Leasing land poll

[UntouchableNess]

Look at it from the farmer prospective.... they pay $500K to invest in a small farm, why shouldn't they be able to lease/use the land as they see fit. They took the risk in fronting the half million for a chunk of land to enjoy and hopefully profit from....

Oh, I see both sides of the situation. Most farmers are pretty good businessmen and look to maximize ROI. Many complain of deer damage to crops, but then they are going to turn around and limit access to hunters (thus limiting the amount of deer killed)? I know of a few hunters who get permission one way or another (free or lease), then decide what they want to shoot based on their management ideas, which might not be in sync with the landowner/farmer.

Part of the reason I can get permission for free is that I know the farmer and he knows me. He knows I'm going to take out does to help him instead of just waiting for the one trophy buck and be done. If they are going to complain about deer damage, I'm their man.

The winds of change are blowing though......

[bblefty]

Everyone in the south east leases land to hunt. Usually as hunt clubs, 500-thousands of acres at a time. Its great for people with a steady comfortable income, but its havoc for me because I couldn't even afford to pay club dues. Saying that, 3 of my uncles have there own leases each year. Its nice to have exclusive rights to a piece of land but at this point in my life in college, I can out walk everyone until I find my own public ground noone has been in.

[JoeRE]

I think...leasing hunting rights is one of many nails in the coffin that is being prepared for hunting as we know it.

I thought about writing more but I probably should keep it at that

[Bigb]

A neighbor has been going door to door with local landowners, trying to be the middleman in hunting leases, skimming a "finders fee" off the top. He's run posts on EBay to fill the leases. This is similar to what the out of state firm is doing down the road. Of all the leasing, this troubles me most. Why should a third party profit? The out of state firm down the road says on their website that the landowner is charged $100 for them to create the ad for the website. No thanks. I think this landowner could do that myself.

I can see why people would lease their land, times are tough and if you don't hunt and want to make some extra money, then that is your choice. The idea that I'm not a big fan of is leasing companies. People trying to profit off of being middle men and pushing land owners to charge the maximum price they can so that they can make a larger commission. I don't think people leasing there land is that bad of an idea, its the people that push them to charge a huge amount so that they can make more as the middle man.

As said before, leasing is a double edge sword. There are both positives and negatives but for a non land owner hunter who can't afford his own land it is a little bit more of a negative.

[trdtnlbwhntr]

I lease ground, but I answered it will be the end of hunting eventually. In Indiana we have liberal non resident tags and no checks and balances put in place to stop out of state money from locking up chunks of ground for a 3 day weekend of shotgunning. I'd love to go hunt other state but I also wouldn't care if each state stopped issuing non-resident tags and put an end to the leasing agents. I personally HATE leasing agents because they are only pimping out land, providing zero to ensure the heritage of our pastimes.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[phade]

I lease some ground too.

In areas with high hunter density and small parcels, having long-standing hunting access is more rare than common. Especially when public land of any size is 45 minutes one way drive away.

I leased to have a place for my FIL to hunt without dealing with others. The landowner has been great, and it's turned into a productive spot.

I certainly understand the implications of leasing land from a big picture, but at this point, if I wanted to play ball, I had to pony up.

[GRUD]

Leases here are not affordable ( typically $50 an acre / 5000 per 100 acres). And not having any sizeable public closer than an hour and a half away it really limits opportunities. Becoming a rich mans sport.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[Brad]

I don't really care for leases though I understand why it happens. I don't blame the farmers for leasing land, they need every last penny they can get with the costs in farming now, and I don't think the reasonable leases are killing the sport. What I see that's a huge problem is outfitters leasing up all the land they can find, and out of state professional hunters who "lock up"thousands of acres just in case they want to hunt it. For one it creates a sanctuary that neighboring deer know they are safe on, and second its limiting land available to other hunters. Hunting has become too commercialized and its only going to get worse. I killed a nice buck a few years ago on a farmer friends land that was kind of the talk of the area for a little while. I did all I could to keep it quiet but word got out and 5 guys showed up with 7500 bucks the next year for an exclusive lease. I was fine with that because I knew the landowner needed the money, but they even told the farmer he and his kids couldn't hunt and eventually got booted because they started telling the farmer what he could and couldn't do with the farm regarding 4 Wheeler use and crop rotations etc.

