How have land leases affected hunting?

[2 Barrels]

Baseball is a sport at the end of the game the partisipants are all still alive.Hunting is not a sport.Jim Preece

[Kevin Dill]

Oh, it's definitely considered a sport by the absolute majority of hunters...and non-hunters. As stated above, we don't hunt because of a need anymore. We hunt because of a DESIRE and challenge. It is...in essence...a game. We even call our quarry "game". Using any other words to describe it is simply a matter of semantics. Is bullfighting not sport? Of course it is...and the bull dies in the end. Who NEEDS to kill groundhogs, carp, starlings, prairie dogs and squirrels in order to survive. It's done for pleasure and satisfaction...little else.

I too am not wealthy, yet I can lease anytime I desire. I can't afford a Harley...a Ranger Boat...a huge 5th wheel...etc. I can afford a lease though, because I'll work, save, struggle and prioritize toward it. I have no problem compensating a landowner for the use of his property, either. If another guy is opposed to spending the money, let him go argue his case to the landowner and see if anything changes.

Is leasing hurting hunting as we know it? Don't ask me. Just look at any active group of leasers in TX, IA, MO, MS, IL, KS, KY, TN, GA, LA, AL, OK, MN, WI....   These guys are hunting hard and they sure aren't busy worrying about those who won't spend the money.

Finally: A lot is made of "If we keep leasing, we won't have any places to hunt!" How much private property is leased to hunters in your state...on a percentage basis of total acreage? I'd be totally shocked if any state had more than 10% of total lands under hunting leases. There is a huge amount of potential hunting land out there...waiting to be hunted. Free. Pay. It's an individual choice.

[2 Barrels]

For me it's not an issue of spending money it's the issue of what the lease means.If a couple of guy's from Toledo come to central Ohio. And decide to start throwing money at a farmer who is a business person.He will take their offer for sure.The guy's from Toledo will hunt this property the first week of November and thats it.Why because they heard that Licking county has alot of big bucks.And the hunting industry dictates that if you dont kill monster bucks then you aint much of a hunter.Now the farmer that use to let his neighbor and nephew hunt his place cant because two guys from Toledo cant enjoy the act of just hunting anymore.It has to be about their ego's or their sense of competion.With a guy back home that always kills a big one.Over the years i have developed a friendship with a farmer about two miles down the road from me.It's about 217 acers i'm always welcome there and so are alot of others in our community.It is prime habitat.I've got a buddy that i love dearly but is sure hunting is about nothing more than succes.When i showed him the place his first response was lets offer to lease it.That way we can be the only ones hunting it.I explained to him i would never do that.Because of all the other folks that hunt the place would be left out.He doesnt understand that line of thought at all.I guess thats my whole hang up with leasing.The guy's that are involved with it in my area arent hunters they are competators in a game.To see who can kill the big one.And to me that totaly perverts what i love.We dont have to hunt anymore but we do.And we are the only ones that can decide why we do it.Thanks,Jim Preece

[2 Barrels]

For me it's not an issue of spending money it's the issue of what the lease means.If a couple of guy's from Toledo come to central Ohio. And decide to start throwing money at a farmer who is a business person.He will take their offer for sure.The guy's from Toledo will hunt this property the first week of November and thats it.Why because they heard that Licking county has alot of big bucks.And the hunting industry dictates that if you dont kill monster bucks then you aint much of a hunter.Now the farmer that use to let his neighbor and nephew hunt his place cant because two guys from Toledo cant enjoy the act of just hunting anymore.It has to be about their ego's or their sense of competion.With a guy back home that always kills a big one.Over the years i have developed a friendship with a farmer about two miles down the road from me.It's about 217 acers i'm always welcome there and so are alot of others in our community.It is prime habitat.I've got a buddy that i love dearly but is sure hunting is about nothing more than succes.When i showed him the place his first response was lets offer to lease it.That way we can be the only ones hunting it.I explained to him i would never do that.Because of all the other folks that hunt the place would be left out.He doesnt understand that line of thought at all.I guess thats my whole hang up with leasing.The guy's that are involved with it in my area arent hunters they are competators in a game.To see who can kill the big one.And to me that totaly perverts what i love.We dont have to hunt anymore but we do.And we are the only ones that can decide why we do it.Thanks,Jim Preece

[Buckeye Trad Hunter]

I have to respectfully disagree that hunting is not a game.  To me hunting is not about competition with anyone else.  Would I shoot the larger of two bucks if giuven the chance, sure we all would, but I could care less if my deer is bigger than anyone elses.  Also, as stated earlier, nothing dies at the end of a game and a lot of hunters, myself included, a far from being highly tuned atheletes so, no, hunting is not a game or a sport.

