How have land leases affected hunting?

[charles suttles]

I am thankful that I am living in a time when hunting opportunities are as plentiful as they are. I was always taught " you get what you earn, not what you deserve". I hunt family land,leased land and public land. I usually spend more hunting one week on public land out west than I do for a years lease to hunt locally. There is much more game now and we are so much more mobile now, you can leave your local airport in the AM and be hunting anywhere in the US or Canada before the sun goes down.Exception:no fly rule in Alaska. Dwight Isenhour did more for America with the Interstate Highway system than has been done since. I can remember when a drive of 50 miles was long trip. Mobility is a huge factor in what has brought us all the hunting opportunities  we have. Fellows, I think we are living in the golden age of hunting and we should be thankful for it. Complainers can always find things to rave about. My answer is that in my 50+ years of hunting,it has continually improved and leases are not a factor overall either way but could affect an individual. I havn't been able to go to Africa yet but I don't begrudge the folks that do. But I'll keep saving!

[tecum-tha]

Everything that shortens hunter numbers will sooner or later lead to a spiraling effect. Game departments and habitat programs will no longer have the same level of funds.
The game departments will then usually jack up their license prices to level budgets. Consequently, even less people will buy licenses.
To give you a little idea: the german hunting education takes about six month and costs you about $2000, with this education you can buy an annual license for about $75-100. In order to hunt you need a piece of hunting land. All private land under 200 acres does not have the hunting rights with it. The land is put together in (mostly) small hunting leases by the jurisdictional administration.These leases are auctioned off in secret auction to the highest bidder. Hunters usually sell the meat, to be able to pay for the leases.The hunter is liable for crop damages if he doesn't fullfil the management plan.
Matter of fact: In some areas, there are not enough hunters anymore, which are willing to invest this much money and time to go hunting.
Wild boar populations explode in some areas, due to more corn beeing planted.In order to hunt pigs effectively, you need a good number of hunters to sourround a field, and even then the kill numbers are not high.
Historically, the development of the hunting was quite similar. A limitless hunting decimated populations, regulations were put in place, similar than they are today in th US. Then the trophy aspect took over, the opportunity to hunt was started to be limited by this system. The democratic way to limit opportunity is a lottery system. The undemocratic one is money. Money in  the form of trophy fees, license fees and hunting lease fees.
Without equal opportunity, hunting will decline even more than it is today due to the effect of urbanisation. At the same time, game populations explode in urbanised areas. Now will the lease holders feel responsible to manage the population?

[Bonebuster]

My best friend called me yesterday to let me know he was drawn in the spring turkey lottery. First season...before the birds get wary. (good news) The bad news is, the owner(s) of the place he HAD permission to hunt called him a week ago and told him that if he wanted to hunt it was gonna cost him $200.00. "Thats the new going rate". $200.00 dollars to hunt for ONE turkey!

We have LOTS of public land, but there are very few if ANY turkeys on public land anymore. Trapping efforts by our DNR to relocate them to southern counties have reduced their numbers. Coyotes and birds of prey have kept them down.

Now comes the "hunt" to find another piece of property within his hunt unit that (1) has turkeys, and (2) will let him hunt.

[Kevin Dill]

It's also part of our democratic ways to allow free enterprise and honor landowner's rights. A landowner should and does have the right to use his land to generate income. As far as private land goes,  the landowner has the undisputed legal right to charge money for access to do anything on that land. If he does not allow hunting, that's his right...and he has no legal obligation to deal with game populations. To my knowledge, no landowner has ever been forced to allow public hunting.

This argument often goes to “what happens as a result of leasing?” but it usually ignores the legal rights of landowners, hunters and our state's laws protecting them. You will never ever stop or control leasing unless you institute a set of laws that override a landowner's current rights to use his land as he sees fit. I doubt you'll ever see that happen as long as this is the United States of America.

The root of this (I think anyway) is our disposable money combined with landowners offering less free-and-easy access. Hunters have money, and will spend it. Landowners want it, as costs of ownership continue to spiral upward (checked your property taxes over the past decade?). The precedent for leasing has been established and leasing is here to stay. At least it's staying until it is no longer seen as an attractive option by many landowners and hunters. Until then just remember: It takes two to tango.

[JCJ]

How does the level of liability change for a landowner that charges a fee or lease as compared to allowing access with no fee associated?

[Kevin Dill]

I'm no legal beagle so take this with the proverbial grain of salt.

