Question for residents.
Kansas
If Kansas stopped all Non residents from hunting deer do you guys think you could keep the deer Herd under control? If not what’s a better number for Non residents as far as tags? I know a lot of residents are not happy with the system in place.
We kept the deer numbers under control with a 3 month long season, a draw for resident gun hunters, and no additional antlerless tags. And for those who did draw just a tad over 50% were able to draw a buck tag. So not for sure what you are getting at. Deer numbers in Kansas have never been "Out" of control. We don't need to control deer numbers as much as we need to control the amount of deer hunters. Of course you can never solve anything without a quality method for determining exactly how many deer are harvested each year.
What is your definition of an “out of state resident”?
I was so confused about his first sentence that I did not bother to read his mishap of a second. However there are a lot of non residents who think they can buy resident tags.
Complex question. But, most non-residents come for bucks. Shooting bucks is not how you control a deer population. Fewer non-residents, easier for Kansas residents to get deer. We don’t have anywhere near too many deer for the deer’s sake, many think we have too many deer for society’s sake— crop damage, deer/vehicle crashes. I’m far from against non-resident hunters in Kansas. Hunted or fished in 26 states, myself. But the above was an answer to a question.
Fixed it NON RESIDENTS. Just asked the the question because I always hear 1 to many deer in Kansas 2 to many non resident hunters. Just wanted to hear from some Kansas guys and their thoughts.
Has anyone else noticed the land where hunting isn't allowed or is used for Outfitting has herds of deer in the off season. As in after season they congregate in groups 20-50 head of deer on un-pressured ground that is unavailable to the public. Then they turn an say too many deer, my crops are getting destroyed, need more tags ?? When the surrounding area's that get hunted are pounded an no deer exist cause they are Smart an have moved to a "refuge area". We have plenty of Hunters but limited area's/private land. I recall seeing a post of the FB Hunt/Fish page about an outfitter wanting to thin his doe herd an wanting to charge hunters. I thought that'd be a great time to get a young kid out to shoot a deer.
"Do you think you could keep the deer herd under control"? .... I don't even know what to say to that. Us residents used to be able to draw leftover buck tags and shoot 5 does. It was under control long before the NR came around. In fact, it was perfect. Everybody I knew who bowhunted, saw or shot boone and crockett bucks, and deer weren't near as nocturnal.
If law makers would listen to their paid biologists and not the jingle in their pockets our deer heard would be perfectly fine.
I love it nrs are to blame for deer being nocturnal lol hahaha
I wish Kansas would go to one buck or doe for non residents statewide any weapon . I dont think there is a shortage of deer and the non residents I know are respectful of the opportunity to hunt Kansas and eat tag soup more often than not .
I hope that no state would base decisions on regulations based on what someone "Thinks". Analytics has worked well for professional sports, don't know why it would not work for wildlife management. But you would have to have an in depth way of collecting data, which we don't. Lloyd was never that sophisticated. He trusted the insurance companies.
You need to think a little deeper Frank, maybe you would understand how to many people in the woods will cause them to be seen less in daylight hours. Less humans tromping around being seen and leaving scent on everything they touch, then the deer might be less skittish, especially on public lands. I think the deer don't really know where ya come from. But they are pretty smart, maybe they do. You give the impression to being hell bent on contradicting anything Thornton say's.
Chief it was a pretty silly statement on his part
I've lived here my entire life and seen the increase in hunting unfold first hand. Back when locals had full access, we hunted after work and in weekends. NR showed up with corn, deer towers, all day sits, and hunting all week til they get one. It's not simple anymore, and the deer have adapted. 90% of the hunters hutch now cannot find a big buck without cameras and bait. Back in the old days you see a big one in daylight and all you had to do was sit a few evenings and he'd come back out
Oh yeah the good ole days
As writer points out 'under control' has several interpretations. For hunters it was likely never out of control, but to society it was. Since this is a hypothetical question I will entertain you with an answer.
If NR could no longer get a tag there would be a change in dynamic in Kansas. As it is now, there are less and less resident deer hunters because Access is increasingly tougher to come by. If NR tags were eliminated many leases would go away opening up opportunity for residents to hunt more again. In turn, residents would kill more deer.
Leasing would still occur as many residents lease land to have places to hunt. Those with deep pockets may lease up more and more ground, but I think over time leasing would lessen as people realize they don't have the ability to hunt all the property they have and focus efforts on one or two of their favorite properties.
A little different twist on your question I realize. Like writer I hunt other states annually so have no issue with NR having the ability to hunt Kansas.
