DNR announces 2007 deer season changes (2007-07-03) The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is changing the all-season deer license to reduce the harvest of antlerless deer in certain areas of the state. Other changes for the upcoming season include simplification of deer bag limits, expanded early antlerless deer hunting, a bovine tuberculosis (TB) disease management area in the northwest, some permit area boundary changes, an opportunity to purchase leftover lottery permits, and expanded archery and muzzleloader seasons in the Arrowhead region. For the first time, all-season license holders hunting in lottery areas during the late muzzleloader season will need antlerless permits to take antlerless deer. In 2006, more than 75,000 Minnesota deer hunters purchased an all-season deer license, which allows hunters to take up to three deer during the archery, regular firearms, and muzzleloader seasons. The rapid increase in popularity of the all-season license and its use during the muzzleloader season has led to tremendous increases in unregulated antlerless deer harvest. In lottery areas where antlerless deer harvest must be closely managed, this additional unregulated antlerless harvest is pushing populations below goal levels. "While deer populations throughout much of Minnesota are at historic highs, we are seeing declines in some farmland areas despite the lottery system and reductions in firearm either-sex permits," said Lou Cornicelli, big game program coordinator. "As an agency, we've promoted the all-season license and fully support the flexibility it gives our hunters. However, in some areas of the state we are seeing harvest rates on antlerless deer that just can't be sustained." Consequently, the DNR will adopt regulations that limit the number and type of deer all-season license holders can take. Cornicelli added, "The alternative in lottery areas would have been bucks only for all hunters and given our emphasis on youth recruitment, we are trying to avoid that situation." A bucks-only regulation would curtail all antlerless harvest for everyone hunting in the area, including youth. Bringing the bulk of the antlerless deer harvest back under the control of a lottery permitting system is also a less restrictive way to accomplish management goals than bucks-only hunting. This year, all-season license holders who hunt in lottery areas during either the regular firearms or the muzzleloader season must apply for an either-sex permit by Sept. 6 if they wish to harvest an antlerless deer in either season. Successful applicants can use the permit to take an antlerless deer during any of the open seasons. Unsuccessful all-season license holder applicants and those who purchase their all-season license after the application deadline will be restricted to bucks only during the firearm and muzzleloader seasons within lottery areas. Hunters who purchase the regular muzzleloader season license (license code 212-ML) can still take a deer of either-sex without participating in the lottery. Cornicelli added, "regular muzzleloader hunters account for a very small percentage of overall antlerless harvest and at this time do not need to be included in the lottery. However, we will be closely monitoring all antlerless harvest and may need to impose further restrictions in lottery areas in the future if these measures are unsuccessful." The regulation should result in improved management of antlerless deer taken in lottery areas and lead to increases in the deer population in those areas. All-season hunters can still take an antlerless deer during the archery season without applying; however, the total bag limit is one deer per year in lottery areas. The following additional changes begin to take effect with the Sept. 15 opening of archery deer hunting. Firearms deer hunting begins statewide on Nov. 3 and the muzzleloader season starts Nov. 24. BAG LIMITS Minnesota has three tiers for managing deer areas: lottery, managed, and intensive. This year, the bag limits have been simplified and there will be no deviations based on license types. In lottery areas, the bag limit will be one deer per year, managed areas will have a bag limit of two, and intensive areas will have a bag limit of five. These bag limits are the total allowed per individual hunter per year, and apply regardless of the season or method of take - whether by regular firearms, muzzleloader or archery. MUZZLELOADER SEASON All-season license holders will need to apply by Sept. 6 if they wish to take an antlerless deer during the muzzleloader season. However, regular muzzleloader hunters (license code 212-ML) will not need to apply because their license will remain either sex. The two license types are being differentiated because hunters licensed for just the muzzleloader season kill only one-tenth of the deer that are taken by all-season hunters in the muzzleloader season. Limiting the type of deer that could be taken by regular muzzleloader license holders would not result in significantly decreased antlerless deer harvest rates, so they will not be included in the lottery process at this time. LEFTOVER LOTTERY PERMITS In some areas there are leftover lottery permits after the drawing. This year, remaining permits will be available for purchase at 5 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 15 to all hunters. The permits will be available on a first come, first served basis. Hunters will need to have a valid license or purchase one at the time. NEW BOVINE TB AREA, SEASON AND ANTERLESS PERMIT For 2007, a new deer area (area 101) has been created in northwest Minnesota based on the proximity of deer identified with bovine TB. The boundary is defined by roads and inclusive of all bovine TB positive animals identified to date. The area will be in the Zone 1 season framework (16 days) and will also be included in the two day early antlerless season. A special antlerless permit, valid in the bovine TB area, will also be available. This disease management permit will be antlerless only and available for the cost of issuance ($2.50). An unlimited number of deer can be taken in this area but hunters are limited to the statewide regulation of one buck per year. All deer taken in the area must be registered prior to leaving the area. Additional information will be in the 2007 hunting synopsis and a map will be posted on the DNR Web site. DEER AREA BOUNDARY CHANGES Boundaries of some deer areas in northwestern Minnesota have been changed. The change does not affect hunting opportunity because all the areas will remain in Zone 2. These changes were made to better align the areas with habitat type and deer management objectives. The changed areas have been renumbered so prior to buying a license, hunters are advised to consult the map so they know which number to indicate. EARLY ANTERLESS FIREARM DEER SEASON This year, the early antlerless season has been expanded to include 22 deer areas (up from eight). The two-day October antlerless only firearms hunt will be open in deer areas 101 (except Hayes Lake State Park), 105, 157, 184 (except the Bemidji State Game Refuge), 209, 210, 214, 221, 222, 225, 227, 236, 241 243, 244, 256, 257, 260, 261, 265, 346, 349, and 601. The hunt will be held Oct. 13-14. Hunters need a valid firearms license for the zone and may purchase up to two early antlerless deer permits for use only during the special antlerless season. Two deer may be taken in the special antlerless season and are in addition to the statewide bag limit of five. The price of the early antlerless permit is $6.50 (plus a $1 issuing fee). Last year, 6,300 hunters harvested 2,300 antlerless deer in eight early antlerless deer areas. METRO DEER ZONE Deer areas 228 and 337 have been combined and renumbered as deer area 601, also known as the Metro Deer Zone. Like last year, any deer license is valid in this area. Hunters who typically purchase a Zone 2 license for deer area 228 should continue to buy a Zone 2 license. They would simply indicate 601 as the permit area hunted most often. Similarly, hunters who traditionally purchased either a Zone 3A or 3B license to hunt area 337 should continue to purchase their traditional license and indicate 601 as their primary deer area. ARROWHEAD DEER HUNTING This year, deer areas 116, 126, and 127 will be open to late season archery and muzzleloader hunting. Previously, these areas have been closed before the end of the statewide seasons to protect wintering deer. The results of DNR's deer population goal setting project indicated an interest in reducing these deer populations below current levels. DNR will continue to use hunting as the primary tool to manage deer populations within goal ranges. Putting these areas into the statewide archery and muzzleloader season framework should result in additional deer harvest and increases in local hunting opportunity. This year's deer regulation changes, which primarily affect hunters whose licenses allow the most hunting opportunity, are part of an effort to manage deer within goal population levels that have been established through an extensive public process. Long-term, the DNR aims to simplify deer hunting regulations. This year's bag limit change is an example of simplifying regulations based on the type of deer management area. "For hunters, this year's changes mean more opportunity to harvest antlerless deer in some areas, such as the early antlerless hunting season, and some restrictions on antlerless harvest in other areas, such as lottery areas," Cornicelli said. "Across Minnesota, hunting is the primary tool for managing deer population. Regulation changes and refinements allow for varying hunting opportunities and sustainable deer populations." All of the changes will be in the 2007 hunting synopsis, which will be available at all 1,800 businesses that sell hunting and fishing licenses across Minnesota. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/releases/index.html?id=1183482145 http://www.mfwea.org/resolutionsletters.html Members of the Fish and Wildlife Employees Association A Resolution Regarding the Establishment of Recreational Use Areas for Off Highway Vehicles Whereas off highway vehicles have the ability to traverse terrains previously unavailable for the operation of most vehicles. Whereas the adverse environmental impacts of motorized vehicles and road and trails used for motorized vehicle traffic are well documented and understood in the ecological scientific community. Whereas the obvious damage caused by the operation of offhighway vehicles, such as erosion and direct wetland encroachment is generally acknowledged, impacts from offhighway vehicles caused by disturbance, habitat loss, fragmentation of habitats, cumulative and cascading impacts, zones of impact along trails, and seasonal impacts during sensitive times are not broadly understood or recognized by operators of offhighway vehicles and the general public. Whereas the popular use of off highway vehicle traffic is causing environmental impacts that are difficult to regulate. Whereas the Department of Natural Resources is an important and highly regarded source of information about the environment and potential threats to Minnesota’s natural resources. Whereas the Department of Natural Resources operates under constitutional and legislative direction to conserve fish, wildlife, forest and water resources for present and future generations. Whereas the Department of Natural Resources operates under legislative direction requiring regulation of the use of offhighway vehicles and requiring establishing offhighway vehicle trails in Minnesota State Forests and establishing GrantinAid trails. Whereas the Department of Natural Resource has many discretionary choices concerning the establishment of offhighway vehicle use areas and trails as well as the dissemination of information about potential environmental impacts of these decisions. Whereas a determined effort devoted toward education about potential environmental impacts from off highway vehicle uses is imperative for resource professionals to make appropriate choices regarding the siting of off highway vehicle use areas that will provide for an adequate level of resource protection and be endorsed and supported by the general public. Therefore be it resolved that the Fish and Wildlife Employees Association requests the Department of Natural Resources implement the following strategies to improve internal and external understanding the adverse impacts of offhighway vehicle operation: 1. Prepare an interim review of the adverse impacts of offhighway vehicles on the environment that is suitable for public use and is based on a literature review of up to date information. Those drafting the report should have an educational background in fisheries, wildlife, and ecology. 2. Include projected traffic levels and anticipated additional trail requests for each trail/system proposal, whether they are GrantinAid trails or trails in state forests. 3. Request to the Legislature for additional funds to obtain data about environmental impacts of existing uses, monitoring impacts of trails as they become established, a general study of off highway vehicle impacts, and an objective review of enforcement needs. Implement public relations strategies necessary to prepare for turning down some trail proposals based on an inherent conflict with natural resource values. September 12, 2006 Commissioner Gene Merriam Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota Dear Commissioner Merriam: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association to continue our dialogue on offhighway vehicles (OHV) issues. We see improvements regarding these issues and but also continuing serious problems. We are writing this letter both as followup from previous discussions with you, and in preparation for the Legislative session that begins in January. I sincerely thank you for attending our Annual Meeting in 2005 and especially for meeting in Brainerd in 2005 with several wildlife managers to discuss internal handling of OHV trail issues. The participants were pleased with the meetings and with your thoughtful questions and responses.  The management of recreational OHV use, especially on Minnesota’s public conservation lands and rightofways, remains a high priority issue for our organization. I have talked to a number of people since these meetings to obtain their opinions about OHV trail issues in Minnesota. The feelings are that the significant internal problems discussed at the 2005 Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association and the Brainerd managers meetings have been reduced. Thank you for your continuing efforts to resolve the problems and for the improved management of these issues. Nevertheless, we believe there are still major problems with management of recreational OHV use on the Minnesota landscape. It is imperative the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fully engages with the current problems that beset OHV issues in Minnesota. We feel we can speak with some authority on the topic of OHVs and their effects on public lands and rightofways and fisheries and wildlife resources. Our members and other current and retired employees from Fisheries and Wildlife and Ecological Services live and work in many communities statewide. They have professional and personal relationships with individuals in other states where there are also recreational OHV conflicts with conservation objectives. Collectively, we have broad experience with Minnesota’s and other states’ natural resources, and the impacts to them. Finally, since we have roots in so many communities, we have a good idea what all the public is thinking and saying about these topics. We believe the DNR is best suited for identifying problems, solutions, and for speaking frankly to the public and Legislature. Thorough research and communication will reestablish the credibility of the Department as stewards of our fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems. We fully understand that the DNR operates under legislative direction concerning establishing OHV trails in Minnesota state forests, wildlife management areas (WMAs) and establishing grant in aid (GIA) trails. However, there are many discretionary choices to be made within this framework. We have identified four major problem areas concerning OHV management in Minnesota. 1. Current Minnesota statutes regarding OHV policies are not protecting Minnesota natural resources. We are especially concerned that Minnesota places few limits on use in the northern part of the state with respect to allterrain vehicle operation in state forests as well as the extensive operations within road rightsofway. The related matter of attempts in some of the northern counties to convert drainage ditch grades in currently high value wildlife habitat areas (and even WMAs) into public roads and OHV routes without adequate review of impacts is also a serious concern. The silence of the Department regarding the serious problems, true costs, and difficulty of managing OHV recreation makes it difficult for the public to understand the problems, make informed decisions and insist that the Legislature change the statutes. 2. The "Managed" category for OHV travel in State Forests, i.e., OHV travel anywhere on existing trails unless they are posted closed, is difficult and costly to manage, and largely unenforceable. Exemptions for hunting and trapping are problematic and may lead to trail proliferation. 3. The Department of Natural Resources has not adequately explored the environmental impacts of OHVs. Consequently, although there has been significant progress, there is still not adequate consensus within the DNR about adverse environmental impacts. 4. We are concerned the Department is not doing enough communicating internally or with the general public about what is already known about the environmental impacts of OHVs and about what use rates and maintenance needs are ahead after trails are mapped and advertised nationally. We wish to have greater public leadership from the Department in describing these impacts to the public. The OHV issue was discussed again at the 2006 annual meeting of our Association in February.  We discussed how to communicate better with the public and with DNR staff about the seriousness of the environmental impacts of OHVs, and passed a resolution on these topics. It is enclosed as   Attachment 1. We believe there is opportunity for the Department to make great progress within the existing legislation. We have a number of specific suggestions that address problems and the items contained in our 2006 resolution. We believe our suggestions will help reduce the contentiousness over motorized recreation in Minnesota by, as you aptly mentioned during the 2005 Annual Meeting, improving the DNR’s ability to obtain "the consent of the governed." They will help reduce impacts of OHVs while still carrying out Legislative policy. You will note there are several references in these recommendations to preparing information and reports. These will be public information, and this is a deliberate recommendation from us. The OHV challenge to the maintenance and protection of natural resources is one of the most important issues to come along in a number of years in Minnesota. It is our opinion that those who pay our salaries deserve to hear from the resource professionals on this major natural resource management issue. The Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association recommends DNR implement the following actions. 1. Prepare a report to the Legislature that objectively analyzes the difficulties of managing the responsibilities given to the DNR in the existing legislation, referencing the other responsibilities in the DNR to protect natural resources, manage state lands, and coordinating with adjacent land managers (such as private, county, and federal lands). If the authority or funds for such a report is not currently found in the DNR, a request should be made to the Legislature for such authority and such funds for the 2007 session. 2. Avoid the use of the "managed" classification for OHV use in state forests until evidence is gathered that this can be accomplished efficiently and without continued damage, deterioration or proliferation of trails. The "Managed" classification for state forests places resource managers in a position of being reactive and negative in efforts to preserve resource values associated with nonmotorized areas. This classification can result in extensive habitat damage through trail misuse (closed signs are readily removed), proliferation through exemptions, erosion, invasion of exotic species, and fragmentation of remaining blocks of undisturbed habitats. It is difficult to stay ahead of problems and effectively protect sensitive areas if ridership reaches critical levels. We believe the "Limited" classification—OHV travel on posted trails—fully meets OHV recreational needs, allows managers to be proactive in protecting other resource values and affirmative in providing recreational riding opportunities. The "Limited" classification is substantially more manageable and enforceable. 