Lost land to a hunting lease!

Originally Posted By: skinneyOriginally Posted By: KsYotesGuys! I just put this post up to say I hated losing some prime hunting area, and understood why the land owner would take the money instead of my $0 I paid them. I didn't want to start a feud among site members....
I see now it seems to be a somewhat touchy subject!
to the OP, sorry to be upset with some of the previous posters... i understand where you are coming from, but let me try to explain this in a different way... i have some ground that is capable of producing 1200gal/minute from an underground water vein, so instead of letting the state or gov. give me money for turning it into crp or what have you, i put up a valley pivot, planted corn that yields 200bu/acre, of course the production costs are very high, but so are my earnings if i manage it correctly, so my decision of doing the extra work will benefit me and my family more than leaving the land how it is... the same principle applies to wildlife, if i manage my whitetail, elk and mule deer herd correctly by supplementing high energy/protein and culling the non productive or "bad genetic" animals i can inturn produce more trophies for hunters who are willing to pay the big bucks for the "big bucks", there is no greed about this, its, determination, dedication, and alot of bust a$$ hard work, i started my business by asking a landowner if i could cut up some of his steel and clean up his junk piles, i sold the steel saved the money, and slowly started my dream... if someone doesn't like not having land to hunt on, my suggestions, take some time, ask the landowner if you can do a little work for some coyote hunting rights, if thats to much for ya, start a savings from your paycheck if hunting is that important, pay like everyone else.

I'll qualify this by saying that I just paid a tresspass fee to hunt antelope in Montana and probably will do it again. But I do have to disagree a bit here. You statment of "if I manage MY whitetail, mule deer, elk etc". At least in my state those animals are the property of the people, the State, which is why it's illegal to poach them as opposed to harvest them as livestock. And what about all of the landowners in my State that claim public subsidies in the way of crop damage subsidies caused from those publicly owned animals, yet offer no public access to help manage those animals that cause all that damage?
 
Going to the movies, the water park, the ball game, or the club cost a person, too. Hunting is pretty much entertainment for the most part to a large portion of the hunting public, so why shouldn't a person with those resources captilize? As has been stated, it is supply and demand. If the movie doesn't look like it justifies the cost of a ticket I don't go. There is a ton of good stuff for free in the public library, just as there is good hunting on public ground.
 
Originally Posted By: bowhunt32 But I do have to disagree a bit here. You statment of "if I manage MY whitetail, mule deer, elk etc". At least in my state those animals are the property of the people, the State, which is why it's illegal to poach them as opposed to harvest them as livestock.

He is not managing the wildlife, he is managing his land to maximize the benefit for the wildlife. This doesn't come as a free endeavor, it costs money, and lots of it.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherHe is not managing the wildlife, he is managing his land to maximize the benefit for the wildlife. This doesn't come as a free endeavor, it costs money, and lots of it.

It costs money, lots of it.....

And who held the gun to his head and told him to do it? He did it of his own choice, not against his will.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: bowhunt32 But I do have to disagree a bit here. You statment of "if I manage MY whitetail, mule deer, elk etc". At least in my state those animals are the property of the people, the State, which is why it's illegal to poach them as opposed to harvest them as livestock.

He is not managing the wildlife, he is managing his land to maximize the benefit for the wildlife. This doesn't come as a free endeavor, it costs money, and lots of it.

For the benifit of have more and bigger animals in order to attract more hunter dollars in the way of fee/guided hunts. Again, I have participated in hunts like this and will do so again, but if you WANT the animals on your property and you WANT to enguage a wildlife management regeme on your property...Why do WE pay subsidies in the way of crop damages for those same properties. I don't mean this toward Skinney or any one individual, rather a broader question. My own opinion is, you claim public dollars for damaged caused by a publicly owned animal, then you open the property to the public (via a block management system) to help control those animals that are causing the damage. Obviously many won't want to allow public access but in those cases no public money or subsidies related to wildlife damage should be given. I will also say, that this topic is much more geared to a big game argument, as at least for now access to properties for the purposes of coyote hunting is still fairly acheivable, although getting harder as well.
 
Last edited:
He did it by choice, but it is still his land, why should he let anyone have access to it. He could have plowed it up and planted seasonal crops where the land lays fallow for a good portion of the year and the wildlife goes else where for a food source. He gave up crop income for hunting income, which would you prefer?
 
Originally Posted By: Mike21"Pay like everyone else"

Yea, your the only one with kids, and a mortgage, and bills. We'll keep robbing Peter to pay Paul so you can enjoy the ride and we can have the "privilege" (hahaha) of touching your dirt to harvest an animal.

Your Hilarious.

I'll keep hunting on the land that the farmers see the benefit of me hunting on at no cost to me (I'm actually SAVING them money by harvesting deer and varmints), and you can keep your precious "management program".

hey buddy, no problem with you, i'll keep on doin my work, and if you got your honeyhole set up with a great farmer, keep on keepin on... but don't be a hater and give me the "your the only one with kids, and a mortgage, and bills." bs... it don't fly here.
Originally Posted By: Mike21
It costs money, lots of it.....