Matt
I agree with Matt. I think you can do that without pulling the plug on NR tags. Just pull the plug on baiting and the same thing will happen.
Then will the deer quit being nocturnal?
From a heard management stand point I wish Kansas would take a look at Iowa's model. Recreate your draw so that as a non-resident you don't draw every year but when you do you have a quality hunt. Following biologist ideas would be a novel idea as opposed to solely looking at finical interests, however in our current political climate I don't see this happening maybe I will be surprised.
I don't believe Lloyd had a chance to be sophisticated with his research. It was't going to matter what he said. Insurance and law makers had already made up their minds.
Agree with KSBOW’s assessment. As an Iowa resident, I would say, overall, our system is working pretty well. There are a few minor things they need to tweak, one being the ridiculous “celebrity tags” where the same people are allowed to jump to the front of the line EVERY year. Also, a few loopholes in the nonresident “doe only” tags during shotgun seasons. Not allowing nonresident landowners to draw tags as a resident is another “plus”.
I can empathize with you KS resident’s situation. We have already too much pressure, both resident & nonresident (IMO) around here without the added pressure that unlimited tags would, undoubtedly bring.
Thornton, it’s kind of hypocritical for you to bash all the nonresidents and blame them for all of the ills that you feel have befallen your state, yet you go on out of state hunts in several states/provinces, without a concern that maybe the outfitter you’re hunting with, pushed out some locals that had been hunting there in the “good old days” where they would see or shoot booners, during daylight hours, every weekend or on after work hunts, don’t you think?
Amen, Troy. Why bash non-resident hunters when you constantly hunt as a non-resident, Thornton. Doesn't make much sense.
Non-residents will always be welcome here, as they should be. The hypothetical part of this questions is really pointless to ponder. What isn't pointless is the fact that baiting has almost no positive outcomes, yet nobody wants to talk about it. Is it because we are scared the new breed of whitetail hunter would give up hunting if he couldn't monitor his bait pile/feeder with a cellular trail cam?
I wanted to go to the R3 summit, but didn't make it. Did anyone on here make it down and hear what ideas were proposed to increase recruitment and retention of hunters?
Baiting on public lands is not allowed in Kansas, yet I have had no reasonable chance at hunting a mature buck for years. Why? To many NR on our public grounds, no management of permits.
I don't hunt outside the state of Kansas, so do I have permission to bash non-residents? I would be called selfish by people if I did. The ironic thing is, I would be called selfish by people who would never be satisfied with only having the opportunity to shoot one buck a year; and I'm the selfish one? When it comes to hunting access I'd say almost everyone on here is at least a little hypocritical with his/her views.
Bash all you want. If you don't hunt out of state and you don't like non-residents hunting here I think that gives you the right to bash, doesn't it? When you're a hypocrite you lose credibility. I don't think almost everyone is hypocritical. A lot of guys just take the stance of "if it's legal I'm not going to say they shouldn't do it". There are certainly a fair number of hypocrites, but to just say almost everyone is a little hypocritical is the equivalence of saying nobody has a leg to stand on so discussion is pointless...
Dale, most public chunks east of I-135 aren't big enough to keep deer from finding the neighbors feeders and more pressure.
I honestly think leasing would have started about the same time as NR's were allowed in anyway. The only reason the state opened the boarders was the growing prevalence of hornporn and the opportunity for $$$$ that it provided. Kansans were getting ready to battle each other for hunting rights... now we have a whole nation to battle with for that same land. This just drives cost up and benefits the one's most willing to spend the money. Which, when compared to the national average (of traveling hunters) I bet most KS paychecks are somewhat small. Take away NR's and the price of leasing goes down, but probably does not go away.
I see the logic in doing away with baiting to lessen leasing, but don't necessarily think it would work. There was a group of NR's leasing the land I hunt for several years. I had it for bowseason and they had it for rifle. Great guys who were hard hunters and very successful (too successful, they usually shot 3 of the top 5 bucks I had on camera each year). I showed them all my stands, trailcam pics, and shed antlers I found every year. The place was theirs for the time they were there. They never once put out a pile of corn, they just hunted from sun-up to sun-down everyday. I think there might be more guys like this out there than we realize. I know if I paid a ton of money to take a trip the last thing I would want to do is sit on a corn pile for 5 days.