If you lease your land to someone, or if they pay you to hunt there (assuming it's traceable payment) you are in a business transaction to some extent. Both parties have obligations to meet, and these should be contractually spelled out to minimize confusion and disputes. Offering a "free" hunt theoretically eliminates the liability risk, but not so fast: If you have a known danger on your land, you have a reasonable obligation to disclose the information and prove that you did so...otherwise you're still at risk.

"Reasonable" is what matters and would be judged in any court under a civil suit. The best way to protect your interests is to always have everyone sign a complete waiver of their rights to sue you for anything that happens on your property. An attorney can prepare this (master copy) for a reasonable cost.

Also, if you own land, you have (or should have) an insurance policy that contains liability coverage. The limits of this coverage may need to be scrutinized in order to assure you have enough protection.

Bottom line: Protect thyself always.

[dnovo]

I know there are some states that have laws protecting landowner from any liability from hunters given permission to hunt on that land. Now, when you lease that would open up a different set of circumstances. Check your state laws.

[GWV]

It has taken away alot of opportunities here in WV.

[Al Dente]

You can have the hunters sign a landowners permission slip, this in effect makes the hunter repsonsible and liable for all damages incurred.  the landowner cannot be sued or held accountable in any way.  this is providing of course that access is free.

[Kevin Dill]

Maybe one of the issues is interpretation. I know a considerable number of landowners who simply won't have anything to do with hunters, and they often cite the risk of liability or lawsuits. No matter how you explain it to them, they're not buying it. Release or no release, some feel at risk with people using weapons and climbing trees on their land. They do believe a lawyer would find a loophole and get them in court.

Reality or not, if a landowner believes this, no hunter is going there. Correctly done, a lease contract legally spells out and releases the landowner from ALL liability r/t the use of his land. In today's litigious world, some landowners see the lease as win-win. They make money AND they solve their liability risks.

[Al Dente]

NYS has a General Obligation Law that protects landowners who allow hunting, fishin, and trapping on their land by NON-Paying persons.

[tecum-tha]

So the landowners buy "the private lease contract agreement" but not their own state laws?
But they "buy" all the other state laws who gives them tax breaks, lower taxes or offers them grants to improve habitat etc.
There is an easy fix to this problem. No tax breaks or grants for landowners (all tax payers money) for those landowners leasing out hunting rights. The legislative could easily put that into the regulations.
They already got their share by accepting the tax breaks or the grant money, improving the value of their land (in case of a sale).  
And I bet any good lawyer would make the "lease agreement liability" disappear much faster than overthrowing an existing state law.
The state laws were put in effect after some liability cases surfaced.
As a result of accepting grants or special tax breaks, the DNR should not pay for crop damages either or issue depredation permits if the hunting rights are leased out.
What good does it do to the majority of tax payers
improving something with their money, then seeing the benefits destroyed or auctioned of for monetary gain by someone else.
Whoever wins the most votes in democracy wins...

[GreyGoose]

I own an interest in my family's farm, but have precious little time to hunt  - or work - on it. I enjoy sharing the hunting there with a few long-time friends who police the place rather than leasing it.  That said, I know a few folks who actually try to make a living farming their land, and leasing is just one aspect of that enterprise for them.

[Kevin Dill]

Correct on the premise of most votes winning within a democracy. That applies to all things up for vote. Property owners carry way more weight at election time than do hunters. Like it or not, property owners have always held the gate key to hunting their lands. They control hunters on their lands, and not the other way around.

The landowner doesn't own the wildlife, and he's not selling it. He's simply selling access to his property. The laws protect his right to do so, and likely always will...unless we become a socialist state in the name of hunting.

[Kevin Dill]

I'd like to add that my post regarding 'what landowners believe' isn't necessarily based on laws and legalities. It's a matter of perception to the landowner. If he doesn't see one single benefit from letting a hunter in...and if he feels that liabilty is possible...well, you can forget hunting there. I've seen it and felt it. A number of landowners don't have much faith that "some law" will keep them out of court, or from being dragged into a suit, whether it's tossed or not. It's just a lot easier to say "sorry, but no" to a prospective hunter.

When money and contracts hit the table, most non-hunting landowners will at least consider it. They have nothing to lose and something to gain. By the way...most farmers look at wildlife and say "Hey...these creatures eat off my farm 365 days a year. Why shouldn't I make a buck off a guy who wants to go chase them"?

As far as tax breaks and subsidies for landowners and farmers: These were instituted to maintain and encourage production of food crops, timber and other essential products. Tax breaks are not typically given to produce a wildlife-friendly landscape for hunters to enjoy.

