Do we really care about public hunting opportunities?

[SwampCat]

Obviously, this is related to where you live. I own my own property and I cant think of a better thing for our State G&F to do than purchase more land for public use

 

[Wind Gypsy]

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.

What is included with the $3 billion figure?

How did you come up with $5000 per hunter?

 

[bowhunternw]

I am just fine with acquiring more public land, i use it alot. Nice to have options outside of what i own. I dont agree with thier ideas on the prairie management. The thing about private ownership is the owner is always thinking of ways to make money on it, usually that involves removing habitat and trying to farm it

 

[hillrunner]

I'm all for public land opportunities but I'll be honest, I don't want it in my neighborhood. If public land popped up next door, I'd have the for sale sign out the next day.

 

[SwampCat]

I'm all for public land opportunities but I'll be honest, I don't want it in my neighborhood. If public land popped up next door, I'd have the for sale sign out the next day.

I have public next to both my properties. I believe I have more deer pushed onto me than I lose to adjacent public land hunters.

 

[Gravel Road]

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.

View attachment 39709

Sounds like a positive situation, not a negative. I see lots of Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, being involved. Should be well managed for multiple species.

 

[SD51555]

The thing I can't wrap my head around is who wins when it comes to habitat decisions in the tall grass prairie region. On one hand, pheasants require shelterbelts to survive winter. In South Dakota, the GFP works with landowners to install shelter belts. In MN, wherever the US fish and wildlife service is involved, they kill every tree and shrub they have jurisdiction over. I saw this with my own two eyes at the Gislason Lake Tallgrass Prairie acquisition. We used to mushroom hunt there, and one year we showed up and every single tree and shrub, many plums and crabapples, were piled up by federal bulldozers, along with all the tweety bird nests that were in them.

Maybe it's not a big deal. How large of an area could FWS want to kill all the winter wildlife cover?

Resource Management - Northern Tallgrass Prairie - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

About the Refuge - Northern Tallgrass Prairie - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/pheasant-ecology.pdf

 

[H20fwler]

The thing I can't wrap my head around is who wins when it comes to habitat decisions in the tall grass prairie region. On one hand, pheasants require shelterbelts to survive winter. In South Dakota, the GFP works with landowners to install shelter belts. In MN, wherever the US fish and wildlife service is involved, they kill every tree and shrub they have jurisdiction over. I saw this with my own two eyes at the Gislason Lake Tallgrass Prairie acquisition. We used to mushroom hunt there, and one year we showed up and every single tree and shrub, many plums and crabapples, were piled up by federal bulldozers, along with all the tweety bird nests that were in them.

Maybe it's not a big deal. How large of an area could FWS want to kill all the winter wildlife cover?

Resource Management - Northern Tallgrass Prairie - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

About the Refuge - Northern Tallgrass Prairie - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/pheasant-ecology.pdf

View attachment 39750

View attachment 39751

They did similar at a state run public pheasant put and take spot to the south of me.
They had a couple big old school thick fence rows just full of cedar and huge fifty year old crabapples.
They cut it all and just left it lay.
It’s like whoever was in charge tried to do the opposite of what was good for wildlife.

 

[hillrunner]

I have public next to both my properties. I believe I have more deer pushed onto me than I lose to adjacent public land hunters.

State differences may be a factor. I've already lived the scenario here. When I wasn't far along enough in life to afford the purchase, 300acres next to my parent's farm sold to the state for public hunting. The result was immediate, the size and age structure of the deer plummeted. I haven't deer hunted that property in well over 10 years as it just no longer holds the type of deer I like to chase. I would just hunt public land if I was satisfied with the quality that provides, I see no reason to buy a piece next door to get the same quality of hunt.

 

[Bassattackr]

Personally, I think public land is a great thing. It allows many the opportunity to hunt and enjoy the outdoors that can't afford or don't have the opportunity to hunt private land.

I've also seen the downside of bureaucrat controlled land. Habitat erodes with time as many left leaning folks think logging, burning, etc is death of every living thing. When reality, it is merely the beginning of life. Even hunting use becomes in the crosshairs..

There is also the reality of the lack of respect of many that use public ground. Trash left behind, ATV/UTV use all leave a heavy footprint for not only wildlife but others that come after to enjoy it. I used to mountain bike quite a bit on public trails and every once in a while folks on horses would come through. I disliked the horses on the trails (heavy loads of manure and having to slam on the brakes halfway down a hill), but I also recognized they had just the same right as I did to be there, so exchanges were always respectful.

 

[Bassattackr]

I have public next to both my properties. I believe I have more deer pushed onto me than I lose to adjacent public land hunters.

@SwampCat

We did see this to some degree..

@hillrunner

We also have another farm with the same scenario, on the border of state forest. Generally, there was a lot of poaching as the public boundaries encroached quite a ways (past fencing and no trespassing signage) to become our field edges that they setup on during rifle season. Lots of poaching and theft issues if you aren't there (or live there) constantly. Tractors and large (14') implements stolen. Sadly, beyond the fact it's a portion of a century farm my family owns, I haven't hunted or spent any time there in years.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

What is included with the $3 billion figure?

