New DNR Commisioner

[get-n-birdy]

The stamp costs have not increased to the rate of inflation or to address the losses in hunter numbers.

The stamps should be setup on a rate of inflation scale and increased off the rate at which they initially started at and raised every 3 years based off inflation.

Another by product could be additional wma or wpa's permits for heavily gunned and quality units, that could fund moist soil or heavily managed, quality properties, with quality opportunities.

If more guys could see what good hunting is, with access to hunt those, more would welcome higher stamp fees and implemented fees on high quality areas, with good opportunities to see quality hunting.

I would have no problem with the stamps going up substantially, as long as how that money was spent had more accountability and transparency, with results measured off of tangible goals.

There are lots of areas within an hour drive of the cities that could be heavily managed for quality hunting, but are left idle.

There's ways to go about increasing quality opportunities, but the dnr and usfws are terrified and to infected with an endemic hold onto the past mentalities that are unable to go against traditions.

With the loss of numbers of waterfowl hunters in Minnesota and increasing challenges, cost is going to increase and quality is going to decrease. We need a way different thought process than people like Dennis Anderson's idealism of being able to roll back the hands of time. That's impossible.

What is possible is to accept the changes and move on with a different thought process or mindset on how to manage what we've got. Amazingly there's still ducks and geese around, despite DA's bold, dumb ass, unwhityy, bull chit comment, that there wasn't going to be any ducks left in after 2020, when he's stuck his blind, ignorant, big headed ego in the Minnesota rivers chit hole's waters expecting it to return to some sort of former glory. It ain't coming back without money and a willingness to see reality for what it is vs a spoiled child who wants what they want with no willingness to open up their eyes or mind to other, different possibilities.

Stagnant, moist bull chit crusts over and is useless. But tilled into the soil, it nourishes the soil and nurtures seeds that grow into something. We need new ideas and seed those into fertile soil. Not the same old same old that doesn't work, with a heels dug into a dried, parched, hard headed, used up landscape of uselessness, by tired, ancient ideologues, blinded to any fresh or ripe for the pickings low hanging fruit.

[Bullet21XD]

I think they should drastically raise license prices, like to $250 for a duck stamp, and $350 for a small game license. Money is what is needed to improve the situation, the prices are ridiculously low. People will pay it, it's nothing compared to the increase in shells/waders/etc. Most people spend more than that at the bar every weekend.

I'm down with that !

It's time all the poor, white trash found some other hobbies to f-k up.

[Mallard_maniac]

Obviously, there would be a balancing point where revenue would increase without losing numbers (hunter participation is decreasing anyway) I don't know where that is, but I can tell you it's North of $15. I guess $600 is too much, but current prices are too low.

\

I'll buy that $15 is light. But across the nation our state appears to be right on track with what others are doing as a whole for res vs non res fees to hunt waterfowl (obviously with SD being an exception having to draw the license) which makes me believe its probably pretty competitive with supply and demand. On a personal level, I'd have no problem paying more.... but if we even double costs I would venture to guess that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/2 the current waterfowlers in MN might say no. Last year as a resident it cost roughly $60 to hunt waterfowl in MN. Move that up to $120 and now you're not making any extra money w/ %50 die off and you've just doubled a reason not to pick it up for new hunters.

Equipment isn't very liquid, except at a steep loss.

It's still far more liquid than a hunting license and comparing the two is apples to oranges. At a very minimum, equipment has a potential to last years and years and years.... a hunting license is good for 60 days (or 4 months if you participate in shoulder season hunts).

I would also argue being successful at waterfowl hunting is rarely cheap and affordable, sometimes but not on the average. Best hunting is US for under $600? License is at least $100, gas, food, hotel/camping, scouting, shells, etc it's possible if you know someone there but just showing up be pretty tough and sure as hell doesn't sound like any fun pinching pennies to that extreme.

I meant I wouldn't have hunted elsewhere, despite how great the hunting if the license had been $600. Obviously traveling to Canada or Arkansas will be far north of $600 as a whole, but the license was generally reasonable. But you hit the nail on the head....$100 (for NR). It's acceptable, I'll gladly pay it and go hunt. Move that needle into the 4,5 or $600 range and for the same $$$ I'll chase whitetails in Iowa, Kansas, Elk all over the western US or have a cheaper mule deer or pronghorn hutn..... I'm simply not going to pay $600 for a waterfowl hunting license no matter how good when some of the best big game hunting in the nation for the respective species can be had for the same or less.