And who held the gun to his head and told him to do it? He did it of his own choice, not against his will.
mike do you have a problem with making money??? sure sounds like it... or can i fill u in on some econ101, it takes money, to make money, and thats what i "try" to do, and when i quit tryin, i'll be dead. i'm not trying to argue with you, but get an understanding of what you dislike so much about "our/landowners" discipline and what i/we do and how i/we do it.


Originally Posted By: dogcatcherSome of you sound like you want a "welfare" system to provide you with a place to hunt. You need to get hold of Obama and ask for help, I am sure for your vote he and his crew will try to help you.
X-actly, i didn't want to word it this harsh on a "hunting forum" but you are 100% correct my friend.

Originally Posted By: bowhunt32
For the benifit of have more and bigger animals in order to attract more hunter dollars in the way of fee/guided hunts. Again, I have participated in hunts like this and will do so again, but if you WANT the animals on your property and you WANT to enguage a wildlife management regeme on your property...Why do WE pay subsidies in the way of crop damages for those same properties. I don't mean this toward Skinney or any one individual, rather a broader question. My own opinion is, you claim public dollars for damaged caused by a publicly owned animal, then you open the property to the public (via a block management system) to help control those animals that are causing the damage. Obviously many won't want to allow public access but in those cases no public money or subsidies related to wildlife damage should be given. I will also say, that this topic is much more geared to a big game argument, as at least for now access to properties for the purposes of coyote hunting is still fairly acheivable, although getting harder as well.
bowhunter i know exactly where you are coming from, and i'm not taking it personally, because not only do i "not" receive subsidies for crop damage due to animals, i don't ask the state for it... let me give you an example... in 2001 we had 13 bull elk taken out of our 180 acre pivot of corn, thats 13 rutting bull elk, you see the damage that one wallow, or two fighting bulls can do in cornfield you would be amazed, we never got or asked for damages, we "let" hunters kill em, now there are only a few that come around, and we actually like seeing em, and i get a good little fee from hunters who want to "pay" to take one, with that being said, i have a neighbor who complains to the state almost weekly about the damage the elk to to his corn, BUT he wont let anyone hunt it, talk about hypocrisy right... he should either let the hunters come in and kill em or stop complaining.
 
Last edited:
This is a very touchy subject no matter where you stand.
But please don't let this seperate us as hunters and gun oowners. In this context we must stand together.

Shayne
 
Originally Posted By: yotehunter57
But please don't let this seperate us as hunters and gun oowners. In this context we must stand together.

Shayne
I hear ya Shayne, but problems always occur when people feel entitled to something that is not theirs... and that is exactly what is happening, and if you oppose... take a deeper look.
 
Quote: no public money or subsidies related to wildlife damage

I am not familiar with such a program. How does that work?

Is there a difference in some of your minds in the landowner who does not let ANYONE hunt their property and someone who LEASES their property?
 
Last edited:
Ya a couple were quick to jump me. No big deal. Do with your land as you please and sorry if I struck any nerves. Wasn't trying to personally attack anyone here.
 
Originally Posted By: Yellowhammer Quote: no public money or subsidies related to wildlife damage

I am not familiar with such a program. How does that work?

Is there a difference in some of your minds in the landowner who does not let ANYONE hunt their property and someone who LEASES their property?

I just called a buddy of mine who's a biologist for Oregon Fish and Wildlife. This what he conveyed to me. In Oregon, they get claims for damage frequently although pay no cash value out in estimated loss of crop or yeild. Rather private crop insurance covers that. He does say that they will however enter into contracts on occasion and pay money to those who sustain damage, but those contracts come with the requirement of public access. He said, he is aware at least that the State of Washington pays out to landowners who incurr and can demonstrate wildlife damage and that payout comes with no such requirement. He's also aware of other states that have had or have wildlife damage reimbursments, but that most come with the requirement of public access. I had heard that Oregon had a program thay paid out, but it appears not so.
 
Once again I will state that I don't charge anyone to hunt my land. If anyone thinks that I get subsidies come and talk to my accountant. Anyone on here can come and humt my land if they are respectful of me, my family and the rules that the state of Wyoming and I put on the use.

Where do you get the money to buy/lease the land? You do like I do. You beg and bprrow, live hand to mouth and work your butt off to keep the bills paid and the wolves away.

I'm not trying to make anyone mad or cause a battle, I just want to have a conversation and maybe show some people why some people in AG have hunting leases.

Just my .02!
 
I am a "poor" public school teacher and I don't have the money to buy, lease or pay for outfitted hunts. This is my own choice and I am not complaining about this, but I am happy that there are hunters who are able and willing to pay to hunt private land.

If wildife has a value, it will be just that, valued! If it is valued, it will be protected, managed and converged. When I was a kid my dad used to pay a rancher 2000 bucks to hunt bears on his land every year. The state made it too hard to get a bear tag and the rancher had no one to hunt bears. The bears went from being an money maker to a problem and he stared trapping and poisoning them. Five years later he was busted by the US Fish and Wildlife Services because his poison was killing eagles, ravens and other federally protected species.

I am lucky because I live I a state with lots of public land, but I also help out on a farm or two to gain access.

If it is us hunters who pay for the wildlife, hunting will be relevant and allow to continue. We need to be the ones who pay for the future of hunting.

I do belong to a lot of conservation organization. I can afford that.

The RMEF has a new program that aims to protect public access. Get involved with your state agency and help work on a solution. Complaining does nothing to help the problem.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top