[huntin_sparty]

I lease and wasnt aware I was rich.  If I am dont tell my wife!  Rascal's post has a lot of my same beliefs experiences and reasons for leasing.  

In southern Michigan there is not a ton of state land and a ton of hunters do I have a issue sharing public land?  No, I dont.  But I didnt feel safe that I wasnt going to get shot, by less responsible hunters or druggies cooking meth or growing weed that I bump into. I did state land for myself but didnt want to bring my kids into that.

So I lease I am probably viewed as the rich city slicker who only hunts periodically and has ruined it for the locals. (Which as a side note is sad when did in America a guy who works hard and has some discretionary income to make things better for his family become a loser!  And it takes 2 to tango the local farmer put it up for lease! Why dont you hate him!)  Back on point sorry.  But all leasers are not trophy freaks.  I am not about antlers at all.  Would I like to shoot a 30 pointer!!!! Absolutely is it the reason I lease and hunt.  A resounding NO!

God has blessed me to make a great living so I am not complaining but to support my family and being a parent I need to live in a city to make a living.   So I have to drive over a hour to two hours to hunt so I cant get out there every day (believe me I would love to and get out of the city but not in the cards til my youngest is through college).  I use it all 12 months of the year to scout, stump, camp with my kids and hunt from Sept. through March as much as possible.  If I had to eat peanut butter sandwiches everyday to make up to pay for the lease I would its about priorities for me and I want a safe environment to hunt and share the outdoors with my kids and leasing works for me!

[Kevin Dill]

One thing I'm completely amazed at...

In Ohio, hunters did very little leasing in the 60s, 70s and 80s. In the 90s, along came the leasing program by Mead Paper. They didn't just concoct this leasing plan on a whim. They researched it and they absolutely knew it would be a slam-dunk hit with hunters. Everywhere leasing begins, it inevitably receives overwhelming support from hunters. The hunters didn't start the ball rolling. They didn't have to popularize it. They could've said "Hell, no! We hate it!"...but they don't hate it, and many prefer it. Unfortunately, like politics, as soon as they announce which side of the issue they're on, the mudslinging and negativity begins.


These hunters aren't always the stereotype often portrayed by others. They aren't uniformly "rich"..."city dwellers"..."no clue"..."trophy hunters"...ad nauseum. Many of them are working fathers and mothers, with limited time and resources to get outdoors. They want a more pristine hunting experience...fewer slob hunters...a partner who shares their objectives...safety for their treestands...a good place to camp...a happy landowner. If money will buy that, why not?

Doesn't money buy licenses, tags (expensive ones!) stands, bows, guns, camo and literally almost everything? Who paid for the land? The landowner did of course. Does the same landowner owe hunters a free ride/free access policy? Of course not. You may have gotten some things cheap or free...a bow...a stand...anything. Some guys paid big money for their bows. Does that make them wrong? You can still hunt on the cheap in every state...or you can compensate a landowner. This is the equivalent of playing moral/ethical cop on fellow hunters...just because they don't share a like viewpoint.

For the anti- lease folks: Do you have an objection to visiting a landowner and saying "I'd like to show my appreciation and support. Can I help you pay a year's worth of taxes?" If the landowner asked you to work 40 hours of sweaty labor for the right to hunt his land, would you do it? Would you prefer to tell a landowner "I really like to hunt here, but it's not worth any money to me. I think you should be satisfied with a handshake, few pounds of venison and a Christmas card."  ?

very interesting thread

[rascal]

I can see both sides of this issue, I never had to lease when I lived in Michigan.  Abundant public land options and I knew everyone from Hell to breakfast back home.  I quit hunting public land during deer season for all the reasons I mentioned in my earlier posts but I continued to take advantage of those areas for small game. When I moved to Iowa I didnt have those resources, public land is minimal and its over run with "hunters", not to mention I knew exactly no one in the state.  

