# ALL MN HUNTERS PLEASE READ..



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

If you want better hunting and more access in the future for our children and the generations to come....please cut and paste this letter and send it on to your State Reps in the House and Senate. Add to or delete any of content to insert your concerns. Our state needs to hear from the sportsmen/woman of our state.

Thanks 
Chuck
_______________________________________________________________

One thing I would like to see our state do is increase land accessible to regional sportsman. We need to see programs similar to other states. North Dakota has a P.L.O.T.S. (Private Land Open To Sportsman) and Wyoming has Private Lands Public Wildlife Access Program that license fees help pay for. South Dakota and Montana both have public accessible land. Minnesota has public land as well, crowded with hunter yearning for a quality hunt. It is not enough. Some of these programs mentioned above pay landowners a fee to open their land for hunting and fishing opportunities. Why can't the state of Minnesota do this? Instead of buying land for a few why not rent it for less for more to enjoy?

Things this type of program could achieve:
1. Habitat
- Give the farmers/landowners some extra money might have them looking into the CRP or CREP type of programs. If they leave this land alone birds will have places to reproduce and have good cover from predation. This also benefits our above and below ground water quality, deer/other wildlife habitat, and soil erosion.

2. Access
- It is harder and harder to find hunting opportunities in Southern MN for upland birds or waterfowl. All the public/state ground is mainly for deer hunting not birds.

3. Tourism
- If we can get farmers/landowners to leave some land in CRP or other habitat friendly programs birds rebound in our areas. Landowners need some incentive to get involved. This could cause and inflow of NR hunters. Look at the Dakotas. If we can get waterfowl numbers like they have, people will not travel there when MN is closer. We have the capability to become a waterfowl and upland bird hunting destination as we were in the past, all of the pieces of the puzzle are there they just need to be assembled.

4. Farming
- This could help the farmers make some extra money. In theory, this could cut some production numbers to help increase grain prices.

The thing that is getting to me is that I have not seen any of the license fees or stamp fees put to use in our area. Where is that money going? Why doesn't MN have dedicated funding for its wildlife resources? MN has the same capability to produce Waterfowl and upland game in our state; we just need the habitat. Ten years ago when many acres were in the CRP program, South East MN had great numbers of birds. Now the bird numbers have dwindled with modest rebounds at best. Why? Because they lack habitat.

I do see an increase in hunting pressure. I was bow hunting on some land adjacent to state land with some CRP. I counted 4 groups of pheasant hunter's hit this CRP field in one day of hunting. Now I was only on stand from 6 am to 11am and then again at 4pm until dark. How many groups did I miss when I was gone? Who knows, however, that is a lot of pressure on that small field.

I believe with PLOTS or similar access program in effect that wildlife access and hunter satisfaction will improve. I would suggest just add a habitat fee to all hunting license sales of a couple of dollars and have that go directly into this type of fund. This program could fund itself. Look at North Dakota's PLOTS program. They have a good thing going. We could as well if you quit playing politics and get to the business of our states outdoor issues.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

TTT


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Chuck, I mean this sincerely.....Good Luck with this. I hope you get the response you are looking for. I know that you are fighting an uphill battle but I wish you nothing but the best!!!!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Chuck: I think you have a great letter there. I wish you luck on your quest.

I guess if I was a resident of MN, the question I would ask of the DNR is this. Why have you let bird numbers drizzle down to terrible numbers when MN once was a hunter's haven?

I know you have seen this before, but this was all taken from the DNR website. It is their numbers.

2004: surveyed about 2/3 of the state based on the map they provided found average of 101.9 pheasants per 100 miles. The state recorded a harvest of pheasants at right around 400,000.

1958: that same survey found 425 pheasants per 100 miles and recorded the harvest of pheasants at right around 1,550,000.

I think if you did some digging, waterfowl numbers probably follow the same trend. It may help your battle.

Good luck.


----------



## mnwatrfwl (Sep 16, 2005)

Uhhh, I do believe that is what the rally this weekend is all about and why the dedicated funding bill is such an issue.

We have the same problems here as in other places to much political agendas in the metros not addressing the concerns of outstate.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bill to fund outdoors is scaled back
A House panel knocked back the financing for the measure, long sought by conservation groups.
Mark Brunswick, Star Tribune

In a last-minute maneuver that sets the stage for a protracted debate on the House floor, a bill that would ask voters to dedicate a portion of the state's sales tax to hunting and fishing was stripped to its most basic form on Thursday.
Provisions that would dedicate funding for polluted water cleanup and the arts were tossed out.

The House Rules Committee returned the proposal to the form that its author, Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, originally sought: 1/8 of 1 percent of the state's existing sales tax dedicated to protecting hunting and fishing resources.

The House is likely to vote on the proposed constitutional amendment early next week and fireworks are expected, both between DFLers and Republicans and, potentially, within the House Republican Caucus itself.

As outdoor groups plan to rally at the State Capitol on Saturday, the latest maneuver puts the proposal, long sought by conservation groups, in a political limbo. Republican caucus leaders have said they wanted to get "a clean bill" to the House floor.

"No one is naive enough to think that it will leave the floor clean," said Jodi Boyne, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, meaning amendments likely will be added.

The Senate already has passed a markedly different bill that would ask voters in November to approve a state constitutional amendment to add 3/8 of 1 percent to the state sales tax and direct the funds to outdoor programs, trails and parks, the arts and public television. If voters approve, an additional $276.9 million in sales taxes would be collected each year. Differences would have to be worked out in conference committee.

While conservationists and sporting groups have advocated for the dedicated funding for years, the arts community has been particularly aggressive in getting included in the amendment, arguing that, like hunting and fishing, the state's arts and humanities are a reflection of quality of life. Supporters of clean water have made the same argument.

"Without including the funding for culture and without the funding for the water, I'm not sanguine about the amendment's chances for passage with voters," said Larry Redmond of Minnesota Citizens for the Arts.

After the committee move, House Deputy Minority Leader Margaret Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, urged House Republicans to reinsert the clean-water provisions into the bill.

"Conservationists, hunting and fishing enthusiasts, and environmentalists all have a stake in cleaner water," she said. "This bill is too important for partisan games."

Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636


----------



## mnswd (Oct 13, 2005)

Here is my 2 cents. 
:2cents: Attitudes must change at all levels - including the local farmer. As the current trespassing rules read even grassland (CRP) is off limits to hunters. Thus the land that state already rents from the farmer can not be used by the average hunter, if fact a lot of the CRP is then turned around and released to the lucky few to hunt on. That seems like double dipping to me. This last yr I stopped and asked a number of farmers if I could walk their land - I am yet to get a yes. In short MN is not hunter friendly from top to bottom.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Rally backs outdoor fund
By Scott Wente, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 23, 2006

ST. PAUL - David Lais had a bright orange hat on his head and the future of Minnesota's natural resources on his mind.

Lais, an outdoorsman from New London, joined other conservation advocates on the Capitol grounds Saturday to rally for a constitutional amendment dedicating tax dollars to the outdoors. More state money is needed, he said, so that wildlife habitats can be preserved for future generations.

"If you don't have the dollars to jump on it, you lose the opportunity forever," he said.

Lais was among participants of the second-annual Rally for Ducks, Wetlands and Clean Water, held this year on Earth Day. The event has served as a collective voice for outdoors advocates - hunters, fishing enthusiasts and environmentalists - who want the Legislature to give voters a chance this fall vote on the constitutional amendment.

Dedicated revenue could help outdoors groups protect valuable wetlands, said Bob Usgaard, a Fergus Falls-based regional biologist for Ducks Unlimited.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty 
Usgaard, who was working at the rally, said as land is bought and developed, shallow lakes disappear and water quality deteriorates. A consistent source of state dollars could draw attention to the issue and be used to access more matching funds from the federal government, he said.

"It has benefits that reach far beyond wildlife," Usgaard said of protecting habitats. "Dedicated funding is going to help to help bring that to the table."

Conservation groups have advocated for an outdoors amendment for at least seven years as state aid for natural resources has been reduced.

The initiative has reached its farthest point in the legislative process this year - partially the result of stepped-up pressure from the advocates.

If a proposed amendment is approved, it would appear on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Woods, wildlife and water will be lost if lawmakers don't let Minnesotans vote on constitutional amendment, said Lance Ness, a leading advocate and rally organizer.

"Conservation takes dedication," he said.

Earlier this month the Minnesota Senate approved a proposed constitutional amendment dedicating revenue from a sales tax increase to habitat protection, water cleanup projects, parks and trails and arts programs. In that proposal, voters statewide would decide whether the sales tax should be raised by 37 cents on $100 spent.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, told the camouflage-clad crowd outside the Capitol Saturday that senators did their part and are ready to negotiate a final bill.

"The Minnesota Senate has delivered," Johnson said. His comments were followed by shouts of "No arts!" from some rally participants opposed to the Senate's provision benefiting arts and humanities groups.

Lawmakers and advocates are split over whether expanding the proposal to include the arts and public broadcasting would help or hurt the issue at the polls.

House Speaker Steve Sviggum told the group that he is following through on a promise to "casters and blasters" that the House bill will be sent to the full body as a "clean" proposal funding only conservation programs.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who supports dedicated conservation funding but doesn't have authority to sign or veto constitutional amendment bills, said Minnesotans should leave the outdoors in better shape for future generations.

"Let's quit dinking around and get this thing passed," Pawlenty said at the event.

Rally participant John Lindquist of rural Evansville is cautiously optimistic.

"They've promised before and they haven't delivered, but I feel confident that we're going to get it done," he said of legislators.

Lindquist, who works with the Christina Ina Anka Lake Association in Douglas County, said he's concerned that without more money for natural resources, the state's air, soil and water will be further harmed.

"If one of them goes to pot, we're dead," he said.

The outdoors rally was particularly timely this year as the House is expected to debate its outdoors amendment bill on Monday.

Attempts by House Republican leaders to pass a narrowly focused proposal - dedicating 12 cents of the existing sales tax collected on $100 spent - hit numerous bumps through the committee process. At one point the bill included a tax increase, broadened the aim of the funding and proposed separate ballot questions dealing with gay marriage and transportation money. Last week a committee returned the bill to its original form.

In a Friday interview, Sviggum predicted a lengthy, contentious debate on the House floor as some lawmakers will try to amend the bill to resemble the Senate plan, others fight to keep it the way it is and still others try to kill it because they oppose the concept of constitutionally dedicated funding.

"It's going to get ugly," Sviggum said of the floor debate. "I'm going to do everything I can to keep (the bill) clean."

Scott Wente writes for the Red Wing (Minn.) Republican-Eagle, a Forum Communications Co. paper.


----------

