Do we really care about public hunting opportunities?

[The Fishman]

Do other states require a user permit for state owned wildlife management areas? I live in Mississippi and the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks requires everyone that goes onto a WMA have a $15 per year user permit. It doesn't matter if you are hunting, fishing, bird watching, or hiking, you need to have the permit. When I lived in Louisiana 20 years ago, they required that every WMA user have a hunting or fishing license. At that time, they did not require a dedicated user permit. I try to buy a WMA user permit and fishing license every year because they are cheap and I feel that is the best way to contribute to conservation. Environmentalists freak out when I tell them the best way to help wildlife in their area is buy a hunting or fishing license and a WMA user permit whether they use it or not. While the Nature Conservancy does own some land in my area, their acreage is vastly swamped by the state owned WMAs and national forest land.

 

[aaronmn]

Do other states require a user permit for state owned wildlife management areas? I live in Mississippi and the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks requires everyone that goes onto a WMA have a $15 per year user permit. It doesn't matter if you are hunting, fishing, bird watching, or hiking, you need to have the permit. When I lived in Louisiana 20 years ago, they required that every WMA user have a hunting or fishing license. At that time, they did not require a dedicated user permit. I try to buy a WMA user permit and fishing license every year because they are cheap and I feel that is the best way to contribute to conservation. Environmentalists freak out when I tell them the best way to help wildlife in their area is buy a hunting or fishing license and a WMA user permit whether they use it or not. While the Nature Conservancy does own some land in my area, their acreage is vastly swamped by the state owned WMAs and national forest land.

Not in MN.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Wind Gypsy]

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.

earth.org

You seem to be from northern MN. Would you say the majority of the population there (besides north shore hippies) feels similarly? My stepdad comes from a Hibbing mining family and has had a place north of Grand Rapids since I’ve known him. My parents are breaking ground on their retirement home there this year. Part of what makes their lake great is half the shoreline is USFS and undeveloped.

I would have guessed that lots of northern locals don’t see population scarcity as a problem. To the contrary, I’ve heard of a lot of complaining about the influx of new folks since COVID. I bet a lot of em wouldn’t be thrilled if a bunch their partridge and deer hunting ground became off limits.

 

[SD51555]

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

There are more uses than growing corn and beans. It starts with a population center. Once you have people, an economy can rise up and specialization can kick in. But if all you get is 8 weekends a year to sell beer, bait, and groceries, that's all you'll ever have. Aquaculture would be a great start. It would go a long ways to taking pressure off public waters if there were an effort to build 10,000 private ponds, whether that be for personal enjoyment, commercial human consumption, or sale back to the state for stocking. It would raise land values, kick out a very marketable and sustainable product, support public stocking, support construction and maintenance jobs, and the added water would be a benefit for all critters. We could turn mosquito larvae and baby bullheads into perch and walleye fillets.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Do other states require a user permit for state owned wildlife management areas? I live in Mississippi and the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks requires everyone that goes onto a WMA have a $15 per year user permit. It doesn't matter if you are hunting, fishing, bird watching, or hiking, you need to have the permit. When I lived in Louisiana 20 years ago, they required that every WMA user have a hunting or fishing license. At that time, they did not require a dedicated user permit. I try to buy a WMA user permit and fishing license every year because they are cheap and I feel that is the best way to contribute to conservation. Environmentalists freak out when I tell them the best way to help wildlife in their area is buy a hunting or fishing license and a WMA user permit whether they use it or not. While the Nature Conservancy does own some land in my area, their acreage is vastly swamped by the state owned WMAs and national forest land.

I’ve seen it lots of different ways in different states. A lot of western states have some sort of access tag on to your license fee that isn’t an option or is built into the cost (easy to do on a $600-1200 elk tag). Some make it an option to buy if you want to hunt those lands if I recall correctly.

 

[SD51555]

You seem to be from northern MN. Would you say the majority of the population there (besides north shore hippies) feels similarly? My stepdad comes from a Hibbing mining family and has had a place north of Grand Rapids since I’ve known him. My parents are breaking ground on their retirement home there this year. Part of what makes their lake great is half the shoreline is USFS and undeveloped.

