Majority of landowners are #3. I have never been on a deer lease and hopefully never will. You have to deal not only with the landowners but also the other hunters. I just want to hunt not deal with other people, I do that at work everyday. One of my coworkers who is on a lease somewhere tried to tell me the other day that you can’t feed deer regular corn, only “deer” corn, and he was dead serious. I will pass on hunting with those type of guys.

#3 here as well. However, there could also be a #4. Those landowners who don't lease their land nor do they hunt it simply because they have no interest in hunting. I know a few like that. Actually, my neighbor to the north of me is a #4.

I would say were #3 as well as our neighbors that don't lease, kids and grand kids might take 3-4 deer off of the 4,000 acres. One happy group and not that mad at them.Grand kids give the hogs hell though.

Let's be honest, if you're looking for a high percentage of Rhodes Scholars to interact with, hunting is not gonna be your best avocation. That's just the nature of the beast. I'm the furthest thing from a "people person", but even I know it's healthy to work on your "socialization skills" from time to time, outside of work. You might have avoided the worst by not being on a lease, but you've also missed out on the best.

I ONLY ALLOW Rhodes Scholars on our lease - takes a little extra effort but once I see their certificates I let them join our group.

Well that's a camp I wouldn't mind cooking at one weekend, as a lackey, just to listen in.

#3

You have a lease that is #1 in West Texas.
I am #3 as far as my land but #1 on a lease.

I actually hunt more 3 but also hunt 1 and 2... I said 3 because I will never charge or lease my place, to many friends I love hunting with

Creekrunner, if you get a chance with all those Rhodes Scholars, just remember to not inhale. At least that's what one Rhodes Scholar said he didn't do.

Bingo!!!

A recent conversation had me thinking on the subject of landowners. It appears there’s 2 types of landowners who lease property out for deer hunting. There’s the uninvolved landowner, & the involved landowner

1). The uninvolved landowner probably doesn’t live on the property, or anywhere near it. They probably inherited the land, & don’t wanna work it (like farming or ranching) because they likely already have a good job in the city. They’re just lookin to put a little money in their pocket for taxes & a vacation or make a few car payments.

The good thing about an uninvolved landowner is a lease group can set whatever management goals they want, shoot whatever they want. They can pack on the hunters if they want, or not; they can shoot out all the deer, or take a strict management plan.

The bad thing about an uninvolved landowner is they likely haven’t done much upkeep to the place, like roadwork, brushwork, or cultivation. They’re likely to have leased the ground for grazing also. & depending on who is “in charge” of the lease, there could be lotsa problems come up between guys who all think they are the “lease boss”. The main negative is that the land is more liable to sold or split up between family members (& then sold) or taken over by new people who may not wanna lease (maybe hunt it themselves).

2). The involved landowner may live on the place, or nearby. They may be there every day or at least some weekends to work on their place. They probably use the lease money for improvements to their ranch to some degree.

The bad thing about involved landowners is they may already have a specific management plan in mind that some hunters won’t like (# of deer to be taken, specific animals are not to be shot, etc). So hunters need to find a landowner who’s shares their hunting ideas & values.

The good thing about involved landowners is their place is more likely to have some work done (brush clearing, road work, etc) & they are less likely to be sold off. Also if there is a problem between hunters, the actual landowner may want final say on any matters.

The 3rd type of landowner doesn’t lease out, they likely want to hunt it themselves or let their kids/in-laws hunt.

Thoughts?

In 100 years there will be no land left to lease as it will all be sold off to investment/recreational owners. Our LO I assume will give it to his heirs who don't hunt but luckily live near it. Probably raise the price I assume. They might lease it but after them it would be sold off as that is 2 non hunting generations who would have owned it. We will probably also have the highest WT and Turkey population ever as well by then.

So when this happens what happens to Ag?

Fact is we won’t have highest WT and turkey populations... a lot of research has shown that when ag(ranching/farming) leaves the land scape biodiversity goes down.... cattle grazing and pasture management is a substitute for natural fire that’s been suppressed.