Personally, I've always thought we could have a program of additional tax relief for landowners who offer FREE hunting. Give them absolute immunity from liability...cut their taxes...hunters get access. It's the carrot, and not the stick.

[GreyGoose]

Kevin, that's a good point about farmers looking at crop damage from over abundant wildlife.  If a farmer is convinced that a hunter will help control the population by harvesting does, he might be more receptive to requests for access.  If a hunter sits on his property, watching his crops get eaten and waiting for a trophy to present itself - why blame him for trying to get something back for his investment.  We can't expect our interests to be the same as the landowner's, and we need to do what it takes to overcome that.

[rascal]

In my experience land owners view "liability" in a very broad spectrum.  Ive had farmers tell me about finding piles of aluminum irrigation pipe shot through several times by rifles, combines shot full of holes, fences cut, trees with hardware left in them, etc.  Ive heard land owners tell me stories about some fool getting hurt while on his land with out permission and trying to file suit against him.  I think if people are honest most any hunter who has tried to secure access to private land has heard the horror stories.  Why on earth would you expect a complete stranger to go out of his way, put himself at risk, just so you could go out and have a little fun?  I grew up offering help fixing fences, cutting fire wood, working on the barn, doing some hay or other chores, giving game taken from the land... It was a way to open a door and let the people paying the taxes know I wasnt just there for my own purposes.  Its not so big a step to offer compensation in the form of cash payment.

This issue will always be one of those glass half empty or glass half full scenarios.  You may see leases as a way of closing off acres to hunting while I see it as a way of opening up acres to hunting.  Its just a little added expense in my opinion and worth every dime, to each his own I guess.

[Kevin Dill]

Well said GreyGoose and rascal!

I've been in many of these discussions. For some reason, "money" gets the blame. We could easily refer to other kinds of compensation, and they don't get the hornets stirred up.

I have said this: How much is your labor worth?

What if a landowner said "Sure I'll let you hunt. You can hunt here all season, anywhere on my land. I have several big bucks living here, and you're welcome to try and kill one. Lots of turkeys too. I'll ask you to work for me, though. You'll be digging post-holes, cutting brush on fencelines and roadsides, mowing my lawn, and other menial chores. You work for me just 2 hours each week during the growing season and you can hunt unlimited days for a full year. That's about 60 hours of your labor at $12/hr or $720. I guess you could pay me the $720 though...that would work too".

I'd like to know what most guys would do. 1)Work...2)Pay...3)Walk away.

Keep in mind...the landowner isn't getting many freebies these days.

[Buckeye Trad Hunter]

Originally posted by Kevin Dill:

I have said this: How much is your labor worth?

What if a landowner said "Sure I'll let you hunt. You can hunt here all season, anywhere on my land. I have several big bucks living here, and you're welcome to try and kill one. Lots of turkeys too. I'll ask you to work for me, though. You'll be digging post-holes, cutting brush on fencelines and roadsides, mowing my lawn, and other menial chores. You work for me just 2 hours each week during the growing season and you can hunt unlimited days for a full year. That's about 60 hours of your labor at $12/hr or $720. I guess you could pay me the $720 though...that would work too".

I'd like to know what most guys would do. 1)Work...2)Pay...3)Walk away.

Keep in mind...the landowner isn't getting many freebies these days.

Keep in mind we have a horrible economy at the moment and there is no job market at all.  High school kids can't even get part time jobs now because adults who have lost their jobs are working two of these jobs to try to make some kind of income.  Now more people probably would do the work because they don't have the money to pay.

The conversation does turn to money alot.  It's because most people don't have the extra to pay.  This was started to ask how people thought land leases affect hunting, The sport overall as a whole, not so someone could go on a three page rant trying to protect their own self interest.

Oh wait, there is the answer to the question, most people don't have an answer because most people aren't worried about the sport as a whole any more, they're worried about how it affects them and screw everyone else.

[Matt E]

Al-Dente, would you please be so kind as to send me a copy of,"The Hunter obligation Law" I am one that had to either quit hunting or continue to pay and/or kiss a--, I got tired of doing both.
I am from N.C. and our stupid leaders payed $15000.00 to find out why we were having a drop in hunting license sales.How ignorant can they be? I am to old to fight  anymore, I just lay on the porch and growl but I do want to send a copy of your states law to our illustrious,
 so called leaders.It just might save hunting in our state.