This is a problem everywhere - even in states that used to have a lot of public land (or unposted private land that was open to the public), as land gets eaten up by developers, more hunters get crowded onto smaller and smaller areas, to the point where it's often not even worth going.

Except the US is 36% public land.

Not all high fences are equal and let’s be honest the way we hunt in Texas over a feeder isn’t exactly challenging high fence or low fence doesn’t matter when feeder is 100 yds away. There is a market for those type of deer. We shouldn’t eat our own we have enough people doing that to us already.

How the non-hunting majority views our practices will always be the determining factor in sustaining our hunting privileges. That is without question, the greatest lesson we can learn from our European counterparts.

Wish we could be more like Europe and Hunt at Night, but then again they have been doing deer drives with dogs for centuries. Be cool to have mandatory silencers requirements also.

Europe has leases just like the US. What they don’t have is public land.



Can you atleast google before you post your normal non-sense?


In America hunting is generally well approved of. # 1 general opinion is as long as it’s consumptive. General public doesn’t care about fair. Nothing fair about killing an animal. They care about consumption and sustainability of the species. Only ones that care about this “fair” ideology are elitist in our own ranks, that don’t want their “trophy” accomplishments lessened... thus the term pen deer. That’s a hunters term

When estate taxes were confiscatory years ago, ranches were sold constantly by the heirs because it was the only way to pay them. It was the number one reason deer leases were lost.

Nowadays the changes in the tax law and lots of other factors have changed the landscape. There are still many, many “cash poor” large landowners-but when they die most of the time there is plenty of time for the heirs to sell and the proceeds don’t go the government anymore.

My own portfolio is out of whack cash vs. land because I have always liked an investment I could walk on and enjoy.

I wouldn't consider you or me financially dependent on ag income, even though both portfolios would put us into the mid to larger land owner sectors.

I’ve yet to met a cash poor large farming/ranching land owner that was finically distressed or cash poor from farming or ranching. If they where it was because of other life choices (divorce, drinking/drugs, gambling, etc). With that said you don’t have to be a large land owner to be a larger rancher or farmer. My experience is the older generations have a much lower cost of living ability then newer generation, and generally the older generations saved for the worse and are generally greatly scared of leverage(they have actually lived through bad times, we have had generally very steady markets for past 30 years and really only two really bad extended droughts). I’ve watch it daily over past 40 ish years as family hierarchies changes with my multi-generational lessors and my friends/family. That's my experience, with that said my circle is generally larger ranches and leasees.

"Hunting with hounds in the traditional manner became unlawful in Scotland in 2002 and in England and Wales in 2005, but continues in certain accepted forms. Traditional foxhunting continues in Northern Ireland. Following a trail (similar to drag hunting) rather than a live quarry has subsequently grown in importance in Great Britain, as has hunting foxes with a bird of prey. In 2005 it became unlawful in England and Wales to shoot game birds while they are not in flight, an action which has long been considered unsporting."

I remember seeing a news report years ago (might have even been a magazine article) how fox hunters in England were using a "runner" to carry a scented drag through the woods to create a chase for their hounds. It was no doubt those who viewed traditional fox hunting as cruel and barbaric that lead to the changes.

“the older generations have a much lower cost of living ability then newer generation”

+1

The newer generation has $1,000 smart phones, astronomical property taxes, & $80k King Ranch Edition pickups.

As usual, it’s kind of hard for me to follow you. Are you saying I’m wrong? Lying? Both? Neither?

I mean, I’m just a guy who grew up in rural Texas, has seen a few things, and represented farmers and ranchers for over 30 years, You don’t have to tell me about the frugality of those who lived through hard times - my parents and grandparents lived it. Guess what? My grandparents were land rich and cash poor their entire lives. They literally lived off the land because wouldn’t have had enough cash to make it otherwise.

In fact, of all the folks who are land rich and cash poor, in my experience over the past 45 plus years based on what I have seen old time family farmers and ranchers top the list. Truth is, that’s part of the reason there just aren’t many of them left. You know, disappearing family farms, industrial agriculture, etc. It’s been a thing for a while now.

There are not many “depression babies” left. (You might bear in mind that a baby born in 1941 will turn 80 this year.)

Your experience may differ, of course. I’m not going to say it isn’t. Or it isn’t valid. I don’t claim a monopoly on being the only one with a point of view. Or claim I have all the answers to all the questions.

Keep looking several countries they still do drives with dogs on for deer and hogs. Why do you we have such strong Europeans dog hunting roots.

You ignored Night hunting and leases...

I think there's still some Deep East Texas boys that are still plenty pissed about not being able to drive deer with dogs...legally.

It's brutal, not my cup of tea, but, as stated, has been around since the middle ages.

You are being sensitive, I merely stating from my personal experience the perception of land rich cash poor is false for larger landowners and larger leasee’s.

