|
|
Post by sd51555 on Nov 21, 2019 7:09:33 GMT -6
I had always wondered what the state's goal is for land ownership in MN. If you could waive a magic wand, and make it so, what percentage of land do you think is right to balance access for all, as well as leaving room for the American Dream?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bwoods11 on Nov 21, 2019 7:55:16 GMT -6
No sure, but I wish states would buy and keep more more land in refuges.
|
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Nov 21, 2019 8:14:46 GMT -6
Careful could have some do gooder journalist watching us again LOL. 20-30% sounds like what I would want the high side to be. However I’m assuming the land is poorly managed by state regs. If it was managed well, which in my life yes means good age structure of big game species, then maybe more.
One more comment on that. If the alternative was urban sprawl and development then I would be a champion for much higher percentages being owned by the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Nov 21, 2019 12:08:36 GMT -6
Careful could have some do gooder journalist watching us again LOL. 20-30% sounds like what I would want the high side to be. However I’m assuming the land is poorly managed by state regs. If it was managed well, which in my life yes means good age structure of big game species, then maybe more. One more comment on that. If the alternative was urban sprawl and development then I would be a champion for much higher percentages being owned by the state. That's a zoning issue. Development ordinances can stop that if they want to. But you're not going to get billion dollar public school campuses with bean fields and cow pies. |
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Nov 21, 2019 12:11:55 GMT -6
Careful could have some do gooder journalist watching us again LOL. 20-30% sounds like what I would want the high side to be. However I’m assuming the land is poorly managed by state regs. If it was managed well, which in my life yes means good age structure of big game species, then maybe more. One more comment on that. If the alternative was urban sprawl and development then I would be a champion for much higher percentages being owned by the state. That's a zoning issue. Development ordinances can stop that if they want to. But you're not going to get billion dollar public school campuses with bean fields and cow pies. It is a zoning issue but if land is already owned by the DNR for public use I’m inclined to believe it would be less likely rezoned and developed, which was my point. |
|
|
|
Post by kabic on Nov 21, 2019 15:52:38 GMT -6
17% -18% is public in Wisconsin that seems like plenty
|
|
|
|
Post by Tooln on Nov 21, 2019 17:05:44 GMT -6
I'm in the 15-20% range so I vote the 25%.
|
|
|
|
Post by nhmountains on Nov 21, 2019 19:16:05 GMT -6
About 20% of New Hampshire land is public and available to hunt. In NH all private land is open to hunting unless posted. No hunting within 300' of and occupied dwelling. If a landowner asks you to leave their land you must leave even if it is not posted. Another weird law is that tree stands and blinds can be placed on others land without owner permission as long as you don't damage or cut any trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catscratch on Nov 21, 2019 22:06:12 GMT -6
Tough question. KS is less than 1.9% public. I grew up hunting public land and feel we have plenty of it here. But, that was before we opened the boarders and leasing became so common. I'll have ponder the question a while...
|
|
|
|
Post by Catscratch on Nov 22, 2019 7:20:56 GMT -6
After a night of thinking (sleeping) on this I've decided it should be a somewhat sliding scale. KS has such a low percentage of public land that I feel ALL of it should be open to hunting. Animal harvest on public land in such a situation would be inconsequential to management. Hunting regulations and tag allotments would be sufficient to manage the herd that is almost exclusively on private land. As you move up the scale in public land acres you move up the need to create a refuge from the mass of hunters using thos acres. If you had 30% of the state in public and hunting season saw someone every quarter mile that could be a significant reduction in deer numbers. At what point does public acres become sufficient that hunter density becomes low enough to support the herd?
|
|
|
|
Post by Catscratch on Nov 22, 2019 7:21:34 GMT -6
After a night of thinking (sleeping) on this I've decided it should be a somewhat sliding scale. KS has such a low percentage of public land that I feel ALL of it should be open to hunting. Animal harvest on public land in such a situation would be inconsequential to management. Hunting regulations and tag allotments would be sufficient to manage the herd that is almost exclusively on private land. As you move up the scale in public land acres you move up the need to create a refuge from the mass of hunters using thos acres. If you had 30% of the state in public and hunting season saw someone every quarter mile that could be a significant reduction in deer numbers. At what point does public acres become sufficient that hunter density becomes low enough to support the herd?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Nov 22, 2019 7:32:53 GMT -6
I always like to change the question.
So what are wildlife lands? State Parks, federal refuges, county parks, private forest lands under contract to be open for hunting, walkin access acres that have been plowed or heavily grazed,state WMA ‘s that are grazed or managed for bees and butterflies?
Heck, maybe there ain’t any public wildlife lands.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Nov 22, 2019 7:44:12 GMT -6
I always like to change the question. So what are wildlife lands? State Parks, federal refuges, county parks, private forest lands under contract to be open for hunting, walkin access acres that have been plowed or heavily grazed,state WMA ‘s that are grazed or managed for bees and butterflies? Heck, maybe there ain’t any public wildlife lands. Hey now, don't go DNR'n my poll. For purposes of this, any non-lake land that supports huntable populations of wild game. **Exclude towns, lakes, and crop fields. |
|
|
|
Post by Catscratch on Nov 22, 2019 7:51:39 GMT -6
Good question Sandbur. I made the assumption that we were talking about land that could be used for hunting, wasn't considering parks and such. I suppose the State should support people with interests other than hunting and fishing. Seems like a waste though.  I guess I assumed stuff like that was related to towns and where city jurisdictions instead of state. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Nov 22, 2019 8:26:45 GMT -6
I always like to change the question. So what are wildlife lands? State Parks, federal refuges, county parks, private forest lands under contract to be open for hunting, walkin access acres that have been plowed or heavily grazed,state WMA ‘s that are grazed or managed for bees and butterflies? Heck, maybe there ain’t any public wildlife lands. Hey now, don't go DNR'n my poll. For purposes of this, any non-lake land that supports huntable populations of wild game. **Exclude towns, lakes, and crop fields. “ Support huntable populations “. Hmm, maybe we have very few of these lands in Minnesota! Can I hunt bees and butterflies(pollinators?) Our local manager was telling me how great the local WMA was for pheasants as compared to private lands. I guess it varies with the private lands. An irritated quarter section and he might be right. My quarter section with corn foodplots and cover are a different matter. Did I change the discussion yet?  |
|
I guess I assumed stuff like that was related to towns and where city jurisdictions instead of state.