MN DNR Online Auction ends Sept 19th

Well this thread went a way I didn’t expect…but I jump in with my .02.

Most Civilized people would not murder, rape, burn or steal OUR fish, moose, bears, deer or grouse.

The ones that do get to face the DNR “thugs” that I help pay for.

Over the last 15+ years I have come to know many, many people that work for the DNR. More then I ever imagined just because I wanted to get a silly little bullhead length law changed. It took a long time, but it did get change. (See where I’m going with this Snap?)

Everyone that I’ve met in the DNR including enforcement have been courteous to a fault. They have homes, families, kids…lives too. They are people just like “most” of us.

I don’t think cast nets have been allowed in MN since prior to the ’60’s. When it was brought up to the DNR, it was shot down before the words came out of our mouths. With a little more discussion, and a ground of diehard anglers leading the testing, they allowed a 3 year trial. Today it’s a law that cast nets can be used on three rivers to capture shad. (certain rules apply)

When I started on Ido, my thought was like many, “DNR Bad”. Since then they’ve come out with electronic news releases that helps explain many of the things they do and the reasons behind it. Best thing they could of ever done.

Hell, MN and WI worked together to get the ANGLERS view on limits for the border waters! No science there! It was just to make the majority happy. Of course there were people complaining that they, the DNR shouldn’t allow people to make up the rules… Gawd, people are just never happy working within limits that the majority agreed on and the science to support it.

If you don’t like a law/rule/statute, do something about it!

</rant>

So, did anyone bid on anything?

Snap wrote:

What if the guy needed meat to feed his family?

Go fishing. It’s crazy I had to explain that.

Nothing in the auction was mine, but that’s only because I fought tooth and nail the false accusations made against me.

I was harrassed by MN DNR 3 years ago, had my hunting rights taken and my firearm taken. Took months to fight it and settle. Bottom line, there’s no oversight and they are not helping conservation in any way.

One person, a quarter mile away from me, was baiting deer (he admitted after the fact) without anyone else’s knowledge on our family property. DNR decided 6 people were guilty. This is clearly defined as hunter harrassment in the law book and should have been treated as such by MN DNR however they were very proud of their big “bust”. Imagine my surprise showing up to deer camp after not having been in st louis county for over 3 months and promptly having my rights and firearm taken from me. DNR could not produce anything resembling bait within a reasonable area of my deer stand. In fact the was a salt lick and some apples on public land over 1/4 mile away. DNR captain Shelly Patten “Well, since you don’t have any other options and I don’t have to send your gun to auction if I don’t feel like it, the only way you’ll ever get it back is by pleading guilty whether you had knowledge or not”.

I contacted a lawyer who specializes in DNR cases and guess what? “You’ll spend several thousand and likely have to plead guilty anyway if you ever want your gun back”. So thanks to him I guess for being honest with me.

St. Louis county prosecutor spoke with me about the matter after it was settled, said the DNR presence is saint louis county is well know to lie about guilty pleas and has in other instances decided that people are baiting with no evidence whatsoever. She said the MN DNR is out of control. This is a state prosecutor telling me this. Believe it if you want, I don’t care. But every time you enter the woods on opening day you are risking being falsely accused in order to fill a generate a good performance review for your local DNR captain.

So yeah, I don’t support their completely uncontrolled behavior. I’ll chalk my fight up to a win since I got a gun back that was very important to me. But I had to admit to something I didn’t do which feels disgusting. So it’s not a big win.

Best evidence of their lack of conservation: Mille Lacs. plain and simple.

fishingchallenged wrote:

Break the law, pay a price. I’m happy they auction the stuff off and get something out of it. Don’t most police departments destroy the guns they confiscate?

Or don’t break any laws and pay a price anyway? Just my first hand experience, it surely won’t matter to you and I hope it doesn’t happen to you one day but in MN there’s no guarantee it won’t.

Lucky they didn’t shoot you in the back.

Might want to suggest to that prosecutor to talk to Sarah Strommen [email protected]

Or contact her yourself.
She’s on twitter everyday if that’s an option for you.

If everything is what you say it is, I don’t see why your plea wouldn’t be reversed.
An officer of the law that lies should be weeded out quite rapidly and I’m surprised a judge hasn’t seen a trend and moved on it.

I don’t follow Mille Lacs….it’s not very plain and simple.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Lucky they didn’t shoot you in the back.

I’m proud WI resident now who refuses to conduct business with MN DNR. So in effect they’ve won I suppose if their goal was to discourage the paying of license fees and lawful harvesting of game.

I do feel lucky to not have been shot. Two individuals in green hunting jackets, no blaze orange at all, sprinting towards me through dense forest both with firearms visible. Me not expecting MN DNR since I had committed no crime. Imagine if I had raised my firearm in self defense? I’d likely be 6 feet under today. There was no regard for my safety in their approach and I’m disgusted that they conduct themselves in this manner.

I understand you worship the ground they walk on but please spare me the “if everything is as you say it is”. I have their case file and reports that they used as evidence; as one of the accused I was entitled to it. There’s zero evidence here in support my myself and 4 others breaking any law. We were victims of hunter harassment. There was one lawbreaker on the property and he admitted to his actions, even indicated that he conducted his illegal actions without informing others who he knew would hunt the property.