I still have two sharecroppers that are depression babies. That era’s methodology still carried over to our parents and many of us. Next generation not so much, again for most part in last 30 years we haven’t had a economical depression deep enough to cause distressed type county court house step auctions of ranches/farms. No reason to be cash poor in current ag market unless you recently bought land and your sole note payment and living expenses is based off its output. But that’s not even a minute percentage of large ag farmer/rancher owners or/lessees to begin with.

I have a feeling the biggest perception differences on this thread about this topic are probably what classifies large ranchers/farms. If you are trying to make a living off of 50head of wet cows year in year out, it’s going to be a struggle, but I don’t consider 50 head a full time job. I also wouldn’t call farming a section(excluding Midwest) a full time job either.

Have to keep in mind Europe’s has been established far longer than the United States.

I also think the concept of hunting leases is a 20th century idea. I don’t remember reading about guys in the 1880’s saddling you their horses to go to the lease.


Few hard facts about leasing:

It isn’t a landowners obligation to lease his land for hunting. If he chooses to that’s his business. He owes nobody anything in terms of access or hunting rights.

Leases is a supply and demand commodity and prices are not dictated by a union. Since leasing was invented there have been people who complained about the prices. I remember one guy 20 years ago snicker at a $500/year when we tried to get him to join as “ too rich for my blood”. And it was a good lease.

Leases will continue to become more scarce as landowners are in better financial positions than previous generations to not need the hunting lease income. It’s oftentimes a headache for them. They are content to enjoy friends and family enjoy the land rather than lease it to strangers. And a lot of land sits unhunted, I will tell you that. If they choose to lease its oftentimes on property that is viewed as straight investment that they are involved little in the day to day. The leases I’ve been apart of were this way....ranchers were content to have a tenant on the property to offset some tax cost as the property appreciated in value for future dispersal.

Wise words. 'Wouldn't mind a reasonable MD lease though, with a little bit of a view.

And this is especially true when they see no benefit in supporting hunting for sport.

I don’t think they’re going away but I do see them more and more unaffordable for a blue collar guy

The sky isn’t falling guys, if your that concerned about lease prices simply buy some land of your own even if it’s 50 acres somewhere. Another idea is to simply find another part of the state to hunt. Whatever you do is stay out of Oklahoma, the hunting up thr sucks and the poachers are way to bad to deal with

A lot of skilled blue collar workers make more that corporate white collie guys.

I can hardly see this at all. Landowners who lease out hunting rights are looking to perpetuate income streams and if that means supporting hunting, then so be it.

I’ve been saying this for years.

No “new” landowners are gonna want to lease their property, for anything, it’s for them (& friends/family) to use.

If they have enough money to pay $2,000-$8,000/ac for land, they don’t need $10-$20/ac from strangers to have them act like the place is theirs.

Nobody owes anyone a cheap deer lease. I don’t blame landowners for wanting to enjoy their land themselves.

Just because a landowner doesn’t wanna lease to a couple of broke-dick city hunters doesn’t make him an a-hole.

Leased land will be a thing of the past soon. All the broke-dicks who complain about paying >$10/ac for leased hunting right are fixing to learn how much a deer lease is really worth.

The old “if you won’t lease out your property to us for cheap, we will vote against hunting & now you can’t enjoy it either” argument.

Sounds a lot like something a terrorist would say while holding a hostage at gun point.

IMO, it’s a dumb argument.

If my 2 choices are;

1) you HAVE to lease your property to deer hunters (for what they think is cheap)
OR
2) everyone will vote to outlaw hunting

I’ll take #2 all day. If we are at that point, landownership clearly means nothing, & I would prefer the solitude over a buncha broke-dick entitled “hunters” thinking they have any right to others property.

"Just because a landowner doesn’t wanna lease to a couple of broke-dick city hunters doesn’t make him an a-hole.

Leased land will be a thing of the past soon. All the broke-dicks who complain about paying >$10/ac for leased hunting right are fixing to learn how much a deer lease is really worth."

Not every lease hunter is a broke-dick and some do not complain about the costs. Even so, no one is bad for not leasing out their land. Ownership comes with control and that in and of itself is a wonderful thing.

Oftentimes, when someone purchases a tract of land for their own, they no longer have to lease someone else's land to hunt and that helps to take away the competition for leasing hunting rights. Hunting leases and other hunting opportunities may be on slight decline, but will be around for a long, long time.

Those old timers that used to lease their land for cheap have died off and their kids and grandkids own the land now.
They know they can demand what the market is asking, or they will more than likely subdivide it and take the money and run.
If you think your kids have a future that land will be available for them to hunt on, you had better try buying some land now because it's going to get harder and harder to find, and not going to be any cheaper than it is now.
Pasture land I used to hunt just 30 years ago now has paved streets manicured lawns, fancy houses, hospitals and schools and city services, so land being available for a long, long, time is just wishful thinking in my opinion.