I would have guessed that lots of northern locals don’t see population scarcity as a problem. To the contrary, I’ve heard of a lot of complaining about the influx of new folks since COVID. I bet a lot of em wouldn’t be thrilled if a bunch their partridge and deer hunting ground became off limits.

There is friction there, but not as you perceive it. I've experienced it. This is a triple edged sword. All the big income jobs are in southern MN. With scarce land and a lack of good paying jobs, the locals get outbid by the big city incomes. That's the rub I got when I introduced myself to a neighbor. I was the guy "buying up all their land and killing all their deer." They want to own land too, and due to the tiny supply of private ground, prices are skyrocketing right outta their affordability range.

What's great about half your parent's lakeshore being off limits? Were they looking for a place where they could build and then depend on the government to keep everyone else out? How is that fair? If we're talking fair, everyone should be allowed to build where there is room to build, or no one should. This is the two faced fake virtue signaling I'm talking about. "I want it free and just accessible enough for me, and nobody else."

 

[sandbur]

There are more uses than growing corn and beans. It starts with a population center. Once you have people, an economy can rise up and specialization can kick in. But if all you get is 8 weekends a year to sell beer, bait, and groceries, that's all you'll ever have. Aquaculture would be a great start. It would go a long ways to taking pressure off public waters if there were an effort to build 10,000 private ponds, whether that be for personal enjoyment, commercial human consumption, or sale back to the state for stocking. It would raise land values, kick out a very marketable and sustainable product, support public stocking, support construction and maintenance jobs, and the added water would be a benefit for all critters. We could turn mosquito larvae and baby bullheads into perch and walleye fillets.

View attachment 39810

Are you saying we need more government mandates for starting aquaculture and these things? Mandates for amount of public land per county?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeeter]

There is friction there, but not as you perceive it. I've experienced it. This is a triple edged sword. All the big income jobs are in southern MN. With scarce land and a lack of good paying jobs, the locals get outbid by the big city incomes. That's the rub I got when I introduced myself to a neighbor. I was the guy "buying up all their land and killing all their deer." They want to own land too, and due to the tiny supply of private ground, prices are skyrocketing right outta their affordability range.

What's great about half your parent's lakeshore being off limits? Were they looking for a place where they could build and then depend on the government to keep everyone else out? How is that fair? If we're talking fair, everyone should be allowed to build where there is room to build, or no one should. This is the two faced fake virtue signaling I'm talking about. "I want it free and just accessible enough for me, and nobody else."

Why is land so expensive where you are? I know of several areas in Minnesota where the government only has as much land as they do because of tax forfeiture. They'd gladly sell if people would give more than the timber value for it.

 

[SD51555]

Are you saying we need more government mandates for starting aquaculture and these things? Mandates for amount of public land per county?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm saying there should be land available for rural and sustainable economic development, where aquaculture could be chosen by free people, among many other stackable enterprises. The will of the masses for free land and a ban on development shouldn't be imposed by the masses on the few. It isn't right to expect high paying jobs and big city amenities where we live and then vote to box all of that out where we want to vacation. We get to be vice presidents, executives, foremen, and consultants where we live. They get to clean rentals, sell t-shirts, wait tables, and pour drinks.

It would be quite the event if the people of Bemidji could take a vote and order a stop to development in the metro area due to water pollution, and displacement of wetlands and bee habitats. That would be inconvenient.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Why is land so expensive where you are? I know of several areas in Minnesota where the government only has as much land as they do because of tax forfeiture. They'd gladly sell if people would give more than the timber value for it.

Hint: It's probably not expensive. That doesn't fit the story line though.

The land my parents bought in Itasca county (with over 3000’ of lakeshore and for less than $1500/acre IIRC) 3 years ago is bordered by tax forfeit land. Not what I would call expensive.

 

[SD51555]

Why is land so expensive where you are? I know of several areas in Minnesota where the government only has as much land as they do because of tax forfeiture. They'd gladly sell if people would give more than the timber value for it.

I asked my county. They won't sell anything that has conservation or timber value. They don't even get to control management of it. All of MN's forest management has been outsourced to the SFI in Washington DC, and that's run by a who's who of industry insiders as much as any other captured government body.

Board - forests.org

SFI Inc. is governed by the 18-member SFI Board, which sets SFI's strategic direction and is responsible for overseeing and improving the SFI Program and SFI Standards.

www.forests.org

They hold over a quarter million acres (one county) and make a couple million ( or $9/ac over the whole portfolio ) each year selling the timber. The county I'm in acquired 3 acres for every 2 they sold in the last timber report. Take a look at the board of directors there. Of the 18 members, there is one from a hunting org, if you consider DU Canada a hunting org.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

What's great about half your parent's lakeshore being off limits?

Is it not normal to like the idea of a chunk of nature not being developed nearby?

Were they looking for a place where they could build and then depend on the government to keep everyone else out?

I'd venture to guess when my stepdad bought the cabin 25+ years ago it was because it was on an affordable lake (not big name for fishing/cabin) that would be quiet. Doubt he would have felt any different if it was corporate timber ground rather than USFS.

How is that fair? If we're talking fair, everyone should be allowed to build where there is room to build, or no one should. This is the two faced fake virtue signaling I'm talking about. "I want it free and just accessible enough for me, and nobody else."

Two faced fake virtue signaling? So it's either everyone should be free to build everywhere or people should be banished to the cities? There was a thread posted elsewhere on the forum recently about the history of MN. They covered how in a 50 year period in the mid 1800s the white pines were wiped out using handsaws and horses and floated down rivers to the cities. Seeing images of what MN was within the last 100-150 years and how it evolved with just a shred of the technology we have now. If thinking the world is a better place with big chunks of undeveloped land makes me a virtue signaler, I'll wear that flag.

The whole thing with rural living in the US - it's a compromise for a reason and a choice we all have to make. If there were high paying jobs and big city amenities, many benefits of the rural areas wouldn't exist.

 

[Skeeter]

I asked my county. They won't sell anything that has conservation or timber value. They don't even get to control management of it. All of MN's forest management has been outsourced to the SFI in Washington DC, and that's run by a who's who of industry insiders as much as any other captured government body.

Board - forests.org

SFI Inc. is governed by the 18-member SFI Board, which sets SFI's strategic direction and is responsible for overseeing and improving the SFI Program and SFI Standards.

www.forests.org

They hold over a quarter million acres (one county) and make a couple million ( or $9/ac over the whole portfolio ) each year selling the timber. The county I'm in acquired 3 acres for every 2 they sold in the last timber report. Take a look at the board of directors there. Of the 18 members, there is one from a hunting org, if you consider DU Canada a hunting org.

Thanks for the info. It makes it much easier to understand your viewpoint.

 

[sandbur]

Thanks for the info. It makes it much easier to understand your viewpoint.

There may be a bit of one time bias in SD’s figures. I am not sure, but somewhere in the very recent times, a large chunk of paper company lands in one part of the county were going to be sold and converted to irrigated potato lands.

State funds from a special fund were used to purchase this land and turn it over to the county. This county does a good job of managing it’s forest lands in my view. Better than the federal and most of the state lands.

Two other counties were involved in this proposed conversion to potato lands and one of those counties chose to not keep the lands in forest.

Some conversion had all ready occurred in all 3 counties. There were concerns about an aquifer, one of the few trout streams in the area, and about effects on a major tributary to the Mississippi.

I grew up in this county and still own some land there.

There are lots of government lands in this county and most of the residents I know are ok with that. They use those lands as well as non residents from metro areas.

Granted, property taxes seem very high. The government lands are part of that reason.

SD’s lands are in what may be more of an economically depressed area than where my land is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kdog]

Do other states require a user permit for state owned wildlife management areas? I live in Mississippi and the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks requires everyone that goes onto a WMA have a $15 per year user permit. It doesn't matter if you are hunting, fishing, bird watching, or hiking, you need to have the permit. When I lived in Louisiana 20 years ago, they required that every WMA user have a hunting or fishing license. At that time, they did not require a dedicated user permit. I try to buy a WMA user permit and fishing license every year because they are cheap and I feel that is the best way to contribute to conservation. Environmentalists freak out when I tell them the best way to help wildlife in their area is buy a hunting or fishing license and a WMA user permit whether they use it or not. While the Nature Conservancy does own some land in my area, their acreage is vastly swamped by the state owned WMAs and national forest land.

GA requires all users of WMA's to purchase a daily or annual pass. A WMA stamp used to be an option for hunters, but has since been added to the annual hunting license, so all hunters contribute. If I recall correctly, GA is limiting purchases at this time and putting more efforts into the management of the land which is fine with me. Between WMA's, National forest, and State Parks, we have an extensive amount of opportunities.

 

[Troubles Trees]

Do other states require a user permit for state owned wildlife management areas?

Not here in NY for what is called State Lands for people hunting, fishing, hiking and bird watching. Only in State Parks are we charged to use, but they have infrastructure like bathrooms/showers and electric hookups at each site.

It seems a bit tyrannical to me that the State would charge it's own residents for them to use their own land without offering a service of some sort like the State Parks do. It is interesting to me how differently each State has their systems set up. The only thing our State does on our Public Lands is harvest the mature timber and plant new in it's place, if I did that on my property I would gain money from it, I honestly don't know if NY shows any positive income from it though. They do maintain the hiking trails so maybe that evens out in the end?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

@SD51555 I agree that the amount of land either publicly owned or enrolled in public conservation easements in northern MN is surprisingly high. I would not be opposed to some kind of "No net gain" policy for say the next 5 years in certain counties that would require any investments in land to be made in land/habitat improvements, access to the currently landlocked parcels, or land swaps that benefit the public's ability to benefit from existing land without increasing the acreage under state/county/federal management.

 

[Mortenson]

In my area we have several state parks. They'd be considered tiny in comparison to the lands you guys are talking about. 2+ million Chicago residents visit them yearly. They pack up their coolers and picnic baskets at home and spend almost no money here. It's an hour drive to get here. They trash the parks, support our local economy very little IMO and head back home the same day, all while paying no park fees. Our ridiculous state can't afford to staff the parks or keep them properly patrolled. Many of these folks turn around and come back to hunt the same parks during deer season. As soon as one parking lot clears of it's allotted hunters, a new car rolls in. Of course there are some decent people, but generally speaking many of them are bums who don't believe in rules, common sense, and safety. I'd like to see big park fees and expensive hunting permits to help keep some trash away. Won't happen though. The quarries here make much better neighbors than the public land. I'm strongly opposed to another single acre becoming public land in the north half of IL. The Rocky Mtn pics are awesome and I'm jealous of the adventure some of you folks have in those regions, but you can't wax poetic about public and think you're talking the same ballgame as what we have to deal with.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I'm strongly opposed to another single acre becoming public land in the north half of IL. The Rocky Mtn pics are awesome and I'm jealous of the adventure some of you folks have in those regions, but you can't wax poetic about public and think you're talking the same ballgame as what we have to deal with.

There definitely is not a one size fits all solution. What you describe in northern IL relates to why I value the vast northern MN public lands. The distance from main population centers may decrease the use hours per acre but it also helps prevent it from being loved to death due to convenience. If the distance keeps people to enjoying it for only 1 weekend a year vs say 3 or more but provides a valued experience because it still feels like nature and isn't loved to death, I think that's a win.

 

[SD51555]

@SD51555 I agree that the amount of land either publicly owned or enrolled in public conservation easements in northern MN is surprisingly high. I would not be opposed to some kind of "No net gain" policy for say the next 5 years in certain counties that would require any investments in land to be made in land/habitat improvements, access to the currently landlocked parcels, or land swaps that benefit the public's ability to benefit from existing land without increasing the acreage under state/county/federal management.

I think that's reasonable. I think existing dollars could be used in a myriad of ways to enhance things for everyone.

I think there should be a modest access fee, to help reduce traffic to users who value it enough to buy a $40 annual public land stamp, much like what already exists for state parks at $35. 100% of that stamp money should get invested right back in the lands where people use them. Put a QR code on a post at every trail head or point of interest and let people scan it with their phones to be counted as a visited site, and a simple checkbox as to why they're there (bird watching, hunt, fish, bike, jog, flowers, smoke pot). Allocate those dollars back to that site for improvements and maintenance based on user check-ins and experiences.

I'd be happy if there were a no net gain policy in any county that is already over 75% publicly held title or easement lands. I'm pretty passionate about the big woods and freedom, and I just don't trust government to not go corrupt.