I can tell you Ive lost more acres to owners shutting the gates due to bad behavior than leases.  Ive lost more acres to land owners or their kids selling property than to leases.  I dont begrudge them closing the gates or selling the land, its theirs to do with as they see fit.  I dont hear anyone bashing land owners here for having the audacity to actually own land and have complete control over its use, why then is it so distasteful to imagine the land owner wanting compensation and ultimately more control over the hunting rights on the land.  Why is it so horrible that Im willing to pay for the use of the land and then wanting to control exactly what Ive paid for?  Would you feel the same way towards people who lease if they owned the land?  Do you hate the land owner who respectfully denies your request to hunt his fields and forests because hes had his share of misadventures with others who he has willingly granted the same permission?  

I may not like the idea that I cant go door to door and get permission to hunt hundreds and thousands of acres for the small price of politely asking the owner but I respect a no as well as a yes.  I generally get to hear a few horror stories that accompany every refusal and it paints a pretty clear picture of why this trend is taking place.  I would love to think that it could be as it was when I was a kid going to the state land by my house.  Clear streams, open fields, and tall woods free from rampant new ATV  and Jeep trails, piles of trash and destroyed gates.  How would it be to go out again without seeing all the bullet holes in every state game area sign and gate post and tree at the parking area?  If people dont respect the places they hunt that are publicly owned do you really expect they will act any differently on property they can just walk onto for free?

[2 Barrels]

Sorry about the double post back there guy's.Let me say it again to me personaly it is'nt about paying to hunt.I had a chance last month to hog hunt at Ray Hammonds place.Did it cost something yes it did.I understand haveing no accses to a place to hunt haveing to go on a lease.I have no place in ohio to hunt hogs fair chaise,so i went to Ray's.But i also understand that in Texas or Europe you pay or you dont hunt.How long is it till someone decides to lease all state land in Ohio.Then we become Texas.If we dont create a market some politican doesnt get that ideal.I think everyone gets the idea that anyone that is opposed to leaseing just cant afford it.Thats not the case.It's about trying to leave something for the people who come after us.And please excuse my spelling.Thanks Jim Preece

[Paul/KS]

A lot of folks seem to forget that the landowner has to deal with overhead and expenses on the land that they own. Farming is a business and even land that is idle is taxed so it makes sense that if the farmer can generate some income from a lease, well, it is his land...
I am allowed to hunt a neighbor's place but he was running so many cows last year that it was too crowded to hunt. Going to be the same this year from what he tell's me too. Does that mean that I won't give him a hand around the place when he asks...?
Heck no, we're neighbors and that's what we do out here.

[ridgerunner_sc]

this is a great topic.  I have not hunted at Rays place. thinkin about it.
But I do hunt SC..Did u know that theres an open season on hogs in SC with no limits...Thousands of acres of public land. near Rays iam sure. Deer leases have become very popular here along with many other states for many reasons...Bad hunters, Habitat loss, Economics..i would have to say that most leases across the country are within reach of the common man...Same as pay hunts...If you can find a farmer to let hunt with a handshake, a lease ,or a barter type agreement isnt it all the same?? Do the people that lease land take there children hunting with them and there childrens friends also,  i do...Hunt the way you prefer ask, pay for it, or lease it or hunt public land...But no matter how its always best done with family and friends...

[Cory Mattson]

Lots of good thoughts - definately lots of ways to look at this.

Leasing hunting land has come about MOSTLY due to land taxes and landowner liability. From that point on it gets uglier or prettier depending on your own perspective. Kids: Lots of kids hunt leases - it is safer and game is in better shape than public land since individual greed is controlled on leases. I know guys who only hunt public land and would never pay to hunt - great - more power to em - in fact when I have hunted only public land many years we took more game in many cases. Leasing is here - some of us are just trying to stay above water and continue to hunt. Landowners call me all the time trying to "lease" their place. Without exception I turn them down - I am not interested in farms, neighbor squabbles or the fact that many landowners feel they deserve "more" from the hunters they allow to hunt on their place. I only work with timber companies and we do create opportunity that would not exist otherwise. Managing land is very rewarding but I have days where I want to dump the whole thing and get a boat like Don and "just go fishing"!!!- might happen some day. Till then I'll take our leases AND the hunting we do on public land (a ton) until the opportunity fades.
Thanks guys - Good Luck this fall<><
<-----------------------<<<<<<<<<

