MINNEAPOLIS -- Bruce Petterson is a diehard pheasant hunter who trails after his two springer spaniels, Buck and Lucy, each fall in search of roosters.
But finding access to good Minnesota hunting land is problematic. So Petterson, 61, of Hutchinson, Minn., regularly treks west to South Dakota, where he hunts some of the 1.2 million acres of "walk-in" lands -- private acres that landowners are paid to allow public access.
He is among a growing number of Minnesotans -- including state legislators and conservation group leaders -- who say it's high time for Minnesota to have a walk-in hunting program.
"It's definitely time to put this concept into place in Minnesota," said Petterson, a retired teacher who drove to St. Paul last week to voice his opinion at a State Capitol meeting. "It's so popular in South Dakota, why can't we do it in Minnesota?"
The meeting -- attended by about 30 people, including representatives of most of the state's conservation groups -- was held by state Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, Democratic Farm Labor party-Fridley, chair of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. He agrees that after years of talking about such a program, the time might be ripe to launch one.
"Sportsmen clearly want this," he said. "Someone needs to pull the trigger and get it done. I've offered to step up."
Meanwhile, state Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, has introduced a walk-in bill in the House.
"It pays people to let hunters ... come on their property to hunt," he said at a committee hearing Monday. "It doesn't get any simpler than that."
How to pay?
Money -- the same stumbling block that has hindered previous efforts -- remains a hurdle in 2010. But the renewed interest has been sparked by a federal program called "Open Fields," part of the 2008 farm bill, that offers states matching dollars to help pay for public access.
Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., recently urged Minnesota conservation leaders to launch a walk-in program so they can tap that money. But Minnesota still would have to cough up an unknown amount of cash, likely millions.
"I think the biggest hurdle will be money," said Bill Penning, Department of Natural Resources farmland wildlife program leader, who, along with some conservation groups, is developing a program for Chaudhary to consider. But he said funding can't be done at the expense of the agency's wildlife management area acquisition program, which buys lands from willing sellers to create permanent wildlife lands open to the public. The walk-in acres wouldn't be permanent.
"All of our major constituent groups are fine with the idea of a walk-in program, but acquisition is the first priority and they don't want a walk-in program to affect that," Penning said.
Said Chaudhary: "I don't think funding is the biggest challenge. We could look at a special stamp or surcharge or using game and fish funds, all aimed at getting that federal match. I think it's doable."
Hackbarth's bill proposed tapping the Outdoor Heritage Fund, which gets Legacy Amendment dollars. But most say that likely would be an unconstitutional use of those dollars, which are meant to "protect, enhance and restore" habitat.
"I support a public access program, but I don't think it would be constitutional to spend the amendment money to provide access alone," said Mike Kilgore, chair of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which advises the Legislature on Heritage Fund spending. Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, who sits on the council, agrees: "It clearly doesn't fit."
Few answers
Right now, there are more questions than answers. How much would a walk-in program cost hunters? Would everyone pay a small amount, or only those who intend to hunt the lands? Is $5 or $10 per hunter too much? Would all hunting be allowed, or just small game? How many acres could be obtained and where? Can the program offer landowners enough money to entice them to allow public access?
Walk-in programs in North and South Dakota are extremely successful and popular. In North Dakota, which has 1 million acres enrolled, all hunters pay an extra $5 for a license, which, along with interest from hunting and fishing license revenue, funds the program. (Nonresident waterfowl hunters pay $40 for the program.)
That generates about $5 million annually; $4 million to pay landowners and $1 million for costs, including the salaries of 12 employees who administer it.
But Minnesota officials are concerned that, with higher land values and the pressure of a larger population here, it might be much more costly to enroll landowners.
And not everyone supports the idea: The Minnesota Farmers Union and Minnesota Farm Bureau oppose it.
But hunters such as Petterson are hoping the many obstacles will be cleared this time.
"If I had to pay $17 to have access to a million acres, I'd think I had died and went to heaven," he said.
Comments