 per year, in less then 10 years, my property taxes increase to $4400. Some actually put up a sign that said, the last one to leave, please shut off the lights.

MN at one time passed a heritage fund, the Sam Lessard heritage fund, it was set up so your taxes increased state wide by .001%, and it was solely suppose to be for land purchases for public, then it became clean water fund, then parks and recreations, then arts, and whoever else wanted to dip into it. The state even dropped the name Sam Lessard fund, because it no longer even looked like the same fund.

 

[MRBB]

I can think of a few, for one, when it is owned by a private land owner, he pays taxes on those acres. Those taxes help with local schools, roads, etc.. Then when you take tax dollars and pay for new land, you are spending tax dollars, then in return. collecting less taxes. In MN, hunting land is taxed rather high, so once that land is bought by the state, that is a quite a bit of tax dollars no longer coming in for schools, and other things. Which in turn makes everyone elses taxes go up.

As I said before, where I use to live in MN, the state was buying up a lot of land in the area, anytime any woodland went for sale, the state bid it high, and drove up tax value for everyone else in the area. School levis that were already on the books, increase per tax payer a lot, to the point it drove people out of the town. So the whole thing was a snowball effect. It was one of the main reasons I got out.

Just as an example, my taxes when I purchased my home in the town was $1200 per year, in less then 10 years, my property taxes increase to $4400. Some actually put up a sign that said, the last one to leave, please shut off the lights.

Buying land is an investment, that land will increase in value,
as I also gather so has your property, correct?
states spending money on a lot of things that DON"T increase in vale over time, Land happens to be one of the few things, so,
IMO< they should all be buying more land
school taxes and other things get driven up for tons of reasons, not just due to the state buying more public lands
human populations growth, schools ageing and so on and constant need for up keep and well, teachers want raises every yr and more teachers every yr to keep up with growing populations,
BUT all that spending for them things, unlike land, that grows in value as well as giving wildlife a place to live, as time passes, is, all water under the bridge after its spent, only to need to be replaced
yet LAND< will still be there for use for decades!

 

[sandbur]

Iowa has excellent public land . The state is smart in that they let farmers crop part of the land and in exchange leave standing corn or beans for the deer & turkey. In my area of Minnesota …they actually allow cows in to public land and all the wildlife leaves.

I would take my odds of shooting a bigger buck on public in Iowa then private land in Minnesota (factoring in a November rut hunt).

They manage their land better, and they of course don’t have a early gun season so that allows bucks to get way more age.

Minnesota doesn’t manage those areas for wildlife in my opinion. They are more concerned about managing for pollinators and for returning land to what they think was their natural environment. Fire and cattle will keep it in grassland, I guess.

We suggested those changes at deer planning meetings with foodplots and they won’t budge. I guess a few managers do so.

We have ecologists instead of wildlife managers in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk