|
Post by sd51555 on Jan 16, 2018 8:15:02 GMT -6
I was reading the deer plan article from last week in the ODN. I saw a random quote from the nature conservancy guy that said them and the DNR were eyeballing taking the entire native prairie region out of farm production and further human habitation. I decided to dig up their plan. That's 5,321 - 160 acre farms taken out of production, or land gobbled up that was never at risk in the first place. files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/mn_prairie_conservation_plan.pdfYou think the landscape is barren now, wait till the dozers get done with their "conserving."
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Jan 16, 2018 8:43:55 GMT -6
Same shit in SE Mn. Waste of money
|
|
|
Post by Bwoods11 on Jan 16, 2018 9:35:08 GMT -6
Unless it is a sanctuary that open prairie, will not hold much for wildlife (if it is public land).
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 16, 2018 9:41:32 GMT -6
MN will keep buying until somebody stops them. Liberal agenda.
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Jan 16, 2018 10:12:29 GMT -6
Thanks Obama.................
|
|
|
Post by benmnwi on Jan 16, 2018 12:52:11 GMT -6
I bet the average hunter would stand a better chance killing a pheasant or deer on a prairie/wetland combo than on a 160 acre chunk of black dirt. I'm all for increasing public land.
There are some really good mulies and whitetails killed in the Dakotas on properties that look like those described in that article. Far more are killed there than when you cross the border into SW MN and have 640 acres of black dirt.
I'm not a fan of the grazing recommendations though and I would like to see more emphasis on shrubs and trees to offer winter protection in many of those areas.
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Jan 16, 2018 13:46:03 GMT -6
I bet the average hunter would stand a better chance killing a pheasant or deer on a prairie/wetland combo than on a 160 acre chunk of black dirt. I'm all for increasing public land. There are some really good mulies and whitetails killed in the Dakotas on properties that look like those described in that article. Far more are killed there than when you cross the border into SW MN and have 640 acres of black dirt. I'm not a fan of the grazing recommendations though and I would like to see more emphasis on shrubs and trees to offer winter protection in many of those areas. Looking at SD’s link, there is a mention of native vegetation , fires, and grazing. There is some regulation or law that Woody cover will only be allowed in prairie areas where it existed in the 17th century. Rule out conifers and decent winter cover for Deer.
|
|
|
Post by benmnwi on Jan 16, 2018 14:00:57 GMT -6
We saw surprising numbers of deer in the Ft. Pierre National Grasslands in South Dakota where there wasn't hardly a tree in sight. Driving around we saw way more deer in that public grassland than the majority of areas I've driven through in SW MN. In MN I think the DNR's abundance of antlerless tags are more of a limiting factor on deer numbers than winter habitat.
But I completely agree that there should also be more quality winter habitat that includes trees and shrubs. I think having quality winter habitat will help prevent the massive die offs that occasionally happen for deer and especially for pheasants (and your turkeys). But even if there was awesome winter habitat those properties could be void of deer if the DNR gives out piles of doe tags.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 16, 2018 14:27:16 GMT -6
Oklahoma has 350 DNR employees. MN has over 4,000?
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Jan 16, 2018 15:06:41 GMT -6
Oklahoma has 350 DNR employees. MN has over 4,000? But Brooks, how many GOOD employees does Minnesota have?
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Jan 16, 2018 15:20:24 GMT -6
Oklahoma has 350 DNR employees. MN has over 4,000? Big gov't sucks
|
|
|
Post by Bwoods11 on Jan 16, 2018 15:20:36 GMT -6
We saw surprising numbers of deer in the Ft. Pierre National Grasslands in South Dakota where there wasn't hardly a tree in sight. Driving around we saw way more deer in that public grassland than the majority of areas I've driven through in SW MN. In MN I think the DNR's abundance of antlerless tags are more of a limiting factor on deer numbers than winter habitat. But I completely agree that there should also be more quality winter habitat that includes trees and shrubs. I think having quality winter habitat will help prevent the massive die offs that occasionally happen for deer and especially for pheasants (and your turkeys). But even if there was awesome winter habitat those properties could be void of deer if the DNR gives out piles of doe tags. Once you cross the border the amount of wildlife goes way up. SD does not till up every field, and has way fewer hunters. Fewer tags issued by the SD DNR as well.
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Jan 16, 2018 22:41:37 GMT -6
I'm not a fan of the grazing recommendations though and I would like to see more emphasis on shrubs and trees to offer winter protection in many of those areas. I'm in 100% agreement with you. None of those things will happen, including reasonable bag limits. I shudder knowing the same folks that have been fisting the deer hunters are also going to be in charge of all this land and will destroy the very habitat everyone wishes to see.
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Jan 16, 2018 22:42:49 GMT -6
Oklahoma has 350 DNR employees. MN has over 4,000? Yeah, but does Oklahoma have a team of people working to preserve 19 different strains of snails?
|
|
|
Post by Catscratch on Jan 17, 2018 6:43:27 GMT -6
I think deer can live in just about any environment... if managed well. My part of KS is mostly grassland. I actually find trees to add very little to our deer's nutrition. Seems it's mostly native legumes, ag, and shrubs for woody browse. Our trees offer some cover but they will hide out in grass or use terrain in a heartbeat.
Will it matter what type of habitat they create there? From paying attention to you guys I would say good management is a longshot...
|
|