How did you come up with $5000 per hunter?

@SD51555 - still curious on this.

I've been doing a little more reading on MN issues as a lot of my previous interests were based on where I did most of my hunting in rocky mountain states. There is an interesting contrast. In general, rocky mountain states are decreasing in public land acreage. State owned lands are sold if they are not profitable. Out west, hunters and fisherman cover the lion's share of conservation funding and the majority of state wildlife agency funding comes from license sales and associated federal pittman robertson / dingle johnson funds. In this case, the non-hunting/fishing citizens contribute very little and greatly benefit from the hunter and fisherman paying the way. In MN, the DNR is largely funded by taxes paid by all citizens and the state is actively growing it's state owned acreage.

I could certainly disagree with a lot of the ways they use the money (prairie tree reduction being an example) but I'll certainly take what's going on in MN (everyone contributing, more public access being available) to what's going on in the rocky mountain states (hunters paying for everyone, getting less access). The thing that does suck is that when non-hunters have a lot of financial input, its more reasonable that they have a say in how the $ is spent.

 

[SD51555]

@SD51555 - still curious on this.

I've been doing a little more reading on MN issues as a lot of my previous interests were based on where I did most of my hunting in rocky mountain states. There is an interesting contrast. In general, rocky mountain states are decreasing in public land acreage. State owned lands are sold if they are not profitable. Out west, hunters and fisherman cover the lion's share of conservation funding and the majority of state wildlife agency funding comes from license sales and associated federal pittman robertson / dingle johnson funds. In this case, the non-hunting/fishing citizens contribute very little and greatly benefit from the hunter and fisherman paying the way. In MN, the DNR is largely funded by taxes paid by all citizens and the state is actively growing it's state owned acreage.

I could certainly disagree with a lot of the ways they use the money (prairie tree reduction being an example) but I'll certainly take what's going on in MN (everyone contributing, more public access being available) to what's going on in the rocky mountain states (hunters paying for everyone, getting less access). The thing that does suck is that when non-hunters have a lot of financial input, its more reasonable that they have a say in how the $ is spent.

Acquisition dollars divided by the number of annual waterfowl, pheasant, and deer licenses sold. It could very well be closer to $7500 if you account for some of the same people being represented in all three license categories, and closer to $15,000 if you also take out all the acres the state acquired and didn't secure or allow public hunting rights.

If that's the system you want, you're winning big time. I don't think it's fair to taxpayers that don't utilize these lands, and it's not fair to future generations to be born into a world where their prospects for ever owning their own piece of land is diminishing and will likely be gone completely in a few decades, if it isn't already (considering the rapidly rising cost of living). To think the government can do this better starts with an assumption of negative intent on the individual, and an assumption of positive intent on government, and that is dangerously misplaced trust in my opinion.

 

[Tree Spud]

Acquisition dollars divided by the number of annual waterfowl, pheasant, and deer licenses sold. It could very well be closer to $7500 if you account for some of the same people being represented in all three license categories, and closer to $15,000 if you also take out all the acres the state acquired and didn't secure or allow public hunting rights.

If that's the system you want, you're winning big time. I don't think it's fair to taxpayers that don't utilize these lands, and it's not fair to future generations to be born into a world where their prospects for ever owning their own piece of land is diminishing and will likely be gone completely in a few decades, if it isn't already (considering the rapidly rising cost of living). To think the government can do this better starts with an assumption of negative intent on the individual, and an assumption of positive intent on government, and that is dangerously misplaced trust in my opinion.

I think paid for permits should be required to hunt public lands. Just like i have to have a park permit sticker on my truck to get into state or federal parks.

 

[SD51555]

Imagine what shape our pheasant, deer, and duck populations would be in if we had 50,000 more private land owners engaged in habitat improvement doing shelter belts, ponds, food plots, cover improvements, nest boxes, stocking, and predator control. There's no reason we shouldn't be as good if not better than what South Dakota or Wisconsin has for any game species. If there were 50,000 more private landowners kicking in $1,000/year for habitat improvement, that would be $50 million in annual habitat improvement, and that would dwarf the nothing dollars spent on 'improvement' from the agencies that spend billions per year and only yield a reduction in game and habitat.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

My area of the state is criss crossed with cold water trout streams. The state either buys up the land when it can or purchases perpetual easements. What happens next is the heavy equipment comes in to work on "habitat improvement projects" 100% of the time the fishing is worse because of it. I don't think that the Government should own any land. Period!!!!

100 years from now the resource will be saved by those who "held out" NOT because of the bs the state and trout unlimited is pushing Which is the exact opposite BTW.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

Imagine what shape our pheasant, deer, and duck populations would be in if we had 50,000 more private land owners engaged in habitat improvement doing shelter belts, ponds, food plots, cover improvements, nest boxes, stocking, and predator control. There's no reason we shouldn't be as good if not better than what South Dakota or Wisconsin has for any game species. If there were 50,000 more private landowners kicking in $1,000/year for habitat improvement, that would be $50 million in annual habitat improvement, and that would dwarf the nothing dollars spent on 'improvement' from the agencies that spend billions per year and only yield a reduction in game and habitat.

That $1000 would soon be allocated to the putting up statues, and funding liberal arts projects in downtown Minneapolis. Also like any other government funded project, they will do it wrong, and everyone that bids the job bids 40% higher, because they know the government will pay more. Value of the dollar ends up in other peoples pockets, and less in the actual funding of the project.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Acquisition dollars divided by the number of annual waterfowl, pheasant, and deer licenses sold. It could very well be closer to $7500 if you account for some of the same people being represented in all three license categories, and closer to $15,000 if you also take out all the acres the state acquired and didn't secure or allow public hunting rights.

What makes up "acquisition dollars" though?

If that's the system you want, you're winning big time. I don't think it's fair to taxpayers that don't utilize these lands, and it's not fair to future generations to be born into a world where their prospects for ever owning their own piece of land is diminishing and will likely be gone completely in a few decades, if it isn't already (considering the rapidly rising cost of living). To think the government can do this better starts with an assumption of negative intent on the individual, and an assumption of positive intent on government, and that is dangerously misplaced trust in my opinion.

I don't think government can do anything better. In many cases it's not about the government doing it better, it's about something being done at all. I don't consider a farmer that sells to a developer or planting in marginal ground to have a "negative intent" but it's not a positive when it comes to wildlife habitat. CRP requirements can certainly prevent habitat from being ideal but there was more habitat and wildlife all over the prairies when CRP made the most financial sense for farmers (I'm remembering early 2000's when I lived in the Dakotas - More CRP, deer, and pheasants). It's better habitat than if it were in row crops or developed and built on.

My world view on this issue is based upon the fact that the experiences that can be had on my 46 acres and my parent's 180 acres are pale in comparison to what is available to on the wide array of public lands. It would be a disservice to our next generation to focus on them having a chance at an incrementally cheaper land in exchange for a loss of the public opportunities we have, a much higher percentage of the population enjoy today. We have a limited amount of land and unless population growth stops its going to continue to get harder to own land. You could sell off all the state land to private entities and maybe one more generation could have land as attainable as we do now but then what? The following generation needs to be wealthy to enjoy the outdoor recreation and they have way fewer public options to recreate. We argue about these things like its all or nothing but there should be a balance somewhere in the middle. I'm curious if you have a line - should there be zero public lands, 5%, 10%? What say should government have on what gets done with private property?

 

[SD51555]

I'm curious if you have a line - should there be zero public lands, 5%, 10%? What say should government have on what gets done with private property?

I think MN has too much now, and it's hurting the resource. The portfolio needs to be balanced out. Every county should share the burden of contributing a portion of their land base for public use and conservation purposes. It's not fair to northern MN to have to be the rec lands for the middle class of the twin cities.

I don't know what that equalization percentage would be, maybe 20%. Let's take out 20% of the crop and grazing land from the ag counties. Let's take out 20% of the homes, malls, and office buildings in the urban counties, 20% of the homes on Lake Minnetonka. If the benefits are to be to all, so should the costs, and that includes sharing the burden of shrunken tax bases for school improvements, road maintenance, and population scarcity that limits access to health care.

Brush up on the tragedy of the commons. That's what's going on in the public lands and waters of MN, whether it be the trash on the shores after ice out, invasive species spread, the "Why should i pass a deer when the next guy will just shoot it", over-harvest, ripped up trails, and probably the singled biggest issue, the lack of a caretaker that's got a vested interest in making sure that spot is productive in the future.

What is ‘Tragedy of the Commons’?

The Tragedy of the Commons describes a situation where shared resources are overused, and eventually depleted, posing risks to everyone involved.

earth.org

 

[aaronmn]

I think MN has too much now, and it's hurting the resource. The portfolio needs to be balanced out. Every county should share the burden of contributing a portion of their land base for public use and conservation purposes. It's not fair to northern MN to have to be the rec lands for the middle class of the twin cities.

I don't know what that equalization percentage would be, maybe 20%. Let's take out 20% of the crop and grazing land from the ag counties. Let's take out 20% of the homes, malls, and office buildings in the urban counties, 20% of the homes on Lake Minnetonka. If the benefits are to be to all, so should the costs, and that includes sharing the burden of shrunken tax bases for school improvements, road maintenance, and population scarcity that limits access to health care.

Brush up on the tragedy of the commons. That's what's going on in the public lands and waters of MN, whether it be the trash on the shores after ice out, invasive species spread, the "Why should i pass a deer when the next guy will just shoot it", over-harvest, ripped up trails, and probably the singled biggest issue, the lack of a caretaker that's got a vested interest in making sure that spot is productive in the future.

What is ‘Tragedy of the Commons’?

The Tragedy of the Commons describes a situation where shared resources are overused, and eventually depleted, posing risks to everyone involved.

earth.org

I'm not sure I understand your comment about fairness to Northern MN. Much of the mass of public is due to the terrain; it would be challenging to till.



Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk