I have some interest, but need more details.

as he said send a PM and you will get details

Nothing wrong with that - pay for HF and you get your buck and it is all done. LF and you may have to hunt hard for a few years to get your buck and pay a little more - everybody has different goals

If I pay 10k I’d rather have lots of country to roam, feeders and spot and stalk. Not nearly as worried about the size of the deer compared to the land I get to treat as my own for much less than what it would cost to buy my own.

Im happy that so many of you have had optimistic comments and I appreciate you taking the time to post. I certainly understand the vast majority doesnt want to pay that much to hunt. A high dollar endeavor of any kind will usually only appeal to a few and I would never expect it to appeal to many. Even if I add country, I have no intention of having a large number of hunters. However, I will always be very selective about who I hunt with so I need enough interest to sort through in order to find the right fit.
Also, be clear about my description and notice I used terms like "legitimate chance", "some sustainable regularity" and " somewhat regular basis". If anyone "expects" to kill a 160 to 200" buck EVERY YEAR then to pm me for details likely wouldnt be worth it.

Yea -- I'd probably even go higher depending on a wildlife survey and what sort of animals you have on the property + depending on the property. You shouldn't have a problem finding someone to pay that price.

It costs me that much to hunt Africa. But, I doubt that I would pay that much for Texas.

Like others have said $10,000 to some is like $1 to others. I know people who spend more than $10,000 a month on Jet fuel for personal trips to see their kids play sports in college. Just a matter of finding the right people. They’re out there.

Txhunter65, thats how I feel and Im glad to keep hearing it. Especially your last two sentences, "JUST A MATTER OF FINDING THE RIGHT PEOPLE. THEY'RE OUT THERE."
I know its not the "norm", but I know there are a lot of guys that pay that much and a lot more to hunt WT. I need to find enough of them to sort through to find the right fit. The small, less than a handful, group we have out there is not filthy rich but we are passionate about hunting huge WTs enough to spend most of our "extra" money doing that. What I do not want is one guy that wipes his butt with 100 bills while another member goes behind him and cleans it up to make his lease payment with. My OTHER lease im used to managing 18 hunters from all walks of life and varied income levels and its not easy. This lease is so special that I will diligently hand pick the few lease mates so that its a joy and not a challenge to coordinate.

I wouldn’t even want to try managing 18 hunters….. 7 is more than I can handle now.

How many spots?

The 18 member lease is a labor of love. It can be time consuming and challenging but I get satisfaction from managing the people and wildlife. The new lease I’m not needing to get that out of it. Once the smoke clears after a couple years, I don’t think I ever want more than 5 or 6 total guys and likely just 4 of us will be enough.

Maybe a certain Sand Aggie will hunt with you then.

The money is not going to be an issue and you will find the right group of guys.

Your overthinking it. Build it and they will come

The landowner is a huge Sand Aggie alum and supporter. Besides him, the only serious Trophy hunting Sand Aggie I know expressed another reason for probable no interest.

Great comments Txtro. My motto all my life has been “build it and they will come.” Bite off more than you can chew so you never go hungry. As I’ve gotten older, I still love all the work, as long as the stress is less.

You won't have a problem.

My problem would be that a $10,000 lease turns into a $20,000 problem. I can hear the wife now...."You want to spend how much to chase a deer??! That's fine- so if we have that kind of money to blow then I want a new sofa, new bedroom suit, a new kitchen...." You get my point.

It sounds like a great terrain ranch with great genetics that hasn't been hunted until recently........as stxranchman pointed out.......this will be short lived for year to year consistency.......for that kind of money the hunters all kill the top end bucks.....when they're gone you will see a tremendous drop off with a domination of mature 8 and 9 point bucks and that's when it all falls apart for that price IMO......I wouldn't put any equipment out there for the long term......but you can certainly enjoy the first few years.....

I strongly disagree.

If managed right and the correct deer are taken each year it will sustain itself and probably even get BETTER if a few inferiors are culled out along the way.
What you are talking about is when a place is hunted too hard on the mature animals and that only happens when you shoot the wrong deer and have to few of acres per man. I seriously doubt that would happen wiht the gentleman that is in charge of it.

That kind of management doesn't currently exist in Oklahoma.......the regs and season lengths make it very difficult to cull and manage......and NO, that's not what I'm talking about.....I'm talking about shooting all the top end mature animals because there is never an endless supply of them on low fenced non-intensely managed ranches......just ask tlk about how many bucks they have to cull each year on a similar type of setup in South Texas....

WTH is a Sand Aggie?

We've decided to consider him quaint and charming, us in the southern faction, of which, you're part of. You need to get on board with this.

This happens far to often on places that have limited hunting pressure in the past. The number of top end mature buck are there due to limited to zero hunting pressure. I have seen a new lease on places likes this and then only bucks are taken off of it. No does taken off it and after a few years the ratio gets skewed from what it was. Taking off only mature top end bucks leaves the ones passed over to continue to breed. Those mature bucks were passed for a reason. Only taking top end bucks long-term can hurt a place that had no hunting pressure in the past IMO. Then throw in length of seasons and it makes sustaining the top end much more difficult. I saw this first hand on a very large South Texas ranch with great genetics that had limited hunting up until the early 80's. In 1992 they produced numbers of net book bucks with many many more grossing over 170. The hunters there wanted to kill a 160+ deer each year and after 92 season they started shooting younger age classes to fill that 160+ tag. By the late 1990's it was rare to see a 160 deer taken on this ranch and that was only very wet years. Very few does were even taken off the ranch. The ranch was now full of very mature 8 pt type deer and tons of low end mature bucks with 6 to 12 point frames that would not score over 130" at any age. The doe herd was old and had the same genetics as the bucks. They top graded the herd to where it took years of management to recover.
If it were me and I was on a current lease that could produce 140 to 160 class bucks with 18 hunters now, I would cut that number of hunters in half.... and pay more per spot. With the same current harvest quotas on bucks(18 to 20), each hunter/spot would get to shoot 2 bucks(one trophy and 1 management) and does to keep the numbers in CC. I would put my money and emphasis on the current lease in Texas. With Texas you get longer seasons and better management tools(i.e. MLD) available to produce top end bucks. My current lease would be setup and running now. Not many ranches that are large enough to support that number of hunters and produce that caliber of deer are void of genetics to produce 160+ deer consistently. A lease that size, in that part of state should be producing a few 160+ deer every year. The genetics are in the herd now to do it. IMO most places fail to produce those deer year in and year out due to putting to many hunters on it to start. It shines in very wet years when it should be consistent even in dry years and then really shine in the above average rainfall years.

We moving?