3. Prepare an interim review of the impacts of OHVs on fish and wildlife resources, ecosystems and habitats. The report should be suitable for public use and based on a literature review of up to date information. Those drafting the report should have an educational background in ecology, fisheries, or wildlife. After a report is prepared, it should be introduced to the public via public informational sessions in areas where OHV proposals have been common and specifically for OHV proposals for WMAs and other ecologically sensitive lands. Public comments should be solicited, and suggestions from the public on additional analysis should be welcomed. Data needs and other topics should be identified to be addressed a longterm study. The internal review necessary for the preparation of such a report will help in the continued effort to develop the needed internal consensus regarding impacts of OHVs. 4. Review impacts of establishing township roads on ditch spoil banks in sensitive riparian habitats on public conservation lands. We note that Minnesota Environmental Quality Board rules require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for creation of a new road over a mile in length. Resolution of this issue on state WMAs and state forests should be accomplished carefully and publicly on a factual basis of proof that actual roads exist and that they are suitable for long term use as public roadways for motorized vehicles. Due regard must be given for other state laws and policies, and policies in other parts of the state, lest precedents be set that allows creation of essentially new roads through important habitats without adequate review or mitigation. 5. Provide projected traffic levels and anticipated additional trail requests for each trail/system proposal, whether they are GIA trails or trails on public lands. This is needed in order to adequately design trails to withstand projected traffic levels, provide for maintenance, and to determine levels of disturbance and impacts to wildlife species and habitats. The DNR did a study of OHV trail demands several years ago, and there are existing trails in other locations in the US and Canada where data on forecasted traffic levels can be obtained. This information is essential to determine potential impacts and is crucial information for resource managers and other landowners who must make decisions about permanent GIA trails proposed to cross their lands. 6. Request additional funds from the Legislature or shift existing funds from the existing OHV budgets to obtain data about: a) environmental impacts of existing uses, including cost of repairing such impacts; b) environmental impacts of trails as they become established (including illegal trails); c) an objective review of enforcement and maintenance needs; and d) an objective review of alternative riding opportunities, for example, should some of the uses currently being born by trails on state forests and other public lands be directed to dedicated scramble areas specifically suited to OHV recreation. This study will be highly significant given the geographic extent of ongoing and expanding damage to Minnesota’s public lands; therefore, it will likely need a Legislative request. 7. Do the public relations necessary to prepare for turning down some trail proposals based on an inherent conflict with natural resource values. For example, last year we brought to your attention a GIA proposal that coincided with the Red Lake River corridor for over 12 miles. Putting a motorized linear facility on top of an important linear ecological feature and canoe route is an inherent conflict. It should be made clear that there are some GIA proposals that will not be funded by the DNR, and this is a good example. 8. Increase Conservation Officer presence to insure adequate regulation and enforcement. Furthermore, objective data should be collected on the difficulty of enforcement, whether current enforcement equipment is adequate, and whether current penalties and enforcement techniques are functioning as an adequate deterrent. Operating OHVs provides great enjoyment for many people, and a large part of this enjoyment comes from the inherent ability of the machines to go where other motorized vehicles cannot go. This use is causing environmental impacts that are difficult to regulate. However, the vast majority of users have no intention to harm the environment, nor are they indifferent to such impacts when they understand them as illustrated by efforts of some ATV clubs to self police and restore  damage. We believe current trends suggest an increasing proportion of trail users will be attracted to trails for strictly trail riding. This is one of the major observations of a large study of recreational impacts in the western United States. This study indicated serious consequences could result when users have little connection to the ecological value of these lands or connection to traditional uses such as hunting, fishing or other dispersed forms of outdoor recreation. The DNR will need different approaches to protecting natural resources if these trends prove accurate. Please give me a call if you have any questions. The Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association looks forward to discussing these matters with you in other forums, and thank you in advance for considering our recommendations. Sincerely, Jeanine Vorland, President Attachment c: Dave Schad, Lee Pfannmuller, Forrest Boe Attachment 1 LETTER FROM CONSERVATION GROUPS ON OHV’S Re: Pressure for Township Roads Through State Wildlife Management Areas Dear Commissioner Merriam and Messrs. Schad, Carroll, Simon, and Telander: We have been following an effort to take control away from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) over several routes through the Beaches Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA). We are aware that Kittson County’s desire is to establish the disputed routes as township roads. We understand the DNR for years has given trucks and ATVs access along some of these routes in this WMA for deer retrieval purposes during deer season, but that due to recent ATV trespass and resource damage off the ditch routes and outside of deer season, wildlife staff in the field want to restrict ATV use in and through the WMA. We are concerned that a change in course by the DNR now, to give the County control over these routes as township roads, will increase ATV trespass in Beaches Lake WMA, encourage more demands in Kittson and other counties, and set a precedent in how DNR responds to demands for motorized access in and through State WMAs. Generations of hunters and anglers have built and defended Minnesota’s WMA system. WMAs are established for public hunting, and to protect lands and waters which have a high potential for wildlife production. WMAs must be managed consistent with perpetuating and reestablishing quality wildlife habitat for maximum production of a variety of wildlife species. Physical development on WMAs, which includes providing access to the WMA for public hunting, fishing, trapping, and for other compatible outdoor recreational uses, must minimize intrusion on the natural environment. DNR provides truck access along ditch spoil banks inside the WMA, and DNR is obligated to manage that access to minimize intrusion on the natural environment. DNR’s aim is to allow trucks and exclude ATVs, because ATV trespass, crosscountry travel, and wetland damage have been occurring. These activities are inconsistent with WMA management of habitat for the maximum production of a variety of wildlife species. The County’s stated intention – to establish the disputed routes as township roads, take control of these routes inside the WMA out of the DNR’s hands, and allow all motorized traffic through the WMA – is not compatible with the purpose of the WMA because it will lead to increased ATV traffic, increased opportunities for ATV trespass and resource damage. We oppose turning what are DNR administered and managed routes in a State WMA into township roads, either by agreeing that they are township roads or by inviting the county to request easements for a new township road, without a clear showing of sufficient evidence to support the County’s contention that the disputed routes are in fact township roads. DNR should not divest itself of authority to make motorized traffic management decisions necessary to protect habitat and natural resources on the WMA. We ask that you not give up management authority on routes where they pass through the WMA, unless you receive firm and specific documentation for each contested route that it is a township road rather than a DNR administered drainage ditch spoil bank. We also ask that you make no decision leading to the establishment of township roads or County authority over disputed routes, without first discussing the matter with the community of Minnesota hunters and anglers who have fought to create and protect our WMAs. Sincerely yours, Lance Ness, President for Fish & Wildlife Legislative Alliance Chairman, WMA Acquisition Committee Gordie Meyer, President for Minnesota Conservation Federation Tom Glines, Senior Regional Director for National Wild Turkey Federation Kevin Proescholdt for Izaak Walton League of America – Midwest Office Paul Becka, President for Minnesota Bass Federation Nation Brad Nylin, Director of Development Bill Kemp, President of the Board for Minnesota Waterfowl Association Bill Henke, President for Minnesota Division of the Izaak Walton League of America Elliott Olson, Acting Chair for Minnesota State Council of Trout Unlimited Martha Brand, Executive Director for Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Ralph Cinfio, Senior Regional Director for Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Letter from Commissioner Merriam to MFWEA February 24, 2006 To: Fish and Wildlife Employees Association Members I wish that I could be there in Brainerd with you in person. Unfortunately, a schedule conflict prevented me from being able to accept your invitation this time. These are exciting times for fish and wildlife in Minnesota. First of all, we are so happy that Dave Schad accepted the promotion to become Director of the DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Division. We are confident that he will do a great job of helping us all work together with our partners to advance the DNR’s mission, serve the public and protect the resource. Dave has risen through the Fish and Wildlife ranks, and