My question would be with decrease of non-resident tags, and some outfitters no longer operating some land previously unavailable to residents would once again open. The question is would residents see this opportunity to lease available land or would expectations be we are going back to the days when you did not have to pay for a lease to hunt? Whether you agree with leasing or not, I think this issue would come up. Personally I don't see resident landowners who are used to yearly lease payment going back? Would be interested on everyones thoughts?
Catscratch did they push cover or just hunt the best spots from stands? Rifle hunting certainly makes it a little easier to kill a deer.
Cherney, they hunted stands until the last day of their stay, then they might do a push or two after their morning hunt. Pushes where a last ditch effort for them. Even though I gave them complete access to my stands they seldom used them. They enjoyed the hunt and figuring things out for themselves. Plus my stands were all set up for bow hunting and seldom had a long distance for a shooting lane.
I see. Yeah rifle hunting could certainly keep the demand for leasing high. I still think the demand would be reduced. For every group of rifle hunters like that there are probably 10 baiting bowhunters and 5 more baiting rifle hunters.
I'm fine with nonresidents but like everything else, their numbers need controlled. A management system like Iowa should be in place.
The other states I hunt actually don't have much comparison to Kansas. Some value their resource and adjust tags accordingly based on numbers of deer and predators. The unit I hunt in Colorado takes three years to draw now in 2nd season and 5 years in the later seasons. I was told I was one of 10 nonresidents drawn in this unit the last year I hunted. I always hunt nat'l forest here.
The area of Oklahoma I hunt has high deer numbers and maybe 10-15 people hunting an area of 30,000 acres 20 miles from the nearest town. Once again, lots of animals, land, and very few hunters. Some is exclusive (Yeti owns it) but much of the rest is hunted by area ranchers and their family's and employees and friends.
Manitoba has very few deer but there are hardly any hunters. My guide's concession is over 20,000 acres of Provincial land and maybe a few people hunting it. Craig (Bowsite Sponsor) and I both agreed last year that 2018 would be a good year to not hunt his area due to the low deer numbers because of a winter kill in 2016. The area in Missourri I occasionally hunt is family owned private ground. The whole state is poorly managed for big bucks due to any nonresidents being able to purchase OTC tags. I hope our state does not head in that direction.
A lot of farmers are excluding rifle hunters and catering to bowhunters now. This is s definite paradigm shift from the 1980's.
As far as baiting goes, cherney, I’d say your numbers are probably close to being right when it comes to the percentage of hunters baiting. I have a food buddy who guides locally for an outfitter each year, he would tell you 90% of their hunters, both bow and rifle, expect to be put on corn and complain if they aren’t.
I've hunted whitetails in many States and Provinces in almost every type of terrain/habitat.Stop baiting in the terrain you have in SE Ks,at least the areas I hunt,and watch what happens to the average size of bucks.There is NO WAY it wouldn't go up rapidly.The cover would protect them and they can't 'push bush' and get them either.Too thick or wet or... For those that say big deer can't be shot at feeders-BS.They shoot them there feeding and/or following does feeding and/or when younger.I'm surrounded by feeders,hell I can hear them from one of my stands and I'm 110-120 yds from the property boundary.When it 'goes off',the deer turn and head that way.A F ing disgraceful shame.Facts! I have very few years left and don't live there(at least yet)so I agree for those reasons it's really not my issue but those in favor of baiting ought to dig their heads out and think a bit. Flame away,I don't give a F.:-)
Good discussion guys. I love hunting Kansas and am blessed to hunt here. The hunting is amazing and I have met some really great people who have become good friends. I have respect for the land and the deer. I also understand the NR argument from the residents. My friend Jeff who is a resident leases a lot of land from very wealthy people who don’t need the extra money from him. A lot of land owners lease to him because of issues they have from trespassing which I was very surprised to hear. Jeff leases the land to hunters for each season muzzy, bow, and rifle for $2500 DIY. 3 hunters that is it. Jeff is a good honest person. He never over hunts property. I say most of his property is under hunted. Though he makes money from the leases it’s more a hobby for him. Jeff is a builder by trade. Not all guys who lease to NR are evil.
I don’t want to turn this into a bait debate but, let the discussion go whatever way it may. Yes 90% of the NRs that lease his properties bait. I don’t judge people who do it. My opinion which might not be worth much to most is I don’t like it. I believe hunting is so much more enjoyable when baiting is not involved. It has its place for certain circumstances. Example a disabled hunter that is not mobile.