MN DNR ultimately decides, subjectively, who gets cited. There’s zero precedent; in fact as I discovered during my fight there is no limit to what a DNR officer nin MN can legally consider a baited area. Bait 40 miles away? 50? 100? MN DNR could lawfully cite you for baiting and until someone shells out the multiple thousands of dollars to set a precedent and fight this nonsense they will continue to do as they please. There needs to be checks and balances put in place IMO. I strongly supported MN DNR up until opening day 2018 (I mis-typed above as 3 years). Hell, I did my internship with MN DNR during college.

I’ve always been a law abiding outdoorsman and I still paid a price to satisfy a quota. So I’ll never get behind MN DNR again.

Sorry it happened, you will be much happier with the Wisconsin DNR.

Dutchboy wrote:

Sorry it happened, you will be much happier with the Wisconsin DNR.

The apology came from the illegal hunter who got us all into this mess many times over. I never did get one from MN DNR though. At least I have my firearm back and I can sleep peacefully knowing that I won’t give them another opportunity to take it.

This is a very pro DNR, enforcement, anti poacher site for which I’m thankful. But, as we all know there are always two sides to every coin. Apparently you and your group had a bad experience. Like I said it’s to bad that happened but it did.

I won’t run down law enforcement (DNR) any more than I would run down the cops for a bad situation. They all have a job to do and sometimes it’s a crappy job. Good friend of mine has spent a better part of this week looking for a dead (presumed) body. No, I wouldn’t want that job.

Anyway as you said it’s behind you now, you are in Wisconsin and no longer have to deal with the Minnesota DNR

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Well this thread went a way I didn’t expect…
…
So, did anyone bid on anything?

What kind of discussion are you leading here BK? WOW! 😳

Anyways, I looked at the items but nothing at a price that I thought was worth buying based on the photos available.

dang some of the stuff is priced or bid up to brand new prices

I think that start the auction at a minimum bid price. It’s the only way I can explain those prices.

The prices were one of the reasons I never made the trip to Zimmerman.

Looking at the big picture, why would they allow the person that lost a weapon to buy it back inexpensively?

Tom Sawvell wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>joneser wrote:</div>
Moose are a perfect example. Why did the DNR close the moose season?

They’ll tell you that there’s nothing scientific to support the notions that hunting had an impact on the decline, that hunting will contribute to further decline, or that there’s any reason from a science based wildlife management perspective that supports the end of moose hunting in MN. Especially since the population has been stable for quite some time, a decade plus now.

Sportsmen should have fought the closure and should be fighting to reopen the season…which is going to be a tough fight with the only chance of winning being through the legislature.

So there’s another question to ask your DNR buddies, “Why is the moose season closed despite there not being anything from a scientific standpoint to support it’s closure?”

Moose are just one of the first instances of what you’re claiming to be a hook and bullet crowd closing a hunting season to protect the resource from the public. This is a pretty egregious offense in my opinion since they’re also scientists yet they’ll all tell you the science supports there being a season.

Over the last ten years there’s been a real significant decrease in moose numbers from both wolf predation and disease. Only in the last two years has the decline shown to have leveled off with no further decrease….but no increase to moose numbers either. I could see a 4 tag lottery each year IF the moose numbers show an increase each year for the next ten years. Moose are an animal that could easily be over-exploited and need extra protection so this current closure I feel is worthwhile.

Want moose? Other states have an abundance of them so head west. Just because Minnesota is taking care with it’s moose herd currently doesn’t mean you can’t hunt elsewhere in the lower 48 or take the plunge and hit Alaska.

When it comes to the legislature and DRN rules and regulations, any and all special interests should be barred from having an impact, pure and simple and any game/fish laws should be stand along and not piggy-bagged on a pile of trash.

The auction and confiscation laws? I think its great. It shows that the officers in the field are going their jobs.

What are you talking about? The moose population hasn’t seen a significant decrease over the past decade. You’re absolutely wrong. The population now holds stable and fluctuates between a range of roughly 3K to 4K.

There’s no reason from a scientific or management standpoint why there shouldn’t be a moose season with at least a 100 bull tags issued. Which would mean maybe 70 bulls get harvested assuming a high 70% success rate.

If you don’t think a population that’s held steady at 3-4K can handle having 70 bulls harvested annually from it then I don’t know what to tell you besides that I think you might find more people like yourself if you went to the HSUS forum. The DNR could easily issue a couple hunred bull tags, harvest under 150 out of the herd, and be nowhere near over-exploited.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20200919-183203_Chrome-2.jpg
   

2. 

   Screenshot_20200919-183203_Chrome-1.jpg
   

3. 

   Screenshot_20200919-183203_Chrome.jpg
   

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates there are about 3,150 moose in the state, with a range of 2,400 and 4,320. Researchers say the results are statistically unchanged from last year’s estimate of 4,180 moose, or 2018’s estimate of 3,030.Mar 9, 2020

Per a Goggle search.