we appreciate how you have been supporting him already in his new role. I will conclude with one request. Please take a minute from time to time to ask yourself if there is anything more that we could all do to strengthen our connection to the people we serve. As individuals and as an agency, we should be responsive to the public. After all, we work for them as we conserve and enhance our natural resources. Please help us strengthen that connection to the public in your area. And finally, thank you for all that you do to advance the DNR’s mission. Sincerely, Gene Merriam Letter from MFWEA regarding Division of Waters funding February 10, 2006 The Honorable Senator John Marty, Chair Minnesota Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee The Honorable Dennis Ozment, Chair Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee The Honorable Tom Hackbarth, Chair Minnesota House of Representatives Environment and Natural Resources Committee Dear Senator Marty, Representative Ozment, and Representative Hackbarth: Our organization is pleased with the current attention being given to natural resources problems in Minnesota, and with the serious discussions about funding solutions. We are aware that a number of proposals, if enacted, will benefit fish, wildlife, and natural plant communities. Members of our organization who currently are employed look forward to their role in these efforts. This letter is to call your attention to a particular problem that our membership strongly believes should be addressed in these discussions. The problem is highly relevant to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat in Minnesota, but also is one that might be overlooked. The problem is that there is a shortage of funding for field staff of the Division of Waters in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  These individuals work closely with fish and wildlife staff on many day to day issues that result in protection and enhancement of habitat. Furthermore, these DNR staff are often the lead and primary contact with local units of government. Clearly, they are the lead DNR personnel on shoreland regulations, and therefore directly work to protect important shoreline and offshore fish and wildlife habitat. In doing this work, they establish close working relationships with counties and municipalities. Their work with developers and those who need DNR permits prior to permits being applied for also  helps in significantly reducing impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. Often, the most important progress in protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat is made at the local grassroots and community level. This is where these DNR staff provides some of the most effective work. As just one small example of many of their valuable contributions to fish and wildlife habitat, in my part of the state (Northwest Minnesota), the Division of Waters recently set up a meeting between counties to allow them to compare notes and discuss with the DNR how improvements in existing shoreland regulations could protect valuable lakeshore habitat. Another example is their work with watershed districts all over the state. This sort of work is labor intensive but pays off greatly in the long run.   The membership of our organization consists of current and retired  employees of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the Division of Ecological Services. We are an independent, external organization to the DNR. Please note that opinions and positions expressed by our organization are not the official opinions or positions of the DNR. Last February at our annual meeting, a unanimous resolution was passed affirming the views expressed here, and giving the President direction to send this letter prior to the convening of the 2006 Legislative session. The support for this resolution comes from the experience of our members in observing the heavy work loads of Division of Waters staff, and their direct experience with the good work that this staff accomplishes. Our members feel this work is essential and is desired by the public. It is our consensus that, because of the staff shortage in the Division of Waters, we are missing important opportunities to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. We are aware that there are always competing needs for scarce public funds. However, we are also aware that the discussions and decisions to be made in the next several months may chart the course for the foreseeable future regarding natural resources in Minnesota. We ask that our views here be given careful consideration. Thank you very much for your consideration of our views. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul Stolen, 20052006 President c: Governor Tim Pawlenty Mark Holsten Senator Tom Saxhaug Kent Lokkesmoe Senator Pat Pariseau Dave Schad Representative David Dill Lee Pfannmuller Representative Carlos Mariani Gene Merriam email the president: president@mfwea.org email the editor: johuber51@yahoo.comLegislative Status of Bills related to ATVs S.F. No. 2096, Conference Committee Report - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008)   Posted on May 03, 2007 1.1CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON S.F. No. 2096 84.777 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE OF STATE LANDS RESTRICTED. 49.16    Subdivision 1. Designated trails. (a) Except as otherwise allowed by law or rules 49.17adopted by the commissioner, effective June 1, 2003, notwithstanding sections 84.787 49.18to 84.805 and 84.92 to 84.929, the use of off-highway vehicles is prohibited on state 49.19land administered by the commissioner of natural resources, and on county-administered 49.20forest land within the boundaries of a state forest, except on roads and trails specifically 49.21designated and posted by the commissioner for use by off-highway vehicles. 49.22    (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to county-administered land within a state forest if 49.23the county board adopts a resolution that modifies restrictions on the use of off-highway 49.24vehicles on county-administered land within the forest. 49.25    Subd. 2. Off-highway vehicle seasons. (a) The commissioner shall prescribe 49.26seasons for off-highway vehicle use on state forest lands. Except for designated forest 49.27roads, a person must not operate an off-highway vehicle on state forest lands outside of 49.28the seasons prescribed under this paragraph. 49.29    (b) The commissioner may designate and post winter trails on state forest lands 49.30for use by off-highway vehicles. 49.31    (c) For the purposes of this subdivision, "state forest lands" means forest lands under 49.32the authority of the commissioner as defined in section 89.001, subdivision 13, and lands 49.33managed by the commissioner under section 282.011. 50.1    Subd. 3. Mapped trails. Except as provided in sections 84.926 and 84.928, after 50.2completion of off-highway vehicle maps for the area, a person must not operate an 50.3off-highway vehicle on state land that is not mapped for the type of off-highway vehicle. 50.4    Subd. 4. Exemption from rulemaking. Determinations of the commissioner under 50.5this section may be by written order published in the State Register and are exempt from 50.6the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14. Section 14.386 does not apply. 50.7    Sec. 24. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 84.780, is amended to read: 50.884.780 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DAMAGE ACCOUNT. 50.9    (a) The off-highway vehicle damage account is created in the natural resources fund. 50.10Money in the off-highway vehicle damage account is appropriated to the commissioner of 50.11natural resources for the repair or restoration of property damaged by the illegal operation 50.12of off-highway vehicles or the operation of off-highway vehicles in an unpermitted area 50.13after August 1, 2003, and for the costs of administration for this section. Before the 50.14commissioner may make a payment from this account, the commissioner must determine 50.15whether the damage to the property was caused by the unpermitted or illegal use of 50.16off-highway vehicles, that the applicant has made reasonable efforts to identify the 50.17responsible individual and obtain payment from the individual, and that the applicant has 50.18made reasonable efforts to prevent reoccurrence. By June 30, 2008, the commissioner of 50.19finance must transfer the remaining balance in the account to the off-highway motorcycle 50.20account under section 84.794, the off-road vehicle account under section 84.803, and the 50.21all-terrain vehicle account under section 84.927. The amount transferred to each account 50.22must be proportionate to the amounts received in the damage account from the relevant 50.23off-highway vehicle accounts. 50.24    (b) Determinations of the commissioner under this section may be made by written 50.25order and are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14. Section 14.386 50.26does not apply. 50.27    (c) This section expires July 1, 2008 Money in the account is available until 50.28expended. 50.29    Sec. 25. [84.8045] RESTRICTIONS ON OFF-ROAD VEHICLE TRAILS. 50.30    Notwithstanding any provision of sections 84.797 to 84.805 or other law to the 50.31contrary, the commissioner shall not permit land administered by the commissioner in 50.32Cass, Crow Wing, and Hubbard Counties to be used or developed for trails primarily for 50.33off-road vehicles as defined in section 84.797, subdivision 7, except: 50.34    (1) upon approval by the legislature; or 51.1    (2) in designated off-road vehicle use areas. 51.2EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.    Sec. 26. [84.9011] OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE SAFETY AND CONSERVATION 51.4PROGRAM. 51.5    Subdivision 1. Creation. The commissioner of natural resources shall establish 51.6a program to promote the safe and responsible operation of off-highway vehicles in a 51.7manner that does not harm the environment. 51.8    Subd. 2. Agreements. (a) The commissioner shall enter into agreements with 51.9organizations for volunteer services that promote the safe and responsible operation 51.10of off-highway vehicles in a manner that does not harm the environment to maintain, 51.11make improvements to, and monitor trails on state forest land and other public lands. 51.12The organizations shall promote the operation of off-highway vehicles in a safe and 51.13responsible manner that complies with the laws and rules that relate to the operation 51.14of off-highway vehicles. 