The deterrent to future waterfowlers currently is lack of access and lack of success, not license cost and yet there are less hunters every year.

That's up for debate but access is still pretty dang good compared to other states and other species and people, even new hunters are lined up around the corner to hunt. For crying out loud look at how little public land opportunity exists in Iowa for whitetails and yet it's a 4 year wait.... for archery. Look at the point creep occuring all over the western US for other species. In MN we have excellent access to waterfowl hunting, compared to some regions. The whole concepts of knocking on a door and getting permission is foreign in some areas. I guess I refuse to be a glass is half empty person but we've got it pretty dang good, even on our public. If the definition of great access is every landowner and saying yes and shooting limits in the same spot, with the same decoys out of the same boat on a widely known popular public spot.... well then yea I can see where some think it might be sub par. Maybe I'm just lucky but with a little bit of door knocking (for private spots) and a little bit of extra work (public) I've not had a problem finding waterfowl in MN in the last 5-10 years. I'd even argue each year has gotten progressively better.

But nevermind that lets go with your theory. Go to the area in North America with the best habitat, best access and best hunting. Guess what. It's still declining. That's not an opinion... Throughout the nation, waterfowl hunting is on the decline and areas with great access and great hunting aren't keeping up either.

It's food for thought, anyone who is rational understands the price of a duck stamp hasn't even kept up with inflation and should be increased.

I'm good with an increase, just not "I think they should drastically raise license prices, like to $250 for a duck stamp, and $350 for a small game license"

I don't donate to anything. I hunt private land.

Like I said, if you're this passionate about G&F departments generating more money, there's other ways to get cash into their hands like a personal donation of what you think you should be paying each year.... I mean afterall if you're willing, even advocating for this then obviously you'd have no problem doing it right? Come on now lead by example.....

[Bullet21XD]

The stamp costs have not increased to the rate of inflation or to address the losses in hunter numbers.

The stamps should be setup on a rate of inflation scale and increased off the rate at which they initially started at and raised every 3 years based off inflation.

Another by product could be additional wma or wpa's permits for heavily gunned and quality units, that could fund moist soil or heavily managed, quality properties, with quality opportunities.

If more guys could see what good hunting is, with access to hunt those, more would welcome higher stamp fees and implemented fees on high quality areas, with good opportunities to see quality hunting.

I would have no problem with the stamps going up substantially, as long as how that money was spent had more accountability and transparency, with results measured off of tangible goals.

There are lots of areas within an hour drive of the cities that could be heavily managed for quality hunting, but are left idle.

There's ways to go about increasing quality opportunities, but the dnr and usfws are terrified and to infected with an endemic hold onto the past mentalities that are unable to go against traditions.

With the loss of numbers of waterfowl hunters in Minnesota and increasing challenges, cost is going to increase and quality is going to decrease. We need a way different thought process than people like Dennis Anderson's idealism of being able to roll back the hands of time. That's impossible.

What is possible is to accept the changes and move on with a different thought process or mindset on how to manage what we've got. Amazingly there's still ducks and geese around, despite DA's bold, dumb ass, unwhityy, bull chit comment, that there wasn't going to be any ducks left in after 2020, when he's stuck his blind, ignorant, big headed ego in the Minnesota rivers chit hole's waters expecting it to return to some sort of former glory. It ain't coming back without money and a willingness to see reality for what it is vs a spoiled child who wants what they want with no willingness to open up their eyes or mind to other, different possibilities.

Stagnant, moist bull chit crusts over and is useless. But tilled into the soil, it nourishes the soil and nurtures seeds that grow into something. We need new ideas and seed those into fertile soil. Not the same old same old that doesn't work, with a heels dug into a dried, parched, hard headed, used up landscape of uselessness, by tired, ancient ideologues, blinded to any fresh or ripe for the pickings low hanging fruit.

Are you trying to say you don't think we'll be returning all of Minnesota back to natural prairie habitat?

We won't with your attitude.

[Nershi]

Yea let’s give more money to the government. After all they do such a great job of spending it efficiently and wisely...