[ Post made via Android ]

[trdtnlbwhntr]

Brad
If states close their borders to non-residents the leasing problem will go away. I know its a drastic measure and probably not a reasonable one at the moment. Like you I see these agents, outfitters, and out of state groups locking up large tracts of land. In my opinion that creates more issues than just access for the residents of that county, or region. We are now hindering the DNR from being able to adequately manage a deer herd. When Indiana was discussing season changes a couple of years ago, that was my main talking point at a couple of meetings. I cautioned of moving towards a Midwestern Big Buck state mentality, because A.) the residents are the ones that kill your does and in order for that to happen you need to ensure access to private ground B.) Large tracts of ground will get leased up and set aside in which the DNR becomes handcuffed to managing the whitetail herd. C.) Eventually the economic impact will catch up to the state and revenue will begin to decrease.

One lady said there was no way outfitters could lock up 5,000 continuous acres in our area. I said give me $40,000 and a GIS website and Ill get you 5,000 contiguous acres. She didn't like me after that.

Our DNR response was that "we don't see a significant problem with leasing."

I think that in order to curb the leasing for any state, two things need to happen.
A.) Non-resident tags need to be expensive and hard to get your hands on. Once you get drawn you are ineligible for another tag for 5 years. The price to get into the pool is 50+ bucks non-refundable. This will help alleviate the financial side of it when you don't sell as many tags.
B.) Farmers/Landowners need to start reporting leases to the USDA and IRS. If you lease your ground for recreational purposes your subsidies will be cut by a multiplier of that lease value. Land that is earmarked as agricultural is not expensive when it comes to taxes. With the amount of governmental programs available it is unreasonable to believe that landowners are losing money on their ground. Im sorry but I know better than that. This kind of thinking should help to relieve a little of the burden of leasing in high population areas.

[Southern Man]

Brad
If states close their borders to non-residents the leasing problem will go away.

I do not agree with that.

Most land leased here is not from a "leasing agent" but local hunters leasing from local farmers. I know of very little (compared to the whole) land leased by out of state hunters. What has happened tho is a bunch of ground is tied up by a small amount of people. That has actually been good for the quality of the deer herd.

Most landowners here are more concerned with having responsible hunters that respect the property they are hunting on. And of course the money. There are too many slob hunters out there have no respect for anything let alone they land they are on and it makes it tough for the rest of us.

[trdtnlbwhntr]

I think that is the distinction between yourself and I. I don't see a problem with a relationship based lease. If a guy feels the need to spend his money on a piece of ground close to him so he can pass down the hunting heritage to his kids without the "slobs" creating a bad experience, then I am all for it. What I have a tough time with is the groups, the agents, the outfitters locking it up for a small percentage of the time and not using the land to its full potential.

[Southern Man]

I think that is the distinction between yourself and I. I don't see a problem with a relationship based lease. If a guy feels the need to spend his money on a piece of ground close to him so he can pass down the hunting heritage to his kids without the "slobs" creating a bad experience, then I am all for it. What I have a tough time with is the groups, the agents, the outfitters locking it up for a small percentage of the time and not using the land to its full potential.

I agree with you. I see nothing wrong with leases either, not the kind I was talkin about. My point was down here, stopping non resident hunting won't stop leasing.

[kurt]

Leasing maybe a big part of the future for private ground. And if ever goes over to public average joe's are toast. But with some western states huge chunks of public land and even in Wisconsin I don't have too much trouble on public . Learning to adapt to the future is the key to success. Last year I lost land someone leased it out from under me and a few buddies. It didn't even upset me. I also lost a farm that I started hunting on as a kid . I worked as a kid for that farmer and he sold it nothing I can do. The place is gone memories not forgotten. But all my eggs aren't in a private basket. I keep them spread and keep looking for new ones even if its a needle in haystack. that's the key in my opinion to success. Have so many spots and let the sign dictate where you go. Don't get complacent.

[mibowhunter]

I'd cry if states stopped accepting non-residents... I grew up in WI and my entire family is there yet, and I go back and hunt with them every year. For the poll I stated that it doesn't really affect me, but that might change in the future. Since I moved to MI, for the life of me I can't find a piece of private land to hunt on so I go occasionally on public land just to get out, which I've found to be madness at times. As my kids get older and if they show an interest in hunting, I'm not so sure I want to expose them to the crazy (and sometimes downright scary) hunting on southern MI public lands. So I might look in to a lease at that point.

[Badger]

I guess I'm neutral on the subject. I've noticed it is harder to get permission now days because so many landowners are leasing, But a person has the right to do what they want with their property and every penny counts. I would prefer that it was less prevalent but it has also pushed me to work on getting better on public land and I find that more rewarding in the end.