51.15    (b) The organizations may provide assistance to the department in locating, 51.16recruiting, and training instructors for off-highway vehicle training programs. 51.17    (c) The commissioner may provide assistance to enhance the comfort and safety 51.18of volunteers and to facilitate the implementation and administration of the safety and 51.19conservation program. 51.20    (d) The commissioner shall establish standards, train, and certify organizations and 51.21individuals participating as volunteers under this section. The training shall include: 51.22    (1) the identification of invasive species; 51.23    (2) correctly reporting the location of invasive species; and 51.24    (3) basic global positioning system operation. 51.25    Subd. 3. Worker displacement prohibited. The commissioner may not enter into 51.26any agreement that has the purpose of or results in the displacement of public employees 51.27by volunteers participating in the off-highway safety and conservation program under 51.28this section. The commissioner must certify to the appropriate bargaining agent that the 51.29work performed by a volunteer will not result in the displacement of currently employed 51.30workers or workers on seasonal layoff or layoff from a substantially equivalent position, 51.31including partial displacement such as reduction in hours of nonovertime work, wages, or 51.32other employment benefits. 52.1    Subd. 4. Off-Highway Vehicle Safety Advisory Council. (a) The commissioner 52.2of natural resources shall appoint an Off-Highway Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to 52.3advise the commissioner on: 52.4    (1) off-highway vehicle safety; and 52.5    (2) standards and certification for organizations and individuals participating as 52.6volunteers under this section.   52.7    Sec. 27. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 84.922, subdivision 1a, is amended to read: 52.8    Subd. 1a. Exemptions. All-terrain vehicles exempt from registration are: 52.9    (1) vehicles owned and used by the United States, the state, another state, or a 52.10political subdivision; 52.11    (2) vehicles registered in another state or country that have not been in this state 52.12for more than 30 consecutive days; and 52.13    (3) vehicles used exclusively in organized track racing events; and 52.14    (4) vehicles that are 25 years old or older and were originally produced as a separate 52.15identifiable make by a manufacturer. 52.16    Sec. 28. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 84.922, subdivision 5, is amended to read: 52.17    Subd. 5. Fees for registration. (a) The fee for a three-year registration of 52.18an all-terrain vehicle under this section, other than those registered by a dealer or 52.19manufacturer under paragraph (b) or (c), is: 52.20    (1) for public use before January 1, 2005, $23; 52.21    (2) for public use on January 1, 2005, and after, $30 $45; 52.22    (3) (2) for private use, $6; and 52.23    (4) (3) for a duplicate or transfer, $4. 52.24    (b) The total registration fee for all-terrain vehicles owned by a dealer and operated 52.25for demonstration or testing purposes is $50 per year. Dealer registrations are not 52.26transferable. 52.27    (c) The total registration fee for all-terrain vehicles owned by a manufacturer and 52.28operated for research, testing, experimentation, or demonstration purposes is $150 per 52.29year. Manufacturer registrations are not transferable. 52.30    (d) The fees collected under this subdivision must be credited to the all-terrain 52.31vehicle account. 52.32EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective January 1, 2008. 52.33    Sec. 29. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 84.927, subdivision 2, is amended to read: 53.1    Subd. 2. Purposes. Subject to appropriation by the legislature, money in the 53.2all-terrain vehicle account may only be spent for: 53.3    (1) the education and training program under section 84.925; 53.4    (2) administration, enforcement, and implementation of sections 84.773 to 84.929; 53.5    (3) acquisition, maintenance, and development of vehicle trails and use areas; 53.6    (4) grant-in-aid programs to counties and municipalities to construct and maintain 53.7all-terrain vehicle trails and use areas; 53.8    (5) grants-in-aid to local safety programs; and 53.9    (6) enforcement and public education grants to local law enforcement agencies.; and 53.10    (7) maintenance of minimum-maintenance forest roads designated under section 53.1189.71, subdivision 5, and county forest roads that are part of a designated trail system 53.12within state forest boundaries as established under section 89.021. 53.13    The distribution of funds made available through grant-in-aid programs must be 53.14guided by the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. St. Louis County Board    Seven people are elected as St. Louis County Commissioners, serving staggered four year terms. Commissioners work to provide services to people and communities while overseeing the cost of such services. The St. Louis County Board meets the first and second Tuesday each month at 9:30 a.m. in the Duluth Courthouse. The fourth Tuesday of each month, the Board meets in Ely, Hibbing, or Virginia. St. Louis County Board Meetings are broadcast on Duluth-Superior Public Access Television channel 50 at 7:30 p.m. each Wednesday. They are also aired on Chisholm, Ely, Hermantown, Proctor, and Hibbing Public Access Television; please check your local cable company for times. County Administrator, Dana Frey (218) 726-2448 Deputy Administrator, Gary Eckenberg (218) 726-2447 4th District Commissioner Mike Forsman, Vice Chair Government Services Center 118 South 4th Avenue East Ely, MN  55731 (218) 365-8200   7th District Commissioner Steve Raukar Hibbing Courthouse 1810 12th Avenue East Hibbing, MN  55746 (218) 262-0201   5th District Commissioner Peg Sweeney Room 208 100 N. 5th Avenue West Duluth, MN  55802 (218) 726-2450

http://www.mfwea.org/resolutionsletters.html

Members of the Fish and Wildlife Employees Association

September 12, 2006
Commissioner Gene Merriam
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota

Dear Commissioner Merriam:

I am writing on behalf of the members of the Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association
to continue our dialogue on offhighway vehicles (OHV) issues. We see improvements regarding
these issues and but also continuing serious problems. We are writing this letter both as followup
from previous discussions with you, and in preparation for the Legislative session that begins in
January.
I sincerely thank you for attending our Annual Meeting in 2005 and especially for meeting in
Brainerd in 2005 with several wildlife managers to discuss internal handling of OHV trail issues.
The participants were pleased with the meetings and with your thoughtful questions and
responses.
The management of recreational OHV use, especially on Minnesota’s public conservation lands
and rightofways, remains a high priority issue for our organization. I have talked to a number of
people since these meetings to obtain their opinions about OHV trail issues in Minnesota. The
feelings are that the significant internal problems discussed at the 2005 Minnesota Fish and
Wildlife Employees Association and the Brainerd managers meetings have been reduced. Thank
you for your continuing efforts to resolve the problems and for the improved management of
these issues. Nevertheless, we believe there are still major problems with management of
recreational OHV use on the Minnesota landscape. It is imperative the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) fully engages with the current problems that beset OHV issues in Minnesota.
We feel we can speak with some authority on the topic of OHVs and their effects on public lands
and rightofways and fisheries and wildlife resources. Our members and other current and retired
employees from Fisheries and Wildlife and Ecological Services live and work in many
communities statewide. They have professional and personal relationships with individuals in
other states where there are also recreational OHV conflicts with conservation objectives.
Collectively, we have broad experience with Minnesota’s and other states’ natural resources, and
the impacts to them. Finally, since we have roots in so many communities, we have a good idea
what all the public is thinking and saying about these topics.
We believe the DNR is best suited for identifying problems, solutions, and for speaking frankly to
the public and Legislature. Thorough research and communication will reestablish
the credibility of the Department as stewards of our fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems.
We fully understand that the DNR operates under legislative direction concerning establishing
OHV trails in Minnesota state forests, wildlife management areas (WMAs) and establishing grantinaid
(GIA) trails. However, there are many discretionary choices to be made within this
framework. We have identified four major problem areas concerning OHV management in
Minnesota.
1. Current Minnesota statutes regarding OHV policies are not protecting Minnesota natural
resources. We are especially concerned that Minnesota places few limits on use in the northern part of the state with respect to allterrain vehicle operation in state forests as well as the extensive operations within road rightsofway. The related matter of attempts in some of the northern counties to convert drainage ditch grades in currently high value wildlife habitat areas (and even WMAs) into public roads and OHV routes without adequate review of impacts is also a serious concern. The silence of the Department regarding the serious problems, true costs, and difficulty of managing OHV recreation makes it difficult for the public to understand the problems, make informed decisions and insist that the Legislature change the statutes.
2. The "Managed" category for OHV travel in State Forests, i.e., OHV travel anywhere on existing trails unless they are posted closed, is difficult and costly to manage, and largely unenforceable. Exemptions for hunting and trapping are problematic and may lead to trail proliferation.
3. The Department of Natural Resources has not adequately explored the environmental impacts of OHVs. Consequently, although there has been significant progress, there is still not adequate consensus within the DNR about adverse environmental impacts.
4. We are concerned the Department is not doing enough communicating internally or with
the general public about what is already known about the environmental impacts of OHVs
and about what use rates and maintenance needs are ahead after trails are mapped and
advertised nationally. We wish to have greater public leadership from the Department in
describing these impacts to the public.
The OHV issue was discussed again at the 2006 annual meeting of our Association in February.
We discussed how to communicate better with the public and with DNR staff about the
seriousness of the environmental impacts of OHVs, and passed a resolution on these topics. It is
enclosed as Attachment 1.
We believe there is opportunity for the Department to make great progress within the existing
legislation. We have a number of specific suggestions that address problems and the items
contained in our 2006 resolution. We believe our suggestions will help reduce the
contentiousness over motorized recreation in Minnesota by, as you aptly mentioned during the
2005 Annual Meeting, improving the DNR’s ability to obtain "the consent of the governed." They
will help reduce impacts of OHVs while still carrying out Legislative policy.
You will note there are several references in these recommendations to preparing information
and reports. These will be public information, and this is a deliberate recommendation from us.
The OHV challenge to the maintenance and protection of natural resources is one of the most
important issues to come along in a number of years in Minnesota. It is our opinion that those
who pay our salaries deserve to hear from the resource professionals on this major natural
resource management issue. The Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association
recommends DNR implement the following actions.
1. Prepare a report to the Legislature that objectively analyzes the difficulties of managing
the responsibilities given to the DNR in the existing legislation, referencing the other
responsibilities in the DNR to protect natural resources, manage state lands, and
coordinating with adjacent land managers (such as private, county, and federal lands). If
the authority or funds for such a report is not currently found in the DNR, a request
should be made to the Legislature for such authority and such funds for the 2007
session.
2. Avoid the use of the "managed" classification for OHV use in state forests until evidence
is gathered that this can be accomplished efficiently and without continued damage,
deterioration or proliferation of trails. The "Managed" classification for state forests places
resource managers in a position of being reactive and negative in efforts to preserve
resource values associated with nonmotorized
areas. This classification can result in
extensive habitat damage through trail misuse (closed signs are readily removed),
proliferation through exemptions, erosion, invasion of exotic species, and fragmentation
of remaining blocks of undisturbed habitats. It is difficult to stay ahead of problems and
effectively protect sensitive areas if ridership reaches critical levels. We believe the
"Limited" classification—OHV travel on posted trails—fully meets OHV recreational
needs, allows managers to be proactive in protecting other resource values and
affirmative in providing recreational riding opportunities. The "Limited" classification is
substantially more manageable and enforceable.
3. Prepare an interim review of the impacts of OHVs on fish and wildlife resources,
ecosystems and habitats. The report should be suitable for public use and based on a
literature review of uptodate
information. Those drafting the report should have an
educational background in ecology, fisheries, or wildlife. After a report is prepared, it
should be introduced to the public via public informational sessions in areas where OHV
proposals have been common and specifically for OHV proposals for WMAs and other
ecologically sensitive lands. Public comments should be solicited, and suggestions from
the public on additional analysis should be welcomed. Data needs and other topics
should be identified to be addressed a longterm
study. The internal review necessary for
the preparation of such a report will help in the continued effort to develop the needed
internal consensus regarding impacts of OHVs.
4. Review impacts of establishing township roads on ditch spoil banks in sensitive riparian
habitats on public conservation lands. We note that Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board rules require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for creation of a new road
over a mile in length. Resolution of this issue on state WMAs and state forests should be
accomplished carefully and publicly on a factual basis of proof that actual roads exist and
that they are suitable for long term use as public roadways for motorized vehicles. Due
regard must be given for other state laws and policies, and policies in other parts of the
state, lest precedents be set that allows creation of essentially new roads through
important habitats without adequate review or mitigation.
5. Provide projected traffic levels and anticipated additional trail requests for each
trail/system proposal, whether they are GIA trails or trails on public lands. This is needed
in order to adequately design trails to withstand projected traffic levels, provide for
maintenance, and to determine levels of disturbance and impacts to wildlife species and
habitats. The DNR did a study of OHV trail demands several years ago, and there are
existing trails in other locations in the US and Canada where data on forecasted traffic
levels can be obtained. This information is essential to determine potential impacts and is
crucial information for resource managers and other landowners who must make
decisions about permanent GIA trails proposed to cross their lands.
6. Request additional funds from the Legislature or shift existing funds from the existing
OHV budgets to obtain data about: a) environmental impacts of existing uses, including
cost of repairing such impacts; b) environmental impacts of trails as they become
established (including illegal trails); c) an objective review of enforcement and
maintenance needs; and d) an objective review of alternative riding opportunities, for
example, should some of the uses currently being born by trails on state forests and
other public lands be directed to dedicated scramble areas specifically suited to OHV
recreation. This study will be highly significant given the geographic extent of ongoing
and expanding damage to Minnesota’s public lands; therefore, it will likely need a
Legislative request.
7. Do the public relations necessary to prepare for turning down some trail proposals based
on an inherent conflict with natural resource values. For example, last year we brought to
your attention a GIA proposal that coincided with the Red Lake River corridor for over 12
miles. Putting a motorized linear facility on top of an important linear ecological feature
and canoe route is an inherent conflict. It should be made clear that there are some GIA
proposals that will not be funded by the DNR, and this is a good example.
8. Increase Conservation Officer presence to insure adequate regulation and enforcement.
Furthermore, objective data should be collected on the difficulty of enforcement, whether
current enforcement equipment is adequate, and whether current penalties and
enforcement techniques are functioning as an adequate deterrent.
Operating OHVs provides great enjoyment for many people, and a large part of this enjoyment
comes from the inherent ability of the machines to go where other motorized vehicles cannot go.
This use is causing environmental impacts that are difficult to regulate. However, the vast majority
of users have no intention to harm the environment, nor are they indifferent to such impacts when
they understand them as illustrated by efforts of some ATV clubs to self police and restore
damage.
We believe current trends suggest an increasing proportion of trail users will be attracted to trails
for strictly trail riding. This is one of the major observations of a large study of recreational
impacts in the western United States. This study indicated serious consequences could result
when users have little connection to the ecological value of these lands or connection to
traditional uses such as hunting, fishing or other dispersed forms of outdoor recreation. The DNR
will need different approaches to protecting natural resources if these trends prove accurate.
Please give me a call if you have any questions. The Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees
Association looks forward to discussing these matters with you in other forums, and thank you in
advance for considering our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Jeanine Vorland, President
Attachment
c: Dave Schad, Lee Pfannmuller, Forrest Boe
Attachment 1
A Resolution Regarding the Establishment of Recreational Use Areas for OffHighway
Vehicles
Whereas offhighway
vehicles have the ability to traverse terrains previously unavailable for the
operation of most vehicles.
Whereas the adverse environmental impacts of motorized vehicles and road and trails used for
motorized vehicle traffic are well documented and understood in the ecological scientific
community.
Whereas the obvious damage caused by the operation of offhighway
vehicles, such as erosion
and direct wetland encroachment is generally acknowledged, impacts from offhighway
vehicles
caused by disturbance, habitat loss, fragmentation of habitats, cumulative and cascading
impacts, zones of impact along trails, and seasonal impacts during sensitive times are not broadly
understood or recognized by operators of offhighway
vehicles and the general public.
Whereas the popular use of offhighway
vehicle traffic is causing environmental impacts that are
difficult to regulate.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resources is an important and highly regarded source of
information about the environment and potential threats to Minnesota’s natural resources.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resources operates under constitutional and legislative
direction to conserve fish, wildlife, forest and water resources for present and future generations.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resources operates under legislative direction requiring
regulation of the use of offhighway
vehicles and requiring establishing offhighway
vehicle trails
in Minnesota State Forests and establishing GrantinAid
trails.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resource has many discretionary choices concerning the
establishment of offhighway
vehicle use areas and trails as well as the dissemination of
information about potential environmental impacts of these decisions.