Dutchboy wrote:

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates there are about 3,150 moose in the state, with a range of 2,400 and 4,320. Researchers say the results are statistically unchanged from last year’s estimate of 4,180 moose, or 2018’s estimate of 3,030.Mar 9, 2020

Per a Goggle search.

That’s a 25% drop in one year! That’s statistically unchanged?

Must be the new math,,,,,,,

HRG

This thread really did go off the rails. I suppose I added to that.

Anyway I’ve been to one or two auctions. I’ll never waste my time again. Everything goes for WAY too much money.

Hot Runr Guy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates there are about 3,150 moose in the state, with a range of 2,400 and 4,320. Researchers say the results are statistically unchanged from last year’s estimate of 4,180 moose, or 2018’s estimate of 3,030.Mar 9, 2020

Per a Goggle search.

That’s a 25% drop in one year! That’s statistically unchanged?

Must be the new math,,,,,,,

HRG

Yes, that is statistically unchanged. Surveys aren’t meant to be exact. They’re supposed to show longterm trends. That’s why the year before you didn’t see headlines proclaiming “Moose Increase 38%!!!!” and the season being opened.

Wildlife populations have a range that they fluctuate in-between. These fluctuations are normal and expected and why sounds management doesn’t make knee jerk reactions as long as the population stays within that range. It’s why when grouse are at the bottom of their cycle people don’t freak out thinking they’re going extinct.

There’s no reason why the state couldn’t issue 200 bulls only tags, assume a 60% success rate (still a hair on the high side but reasonable to expect) and have the population not be close to being affected by 120 bulls getting removed every year.

What does the DNR do whenever there’s a bad winter or two and they want to increase the deer population?

Bucks only hunting.

The males to any population of ungulates are expendable and don’t effect it’s potential to expand. The MN moose population is very much included in that statement. As long as the cows are the only ones capable of producing offspring then shooting a small percentage of bulls within the population won’t hurt it or cause it to decrease.

Here’s the other thing. Moose can be territorial. Removing some bulls could actually help increase the population due to less competition to ideal habitat. Bulls are going to get first pick of where they want to reside. A hunter killing a bull could very well mean a cow with calves now gets to use the prime habitat that old bull had made his own. Cows having more access to better habitat will help the population increase since the bull that occupied it before? He never gave birth to a single calf that made it to adulthood and became part of the population.

When bulls are hanging out down by Aitkin that means there’s a lot of old bulls getting free reign over the best of the best moose habitat. Killing a few of them off and opening it up for cows to possibly use isn’t the worst thing if you’re wanting to see more moose.

blackbay wrote:

Anyway I’ve been to one or two auctions. I’ll never waste my time again. Everything goes for WAY too much money.

That’s why I was happy to see it online. Still too high of price for me but at least I didn’t drive to find that out!

Bearcat89 wrote:

dang some of the stuff is priced or bid up to brand new prices

MN DNR Staff bumping up bids. Heard about this from a retired CO a long time ago. Again- believe it or not, it is of course heresay at this point. I don’t put it past them.

KPE wrote:

MN DNR Staff bumping up bids. Heard about this from a retired CO a long time ago. Again- believe it or not, it is of course heresay at this point. I don’t put it past them.

Two things. First, from state employees I’ve known is they said they aren’t supposed to bid on items in state auctions. I guess it give them an unfair advantage on which items are in better shape. I’m not sure if this is still the case.

Secondly, if they weren’t buying the items why would they bid? It’s not like they would get the money. It disappears into the game and fish fund for the DNR auctions. Also what if they were to bid up the item too much. They would run the risk of being the winning bidder. “Oops, just got myself a beat up Ruger 10/22 for $300.” It just doesn’t make sense that someone would waste their time for zero personal gain. I don’t believe it.

I would guess it’s more about starting at a minimum bid. After all the violator would be the normal person seeking to buy back the item, why “give” it back the to them?

‘course there are the folks that feel the DNR people are having a party using this windfall.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I would guess it’s more about starting at a minimum bid. After all the violator would be the normal person seeking to buy back the item, why “give” it back the to them?

‘course there are the folks that feel the DNR people are having a party using this windfall.

IMO the Hiller people are the ones having the party. Don’t auction places get a percentage of the sales?

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I would guess it’s more about starting at a minimum bid.

I was wandering the listings at the beginning and recall most bids were still under $50. And if you look most guns have 20 or more bids as well.

I have to think its a mixture of people with little knowledge of used gun values, people who think its a “Charity Auction”, and the original owners trying to get their equipment back.
I do think Hillers way of extending closed items for 5 minutes after the last bid helps raise prices as well. Keeps the snipers at bay.

Being involved with auctions i can tell you tools & guns are something every auction company loves.

Take the tin foil hats off and bid more.

^^

yeah some of those prices are ridiculous.

re: DNR, i’ve never had issue with IA/WI/and IL DNR. Lets just say we stopped taking our LOTW trip due to how big of douchebags the MN DNR was up there.

I’ve never had an issue south of the twin cities but it was just too much for the old timers I went up there with.