[Dustin Waters]

Here is my take on the leasing.  If a landowner wants to lease his/her land that's fine.  I have no problem with that.
However when that same landowner is taking in several government subsidies from the state or federal subsidy account.  Then I have a real problem with it.  Those subsidy checks that farmers get are paid for by the people that want access to that property.  I would say a farmer can select two of three from the following.
Lease money
Subsidy money
Government funded crop insurance.

It is unfair to be able to triple dip from the tax payers.  I know life isn't fair but the aspect of leasing will eventually cause hunting to become obsolete as the states will be forced to step in and control the animal numbers for the hunters because the majority is losing access and keeping the numbers below critical mass.

Leasing needs to be stopped especially the lease groups that lease from a farmer then advertise to hunters at prices well above those lease agreements with landowners.  That is criminal and in many states, the laws read that the game animals are indigenous to that state.  Therefor they belong to the citizens of that state.  Leasing groups need to be stopped.
Thats my take.

[Bonebuster]

Dustin, unfortunately, makes alot of sense.

What it comes down to, is simply this. If you can afford it, leasing is great. If you can`t, it`s not so good.

I truely believe that leasing is here to stay. Anything valuable, people WILL pay for. I have lost access to private land because someone came forward and offered money, and I did not. It stings, and it was a wake up for me. I also KNOW the landowner recieved government subsidies. MY money...and YOURS!!!

Rastaman was the first to respond to the question. These are his last two sentences. "Money talks though, and times have changed. You either adapt or don`t hunt."

Eventually, MOST of us on this forum will no longer be able to adapt.

Our ability to hunt, is the ultimate statement of TRUE freedom.

On a place we hunted, I gave them about $150 worth of gifts a year.  Prime ribs being the most often. given at the holidays.  One wealthy new comer gave him $50 dollars and thought that the rest of us needed to take a hike.  Now a group of gun hunters have offered them $400 to keep all of the bow hunters off the land, because they claim the bow hunters are shooting all of the big bucks and not taking any does.  When we hunted there we shot does mostly and when we lost the doe tags in this part of the state, we asked that the land owner apply for crop damge doe tags, so we could keep shooting does.  The place rarely had anything but a passing large buck, but it was a real nursery of of does and fawns.  Now they are worried they are going to get run over by does again.  Tough petutties for them, I have moved on to less troubled grounds.  The idea that all hunters are nice people that are always courteous and considerate of others is absurd.  Most places it is a greedy land grab, but then greed seems to be the national trend.  A get society, as opposed to a give society.

[-Achilles-]

Its bad no question.In hunting there is already a low number of hunters.In missouri they changed the limit on squirrels from 6 to 10 because of lack of hunters.Leasing is just one more way to fase out hunting all together.Eventually hunting will be only for the rich.Isn't it like that in other countries now?

When I was growing up in my teens we lived right next to a bunch of woods that was "no hunting". Just about everyone I knew would sneak onto the land to hunt.It was either that or you didnt get to hunt...Everyone I knew would not be hunters today.

And look at rabbit hunting.The only place here to get rabbits was the railroad tracks.Which everyone knows its illegal to even be on the railroad tracks and they have signs.Everybody hunts it anyway and the railroad don't botherr you.Now just think what would happen if the railroad decided to enforce their "no trespassing" on the railroad?...No rabbit hunters.

Greed is the real problem here.

I personally let people hunt on my land and encourage all land owners to do the same if you care about the future of hunting.As long as they don't cut trees down or something I deem destructive in which case I do my best to find the individuals that did it and NOT punish EVERYBODY else for something THEY DID.Alot of times the land owner will use the excuse of "Someone chopped down trees" " someone did this or that and now I have no choice but to keep everyone out".Which is complete BS.What your doing is punishing everybody for something someone else did.

Landowners if you care at all about our hunting heritage then let people hunt on your land.Its the best thing you can do to support hunting.