These same discussions/debates have been going on for at least 10 years on bowsite and likely longer. If you have concerns with Season structures, hunting practices like baiting, etc. get on your soapbox at commission meetings, talk to legislators and talk to your biologist as well as the big game biologist. While it can be interesting to discuss this on bowsite it doesn't change anything. Sure, the baiting discussion could influence another bowsiter to change his thoughts on baiting where they will quit, but it can also go the other way;)
Like Slate said, the discussion is good so keep it rolling, but if you really care start the discussion with those that can actually make changes.
Matt
IMO the only hope to ban baiting in your State is if it is disease connected.Only time will tell.
I'm curious as to why NR hunters are the problem. I am a NR hunter who hunts land that is not leased and that will never be hunted by a resident of Kansas. We only shoot mature bucks because that is why we come to Kansas. Now if I were to move to Kansas and become a resident am I still the problem? I'm still the same person and am still shooting the same mature deer. The NR issue to me seems like a way to "blame" someone for issues that are equally at fault by residents as well. Sure some NR hunters are dirt bags but guess what, residents are probably doing more illegal stuff thru out the year as a whole than the NR hunters are doing in the week or so that they are there.
I'd be glad to Matt. Would it do any good to bring some items to discuss with the biologist at the KBA convention?
Non-residents aren’t the problem. The problem is money and the desire of the state to get as much of it as they can by way of deer hunting.
Of course we can control the whitetail populations by ourselves. I think we did that just fine prior to 1995. However, We should allow non residents to hunt our state (and charge them 10x's the cost we residents pay). I like many on the board hunt other states and understand the value NR hunters bring to our state. I'm thankful for WIHA program and I doubt it would be anywhere near what it is today without fees collected from NR's hunting Kansas. It's been great for thousands of Kansans who can't get access to hunting ground due to time/financial constraints. PS. I do think they can make some modifications to the program that would reduce the acres in pasture ground/wheat fields, and increase acres in CRP and Timber but that's another story.
Raider, we don't have a lot of walk-in ground around us (SEK), it's more of a central/western KS thing; but what we do have includes quite a bit of crop ground. It gets pounded by goose hunters and some quail hunters. The state leases walk-in for a lot more than deer and turkeys. Oh yeah, I almost forget the dove hunters -- they hit the walk-in harder than any other group around here!
Ksq232, I understand and agree with your views on this thread. If you don't hunt out of state, you have every right to be upset with state for allowing NR hunters to hunt here. I'm sure there are some that hunt out of state and are still upset with KS allowing NR hunting here as well. There definitely aren't enough public areas in the NE areas of the state either. You get far enough west and there are a lot of opportunities. I feel the state could do a much better job of finding deer/turkey ground in eastern part of state.
"I am a NR hunter who hunts land that is not leased and that will never be hunted by a resident of Kansas." How are you so certain Does? I have to chuckle at that statement.
Slate- First off, those of us who were there and involved in the discussions of whether or not to allow NR deer hunters into Kansas back in the 90's/ early 2000's, the majority of us were not there trying to block NR from hunting here like most prefer to claim and accuse. There were some there that wanted to keep NR locked out of the state for sure, but they were in the minority and were not listened to.
Could the resident hunters 'keep the herd under control". Absolutely without a doubt! IF given the chance to do so via KDWP&T regulations AND if given land access by the private landowners who rightfully maintain control of their land.
In my area, we had far more deer in the 80's than we ever had in the 90's and 2000's when the pro-commercialism of deer lobbists used crop damage claims and car deer accident numbers to push their agenda to prostitute the deer herd. I provided proof that the car/deer accident numbers were not a statewide issue. Out of 105 counties, the largest majority of the accidents were occurring in the five most populated counties, over 80% of them happening in the areas with the highest traffic numbers. I shared that those same areas were located in urban areas where hunting typically was not allowed, either the areas were within city limits and or were where small residential acreages/plots were common. We promoted adding human pressure to deer herds, increased resident harvest, antlerless only hunts, and promoted KDWP biologic studies/hunter referral programs as ways to reduce herd sizes to those claiming that they had deer crop damage issues due to increased population numbers. None of those things were considered. Those pushing for more NR BUCK tags, those on the other side of the table in the debates and discussions, were not there to address crop damages and supposed deer population issues, they were there wanting to sell leases, land, outfitted hunts, and were there to cash in on the demand from NR hunters to hunt here.
The other side, the pro-commercialism folks, are the ones that led you to believe that all resident hunters were against you being allowed to hunt here. That was not true. We simply did not want to see happen exactly what has happened so far. We continued to promote sound hunting principles, and conservative measures to limit the number of NR tags even after it became obvious that it could not be stopped.
We predicted that land values would soar, that small operation farms would be priced out of being able to grow and prosper in such a land market. Ranchers and farmers are now having to pay more for rent/leases to continue branching out their business. They are easily outbid at auction by NR investors when acreages are sold now. Who do they blame for that happening? Hunters of course, not the commercialism lobby who made it happen.
We predicted that resident youth hunter numbers would continue to decline, kids would be priced out of the sport because of leases and 5-10X higher land values preventing their parents from being able to provide places for them to hunt. That is exactly what has happened, has happened to many adults too, not just the youth.
We predicted the limited numbers of acres available for public hunting would be over run with increased hunter numbers. Sure you can still find public land that the hordes have not overhunted, but those acres are becoming few and far between. Many acres that used to be public, are now leased out from under the state programs by investors who paid much more than the state could compete with.
We also predicted that in a short amount of time, the no-hunting acres in the cities and in suburbia, pro-commercialism acres, leases, outfitter owned/ran lands, would be the only spots in Kansas to have healthy deer populations/numbers residing on them. If you don't recognize that this is happening or won't be happening in the very near future near you, you don't understand/comprehend why it is happening. Some our forefathers migrated out of Europe to get away from it.
Had they maintained the limited number of NR tags, prevented NR hunters from being able to draw in consecutive years, which is what we promoted, most of the above listed problems could have prevented or lessened. You do not control the deer herd population by taking out all of the trophy bucks. You control herd quality and population numbers by reducing the number of the does. When you don't control the doe population, and you limit the number of hunters via access down to those willing to pay enough to hunt, it is a recipe for disaster. People typically refuse to pay to hunt does.
Raider, part of the issue with walk-in is the ever-increasing cost of leasing ground. My same buddy told me the outfitter he works part-time for might soon be out of business, it is getting to the point that he simply cannot compete with the $ people are willing to pay for ground. He does not lease the ground of family or very close friends; and although he's had good relationship with most of the landowners, they have no reason to be loyal to him when someone else is willing to pay an additional $5/acre. The madness behind the amount of $ being spent on ground is getting crazy!
Thornton, What is so funny about that statement? I guess I should of said as long as the family owns it.
Family is one thing but I've known a lot of local ranchers who leased to big money but they would always sneak around and let their friends hunt for free when the lessors left. The locals always seem to know when you are gone as well and it doesn't take long to push out a creek and run them somewhere you can hunt. I put cameras all around my place and t-posted the gates shut after I found tracks coming from the neighbor.
we are the same have 260 that we hunt owned by my friends dad and im sure locals hunt it because ive seen them running to the fences when we drive in
Most residents were way behind the 8 ball in respect to leasing. Upto about 2003 hunting access was still fairly common to get with a knock on the door. As non resident hunters from states who had been accustomed to big hunting clubs and leases for decades it was a no brainier. Kansas put out a realestate book that showed what farmers were willing to lease land. Hunters we're even able to hunt it for free just to see what it was like. The next year that piece of WIHA would be with drawn and leased out generally to an outfitter or non resident, better yet a non resident outfitter. Still most resident hunters did not catch on and refused to lease. If you asked me now should you lease? If you can't afford to buy ground and you find a lease that suits your hunting ambition lease it up with a multi year contract. Heck get your buddies together and start a club. 10-20 years from now Kansas hunting will look very different maybe even more so than the last 20.
Thanks for the idea Matte, that's a great tip! I could see that working out well if you have the right group of friends.
You are right Matte. I tried telling a friend this about ten years ago and he refused to pay to hunt areas he had always hunted for free. Now he is trying to get a lease but cannot because a local outfitter leased everything for 20 miles that was available.
I guess I'm different...bettin some laughed at that! I've never paid to hunt anywhere, and I don't ever plan too. I have access to at least 20k acres in Western KS, and over 10 farms in other parts of the state(mostly SC) with over 2k acres to hunt...lot's of small parcels but some of them are the best. We do own a small amount of land I hunt as well.
I picked up another 1k acre ranch late Summer near Moline, 80ac near Argonia in Nov, and just two weeks ago a 360ac piece near Augusta(waterfowl for now). I honestly cannot hunt all of the places I have permission on, even as much as I hunt.
How? I asked that's how...some took me a few phone calls and or a face to face, but no money exchanged hands. Talk to people at work, church, small town restaurants and businesses... and if they like you you'll be surprised what doors will open. I helped a ranch owner "doctor" some cattle for a half day(in my camo), while talking to him about his place, and got access to the biggest ranch I hunt 10yrs ago.