[get-n-birdy]

Are you trying to say you don't think we'll be returning all of Minnesota back to natural prairie habitat?

We won't with your attitude.

Back in my day we use to sit on this point on lake x that my great grandfather shot bluebills on and stacked them up like cord wood. Still sitting out here and nothing has showed up for 3 decades. No chit sherlock, how ignorant are you? I can go sit out by Wheaton and hope to see buffalo, but if I swallow a quarter, I'm still chitting out a quarter. If I crapped out 2 dimes and a nickel, well then we'd be making change.

[Bailey]

$250 is a lot of money when someone who lives pay check to pay check.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

They will only spend that is they know the hunting will mostly be pretty darn good. Half the duck hunters only hunt the first weekend and maybe the 2nd and move onto pheasants, deer etc. I think alot of them would give it up at those prices imo. In the end i doubt it would generate much more money.

[Bailey]

I think they should drastically raise license prices, like to $250 for a duck stamp, and $350 for a small game license. Money is what is needed to improve the situation, the prices are ridiculously low. People will pay it, it's nothing compared to the increase in shells/waders/etc. Most people spend more than that at the bar every weekend.

Have you been eating off of lead plates and cups this past year?

The only people who may pay that are diehards who hunt all season. The one or.two weekend guy would never pay that. At least not an average guy without big money. For the few days i have to still hunt in minnesota id never pay that. I spend 110 on a SD license and hunt 7 days. If I spent 600 bucks to hunt 4 or 5 in minnesota as well my wife would probably tell me thats money you could spend on us going to the bahamas or on your kids. If i still hunted 35 days a year maybe but I was single then alot of cash to blow.

[Fish Felon]

I've accepted that there is very little that will ever change, at least drastically, and that's certainly the case when it comes to MN duck hunting.

For a while there I was a pretty staunch defender of the DNR. Part of it was to take an opposing viewpoint since it's not hard to find people wanting to openly bash the DNR, especially online. I sincerely did think they did a pretty good job with the resources available and the demands from the citizenry on the department.

My opinion has changed. I see the DNR as a large bureaucracy filled with apathetic employees that lack passion about their work and do everything possible to perpetuate the status quo because it means they can collect a paycheck while putting in the least amount of actual work. The people that work for the DNR are a lot more like the hipsters you see downtown than they are like you and me. They're really good at fielding calls and responding to emails but when it comes to actual work, let alone work like restoring habitat that takes passionate individuals inspired by a vision willing to get their hands dirty, they shutter.

Giving more money to the DNR isn't going to accomplish anything except employ more flaccid human beings that have a long list of excuses for when they're asked why nothing is getting done.

The DNR is never going to manage our existing habitat in a manner that would properly utilize it to create a higher quality of hunting.

The DNR is never going to put enough new habitat on the ground in a large enough scale in a short enough period of time to make a difference. Other smaller entities get it done despite the DNR, not aided by them. Currently PF is by far the biggest party responsible for new habitat on the ground. All the new WPA's are essentially because of them. I'm under the impression that they were the most eager to take advantage of the funds for conservation created by dedicated funding. Look at where that money is being distributed....PF is at the top of the list for lining up projects, bringing them before the LSOHC, then DU, the Nature Conservancy, Public Land Trust, various soil boards, and smaller conversation clubs and groups.

https://www.lsohc.leg.mn/FY2019/accomp_plans/index.html

The DNR isn't in the business of restoring and enhancing habitat. They don't have the people with the stomach for it. That's why they contract it out.

I'm all for the DNR getting less license money. It means less wardens in the field, less millennial academics doing useless studies, and less pencil pushers following up on calls and emails after a subdivision in suburbia had a coyote run through their backyards.

[Bailey]

I agree there was more of a stomach at the DNR in the 90’s to restore habitat and even then nothing really got done. I mean you have shallow lake restorations going on but isnt a lot of that through DU, etc. Plus the shallow lake are really more for migration instead of production like small wetlands. Honestly, I think the DNR has basically given up on trying to restore Minnesota and with dwindling hunter numbers that makes it even less of a priority for them because there are not enough hunters left to have a big voice and demand change. It is what it is.

Even the local papers do not write many articles about duck hunting anymore. I would say they write maybe a quarter of what they used too.