"G.O. What in gods name do you need to do to improve hunting land to make it usable? If you leave it alone it will manage itself. That was one of the most ignorant statements ever from a DNR secretary saying they were years behind on land management. They are years behind on things that they would like to do, not things that are imperative to create habitat."
Personally, I don't think much is needed to improve hunting land. However, since land purchased by the DNR isn't just for hunting, they like to do things like put up their signs, create maps, blaze trails, create parking areas, etc. that all cost time and money after the closing is completed. What good does it do to blow your funds on captial costs and then not have enough to get the properties operational?
Also, I don't believe I stated that the DNR wasn't selling land. I'll freely admit that they are, and I support them getting rid of dead weight so that we can acquire and implement parcels that better recreational opportunities than what they are looking to jettison. Curious as to why you are putting the burden of proof on me. I'll tell you right now, I have not been able to find any examples of prime public hunting grounds being offered for sale. Not sure why I need to look for it, I'm not the one claiming they are trying to get rid of prime public hunting spots. This thread is titled "Do you like public hunting and fishing land?" Those who started and perpetuated the message are claiming that the DNR is in the process of getting rid of our hunting and fishing lands and are going to privatize deer hunting. Here and on other forums I have continually asked people to provide me one specific and legitimate example of good public hunting grounds that are being sold. I have received nothing. Frankly, I'm getting sick of this smokescreen from people with an axe to grind with the Walker Administration. If you've got anything of substance to say, I'd love to hear it.