Whereas a determined effort devoted toward education about potential environmental impacts
from offhighway
vehicle uses is imperative for resource professionals to make appropriate
choices regarding the siting of offhighway
vehicle use areas that will provide for an adequate
level of resource protection and be endorsed and supported by the general public.
Therefore be it resolved that the Fish and Wildlife Employees Association requests the
Department of Natural Resources implement the following strategies to improve internal and
external understanding the adverse impacts of offhighway
vehicle operation:
1. Prepare an interim review of the adverse impacts of offhighway
vehicles on the
environment that is suitable for public use and is based on a literature review of
uptodate
information. Those drafting the report should have an educational
background in fisheries, wildlife, and ecology.
2. Include projected traffic levels and anticipated additional trail requests for each
trail/system proposal, whether they are GrantinAid
trails or trails in state forests.
3. Request to the Legislature for additional funds to obtain data about
environmental impacts of existing uses, monitoring impacts of trails as they
become established, a general study of offhighway
vehicle impacts, and an
objective review of enforcement needs.
Implement public relations strategies necessary to prepare for turning down some trail proposals
based on an inherent conflict with natural resource values.
LETTER FROM CONSERVATION GROUPS ON OHV’S
Re: Pressure for Township Roads Through State Wildlife Management Areas
Dear Commissioner Merriam and Messrs. Schad, Carroll, Simon, and Telander:
We have been following an effort to take control away from the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) over several routes through the Beaches Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA). We are
aware that Kittson County’s desire is to establish the disputed routes as township roads. We
understand the DNR for years has given trucks and ATVs access along some of these routes in
this WMA for deer retrieval purposes during deer season, but that due to recent ATV trespass
and resource damage off the ditch routes and outside of deer season, wildlife staff in the field
want to restrict ATV use in and through the WMA. We are concerned that a change in course by
the DNR now, to give the County control over these routes as township roads, will increase ATV
trespass in Beaches Lake WMA, encourage more demands in Kittson and other counties, and set
a precedent in how DNR responds to demands for motorized access in and through State WMAs.
Generations of hunters and anglers have built and defended Minnesota’s WMA system. WMAs
are established for public hunting, and to protect lands and waters which have a high potential for
wildlife production. WMAs must be managed consistent with perpetuating and reestablishing
quality wildlife habitat for maximum production of a variety of wildlife species. Physical
development on WMAs, which includes providing access to the WMA for public hunting, fishing,
trapping, and for other compatible outdoor recreational uses, must minimize intrusion on the
natural environment.
DNR provides truck access along ditch spoil banks inside the WMA, and DNR is obligated to
manage that access to minimize intrusion on the natural environment. DNR’s aim is to allow
trucks and exclude ATVs, because ATV trespass, crosscountry
travel, and wetland damage
have been occurring. These activities are inconsistent with WMA management of habitat for the
maximum production of a variety of wildlife species. The County’s stated intention – to establish
the disputed routes as township roads, take control of these routes inside the WMA out of the
DNR’s hands, and allow all motorized traffic through the WMA – is not compatible with the
purpose of the WMA because it will lead to increased ATV traffic, increased opportunities for ATV
trespass and resource damage.
We oppose turning what are DNRadministered
and managed routes in a State WMA into
township roads, either by agreeing that they are township roads or by inviting the county to
request easements for a new township road, without a clear showing of sufficient evidence to
support the County’s contention that the disputed routes are in fact township roads. DNR should
not divest itself of authority to make motorized traffic management decisions necessary to protect
habitat and natural resources on the WMA. We ask that you not give up management authority
on routes where they pass through the WMA, unless you receive firm and specific documentation
for each contested route that it is a township road rather than a DNRadministered
drainage ditch
spoil bank. We also ask that you make no decision leading to the establishment of township
roads or County authority over disputed routes, without first discussing the matter with the
community of Minnesota hunters and anglers who have fought to create and protect our WMAs.
Sincerely yours,
Lance Ness, President
for Fish & Wildlife Legislative Alliance
Chairman, WMA Acquisition Committee
Gordie Meyer, President
for Minnesota Conservation Federation
Tom Glines, Senior Regional Director
for National Wild Turkey Federation
Kevin Proescholdt
for Izaak Walton League of America – Midwest Office
Paul Becka, President
for Minnesota Bass Federation Nation
Brad Nylin, Director of Development
Bill Kemp, President of the Board
for Minnesota Waterfowl Association
Bill Henke, President
for Minnesota Division of the Izaak Walton League of America
Elliott Olson, Acting Chair
for Minnesota State Council of Trout Unlimited
Martha Brand, Executive Director
for Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Ralph Cinfio, Senior Regional Director
for Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Letter from Commissioner Merriam to MFWEA
February 24, 2006
To: Fish and Wildlife Employees Association Members
I wish that I could be there in Brainerd with you in person. Unfortunately, a schedule
conflict prevented me from being able to accept your invitation this time.
These are exciting times for fish and wildlife in Minnesota.
First of all, we are so happy that Dave Schad accepted the promotion to become Director
of the DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Division. We are confident that he will do a great job of
helping us all work together with our partners to advance the DNR’s mission, serve the
public and protect the resource.
Dave has risen through the Fish and Wildlife ranks, and we appreciate how you have
been supporting him already in his new role.
I will conclude with one request.
Please take a minute from time to time to ask yourself if there is anything more that we
could all do to strengthen our connection to the people we serve. As individuals and as
an agency, we should be responsive to the public. After all, we work for them as we
conserve and enhance our natural resources. Please help us strengthen that connection to
the public in your area.
And finally, thank you for all that you do to advance the DNR’s mission.
Sincerely,
Gene Merriam
Letter from MFWEA regarding Division of Waters funding
February 10, 2006
The Honorable Senator John Marty, Chair
Minnesota Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee
The Honorable Dennis Ozment, Chair
Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee
The Honorable Tom Hackbarth, Chair
Minnesota House of Representatives Environment and Natural Resources
Committee
Dear Senator Marty, Representative Ozment, and Representative Hackbarth:
Our organization is pleased with the current attention being given to natural resources problems in
Minnesota, and with the serious discussions about funding solutions. We are aware that a number
of proposals, if enacted, will benefit fish, wildlife, and natural plant communities. Members of our
organization who currently are employed look forward to their role in these efforts. This letter is to
call your attention to a particular problem that our membership strongly believes should be
addressed in these discussions. The problem is highly relevant to the protection of fish and wildlife
habitat in Minnesota, but also is one that might be overlooked.
The problem is that there is a shortage of funding for field staff of the Division of Waters in the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These individuals work closely with fish and wildlife staff
on many daytoday
issues that result in protection and enhancement of habitat. Furthermore,
these DNR staff are often the lead and primary contact with local units of government. Clearly, they
are the lead DNR personnel on shoreland regulations, and therefore directly work to protect
important shoreline and offshore fish and wildlife habitat. In doing this work, they establish close
working relationships with counties and municipalities. Their work with developers and those who
need DNR permitsprior
to permits being applied foralso
helps in significantly reducing impacts to
fish and wildlife habitat.
Often, the most important progress in protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat is made at
the local grassroots
and community level. This is where these DNR staff provides some of the
most effective work. As just one small example of many of their valuable contributions to fish and
wildlife habitat, in my part of the state (Northwest Minnesota), the Division of Waters recently set
up a meeting between counties to allow them to compare notes and discuss with the DNR how
improvements in existing shoreland regulations could protect valuable lakeshore habitat. Another
example is their work with watershed districts all over the state. This sort of work is labor intensive
but pays off greatly in the long run.
The membership of our organization consists of current and retired employees of the Division of
Fish and Wildlife, and the Division of Ecological Services. We are an independent, external
organization to the DNR. Please note that opinions and positions expressed by our organization
are not the official opinions or positions of the DNR.
Last February at our annual meeting, a unanimous resolution was passed affirming the views
expressed here, and giving the President direction to send this letter prior to the convening of the
2006 Legislative session. The support for this resolution comes from the experience of our
members in observing the heavy work loads of Division of Waters staff, and their direct experience
with the good work that this staff accomplishes. Our members feel this work is essential and is
desired by the public. It is our consensus that, because of the staff shortage in the Division of
Waters, we are missing important opportunities to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.