And another thing everyone that hunts on my land doesn't have to kiss my a$$ to do it and they know it.I don't ask for anything.

"The US lost 1.5 million (11%) of its hunters from '96-'06. We lost 25% of hunters age 16-17. From '96-'06 the US Population grew 14%; age 16-17 grew 17%. TAKE A KID HUNTING!"

Just before the economy went really sour, I was on the verge of picking up a prime piece of deer hunting/farmland.  My plan was to kick all of the lease hunters off and open it up to be a no tree stand refuge for longbow shooters only. As things went for many others our investments were cut by a major percentage and the finances of the family took precedents.  It would have been fun to be able for any trad gangers, with longbows, to come and hunt on my land.  Maybe someday, but I promise it will be longbow only, you would have to shoot pheasants with your bows..

[rascal]

Ive had permission to hunt a lot of private land over the years and have seen more of it closed off due to bad manners than leasing.  Why should a land owner be held hostage to police his lands to prosecute guilty individuals so that the self proclaimed "honest hunter" can continue to take advantage of his property?  Chances are the land owner would not be able to easily find the culprit who tossed garbage or cut a fence or cut a tree, generally the path of least resistance in this case is just close down the access to all.  Its amazing to me to read stories of wanton trespass, people breaking the law with full knowledge and then calling out someone who leases as greedy or worse yet to proclaim that any land owner who closes his land off as not caring about our hunting future.

I have a great neighbor who lives next to some public hunting land, we often talk about the problems hes had and continues to have due to trespassers.  Would you really want someone shooting at your house, your buildings, your live stock simply because they decided to trespass?  Every one of them claim to still be on the public ground which is very very well marked with signs at its borders or they claim they have hunted on "this property" forever and of course that they had no idea there were houses over there.  Its common knowledge that as soon as the deer season starts and the woods get flooded with restless hunters wandering around the deer relocate to the neighboring private property, the criminals simply follow.  Everyone around pretty well knows its a waste of time asking for permission to hunt there, hes fed up and worn out trying to protect what is his from criminals (trespassers, poachers, vandals...) and the easiest solution is to close the gates permanently.

This is not the Kings Woods and not the Kings Game.  You arent the noble Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving to the poor simply  because you dont lease and Im not the evil Sheriff of Nottingham because I make sacrifices and save my money to compensate a land owner for the use of his land.

[-Achilles-]

"And hunter numbers continue to decline this year.....yaddayaddayadda " on the 6 oclock news

[Kevin Dill]

Despite the supposed (imagined) "Golden Age of Hunting" when a man could hunt anywhere he pleased and at no cost...try to see the reality.

Hunters (legal and otherwise) have a decided history of going wherever they dang well pleased to get the game they wanted. They trespassed. They left evidence. They did damage. They angered landowners.

States have spent decades getting hunters to understand that they cannot legally trespass and hunt on a landowner's property. They must have written permission. A legal document must exist. Still, no guarantee the landowner won't revoke the priviledge...or put his son-in-law on the ridge YOU like to hunt.

For some landowners, the damage was done. They've closed their properties to all hunters. That's their inalienable right as a landowner and I support their rights 110%.

Enter leasing. Pay a simple fee...have complete hunting rights...safety in the woods...dump the trespassers...eliminate the insane competition...no worries about sudden eviction...etc. Play by the rules and you hunt as aften and as much as you wish. No slob hunters to tolerate. No constant search for another place to hunt because of a hundred various reasons. The hunter (who is serious and will pay for rights) wins. The landowner wins.

We as hunters have had to pay for practically everything associated with our hunting. Everything. Unless a guy has gotten everything for FREE, I have a lot of trouble understanding how anyone can argue against compensating a landowner for the  priviledge of hunting there.

Would you do 1 hour of physical labor to earn 4 hours hunting a great farm?

Would you offer to just help a man pay his property taxes in exchange for gaining hunting priviledges there?

Would you prefer to tell a landowner that he has no right to lease his land?...no right to stop people from hunting there?...no right to charge money to use what belongs to him?

For those opposed to leasing, 3 options exist:

1) Find unleased private land and hope for a free ride.

2) Hunt public land. Thousands of acres in every state.

3) Spend money...like any good landowner...and acquire your own property.