We are aware that there are always competing needs for scarce public funds. However, we are
also aware that the discussions and decisions to be made in the next several months may chart
the course for the foreseeable future regarding natural resources in Minnesota. We ask that our
views here be given careful consideration.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our views. Please give me a call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Stolen, 20052006
President
c: Governor Tim Pawlenty Mark Holsten
Senator Tom Saxhaug Kent Lokkesmoe
Senator Pat Pariseau Dave Schad
Representative David Dill Lee Pfannmuller
Representative Carlos Mariani
Gene Merriam
email
the president: president@mfwea.org
email
the editor: johuber51@yahoo.comLegislative Status of Bills related to ATVs

S.F. No. 2096, Conference Committee Report - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008)   Posted on May 03, 2007

1.1CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON S.F. No. 2096

84.777 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE OF STATE LANDS RESTRICTED.
49.16    Subdivision 1. Designated trails. (a) Except as otherwise allowed by law or rules
49.17adopted by the commissioner, effective June 1, 2003, notwithstanding sections 84.787
49.18to 84.805 and 84.92 to 84.929, the use of off-highway vehicles is prohibited on state
49.19land administered by the commissioner of natural resources, and on county-administered
49.20forest land within the boundaries of a state forest, except on roads and trails specifically
49.21designated and posted by the commissioner for use by off-highway vehicles.
49.22    (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to county-administered land within a state forest if
49.23the county board adopts a resolution that modifies restrictions on the use of off-highway
49.24vehicles on county-administered land within the forest.
49.25    Subd. 2. Off-highway vehicle seasons. (a) The commissioner shall prescribe
49.26seasons for off-highway vehicle use on state forest lands. Except for designated forest
49.27roads, a person must not operate an off-highway vehicle on state forest lands outside of
49.28the seasons prescribed under this paragraph.
49.29    (b) The commissioner may designate and post winter trails on state forest lands
49.30for use by off-highway vehicles.
49.31    (c) For the purposes of this subdivision, "state forest lands" means forest lands under
49.32the authority of the commissioner as defined in section 89.001, subdivision 13, and lands
49.33managed by the commissioner under section 282.011.
50.1    Subd. 3. Mapped trails. Except as provided in sections 84.926 and 84.928, after
50.2completion of off-highway vehicle maps for the area, a person must not operate an
50.3off-highway vehicle on state land that is not mapped for the type of off-highway vehicle.
50.4    Subd. 4. Exemption from rulemaking. Determinations of the commissioner under
50.5this section may be by written order published in the State Register and are exempt from
50.6the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14. Section 14.386 does not apply.

50.7    Sec. 24. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 84.780, is amended to read:
50.884.780 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DAMAGE ACCOUNT.
50.9    (a) The off-highway vehicle damage account is created in the natural resources fund.
50.10Money in the off-highway vehicle damage account is appropriated to the commissioner of
50.11natural resources for the repair or restoration of property damaged by the illegal operation
50.12of off-highway vehicles or the operation of off-highway vehicles in an unpermitted area
50.13after August 1, 2003, and for the costs of administration for this section. Before the
50.14commissioner may make a payment from this account, the commissioner must determine
50.15whether the damage to the property was caused by the unpermitted or illegal use of
50.16off-highway vehicles, that the applicant has made reasonable efforts to identify the
50.17responsible individual and obtain payment from the individual, and that the applicant has
50.18made reasonable efforts to prevent reoccurrence. By June 30, 2008, the commissioner of
50.19finance must transfer the remaining balance in the account to the off-highway motorcycle
50.20account under section 84.794, the off-road vehicle account under section 84.803, and the
50.21all-terrain vehicle account under section 84.927. The amount transferred to each account
50.22must be proportionate to the amounts received in the damage account from the relevant
50.23off-highway vehicle accounts.
50.24    (b) Determinations of the commissioner under this section may be made by written
50.25order and are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14. Section 14.386
50.26does not apply.
50.27    (c) This section expires July 1, 2008 Money in the account is available until
50.28expended.

50.29    Sec. 25. [84.8045] RESTRICTIONS ON OFF-ROAD VEHICLE TRAILS.
50.30    Notwithstanding any provision of sections 84.797 to 84.805 or other law to the
50.31contrary, the commissioner shall not permit land administered by the commissioner in
50.32Cass, Crow Wing, and Hubbard Counties to be used or developed for trails primarily for
50.33off-road vehicles as defined in section 84.797, subdivision 7, except:
50.34    (1) upon approval by the legislature; or
51.1    (2) in designated off-road vehicle use areas.
51.2EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

 Sec. 26. [84.9011] OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE SAFETY AND CONSERVATION
51.4PROGRAM.
51.5    Subdivision 1. Creation. The commissioner of natural resources shall establish
51.6a program to promote the safe and responsible operation of off-highway vehicles in a
51.7manner that does not harm the environment.
51.8    Subd. 2. Agreements. (a) The commissioner shall enter into agreements with
51.9organizations for volunteer services that promote the safe and responsible operation
51.10of off-highway vehicles in a manner that does not harm the environment to maintain,
51.11make improvements to, and monitor trails on state forest land and other public lands.
51.12The organizations shall promote the operation of off-highway vehicles in a safe and
51.13responsible manner that complies with the laws and rules that relate to the operation
51.14of off-highway vehicles.
51.15    (b) The organizations may provide assistance to the department in locating,
51.16recruiting, and training instructors for off-highway vehicle training programs.
51.17    (c) The commissioner may provide assistance to enhance the comfort and safety
51.18of volunteers and to facilitate the implementation and administration of the safety and
51.19conservation program.
51.20    (d) The commissioner shall establish standards, train, and certify organizations and
51.21individuals participating as volunteers under this section. The training shall include:
51.22    (1) the identification of invasive species;
51.23    (2) correctly reporting the location of invasive species; and
51.24    (3) basic global positioning system operation.
51.25    Subd. 3. Worker displacement prohibited. The commissioner may not enter into
51.26any agreement that has the purpose of or results in the displacement of public employees
51.27by volunteers participating in the off-highway safety and conservation program under
51.28this section. The commissioner must certify to the appropriate bargaining agent that the
51.29work performed by a volunteer will not result in the displacement of currently employed
51.30workers or workers on seasonal layoff or layoff from a substantially equivalent position,
51.31including partial displacement such as reduction in hours of nonovertime work, wages, or
51.32other employment benefits.
52.1    Subd. 4. Off-Highway Vehicle Safety Advisory Council. (a) The commissioner
52.2of natural resources shall appoint an Off-Highway Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to
52.3advise the commissioner on:
52.4    (1) off-highway vehicle safety; and
52.5    (2) standards and certification for organizations and individuals participating as
52.6volunteers under this section.

St. Louis County Board

Seven people are elected as St. Louis County Commissioners, serving staggered four year terms. Commissioners work to provide services to people and communities while overseeing the cost of such services. The St. Louis County Board meets the first and second Tuesday each month at 9:30 a.m. in the Duluth Courthouse. The fourth Tuesday of each month, the Board meets in Ely, Hibbing, or Virginia. St. Louis County Board Meetings are broadcast on Duluth-Superior Public Access Television channel 50 at 7:30 p.m. each Wednesday. They are also aired on Chisholm, Ely, Hermantown, Proctor, and Hibbing Public Access Television; please check your local cable company for times. County Administrator, Dana Frey (218) 726-2448 Deputy Administrator, Gary Eckenberg (218) 726-2447 4th District Commissioner Mike Forsman, Vice Chair Government Services Center 118 South 4th Avenue East Ely, MN  55731 (218) 365-8200   7th District Commissioner Steve Raukar Hibbing Courthouse 1810 12th Avenue East Hibbing, MN  55746 (218) 262-0201   5th District Commissioner Peg Sweeney Room 208 100 N. 5th Avenue West Duluth, MN  55802 (218) 726-2450             3rd District Commissioner Bill Kron, Board Chair Room 208 100 N. 5th Avenue W. Duluth, MN  55802 (218) 726-2562