I do pay with Summer Sausage, Catfish & Crappie, Deer/Elk/Pronghorn steaks/roasts and an occasional gift card but most of the time I'm told the latter is "not neccessary". My advice...quit complaining, get off your duff, knock on some doors and make some calls, and use your already existing connections... It's not like you're selling Life Insurance lol. Trust me there's a LOT of ground out there that's great, isn't leased, and most likely never will be.
IMO Encouraging leasing is not even close to a fix. When things were changing and people were concerned about the routes we were taking we (or maybe just I) were led to believe that things would be different in a positive way. The increase in revenue for the state would lead to more public hunting that would provide for the non-residents and our parks would be better etc.. etc.. etc.. It would be interesting to see how much money actually enters or comes back to KDWPT from all the changes that have taken place. I really don't know if they are financially better off, but if I had to guess I would say no. How many farmers/outfitters actual report in taxes their entire income from natural resources that we all own as citizens. Not sure if there are even any checks and balances within our government for that? Just rambling..
Sure he can Thornton, he just needs to outbid the outfitter
You're right Trebarker, we would never pay to shoot a few does, I can't imagine anyone else doing that either. That's coming from somebody who has leased several different properties over the last ten years. We do now lease a 120 from the guy who farms our ground; no money exchanges hands, but we lowered our cash rent price a few dollars per acre. The farmer loves it because he doesn't have to pay taxes on that "income". In my experience, leasing works best for both parties when there is a relationship outside the lease. Everyone we've leased from, up to this point, have been close personal friends.
I will sell my bow before paying for a lease. Buy more land, or hunt what I have now, yes, lease, not a chance, NEVER. To me, leasing is as absurd as me expecting a landowner to pay me to control the herd size on their land. Of course I come from "the good old days" before that disease invaded here. I will never pay an individual money to hunt deer. I will pay for licensing and equipment, but for the actual hunt and land access, buying more land is as close as that will ever come to happening.
I will be blasted again here for saying this but I believe that maybe 10% of leasing money is ever reported to the IRS. Blaze away!!!!
Blast away.. I bet it is less than that!!!
I never understood why Kansas makes it such a big deal to make every NR happy when other states such as Iowa,NM and several others flat make it tough to even draw a tag.Which I don't have an issue with it's their state but for them to threaten Kansas like they did years ago to allow NR then NM give NR a whole 6% of the tags unless they hire a guide.Funny part was Ole George from USO outfitters in NM threatened to sue Kansas if they didn't allow NR and then went and threatened to sue NM if they didn't give them better odds for guided NRs
Had Kansas kept the percentage of NR tags low, the herd would be better than it ever was before they did what they have done to it. But...… there was a quick buck to be made pun intended.
I don't see our resource maintaining the demand to hunt here much longer. Another state will produce larger trophies, the real estate market will be cheaper elsewhere, the grass greener on other places, and the swarm will dissipate.
I will see your 10% Dave and bet it's less than 2%.
I said the same thing about leasing Randy, back in 2006 when we lost all but one of our places to hunt on October 10th. Had to go and pull all of our stands so the Louisiana boys with the fat wallets could hunt our old spots. I almost hung up the bow, but two years later we bought our first 80 acres and four years after that we leased our first property from a family friend. I just couldn’t hang the bow up...
Basecamp leasing is now buying and holding property just for the lease. Smart business plan if Crp, oil or tenant farming pays the mortgage.
Depends on what they're payin I reckon ;)
No different than buying a house and renting it I guess. I was just surprised to see them showing up on the OnX maps as the land owner.
Sito you are 100% correct. Guys just need to get out and knock on doors even though they may have to drive a little further than they prefer. There’s plenty of hunting available to those that don’t sit on bowsite and complain that they can’t hunt the 160 next to their house anymore. I have access to more ground than I can hunt and have never exchanged a dollar. Yes some help on the farm or ranch is all I’ve traded even though I want to do more the landowners never accept.
Matte - that’s exactly why I believe the traditional “outfitters” will be a thing of the past. Same thing is going on around here with hunting clubs buying property and charging an access fee.
Hunting clubs are the future... and where does that end? You will start to see more government involvement in game population control (vouchers/required quotas) as members cannot/will not control the population and farmers will demand reimbursement for damages.
Europe.
I’ve witnessed an argument between a hunting club owner and a farmer while in Europe. Wife translated, but NOT pretty.... several thousands of dollars.
Matte - that’s exactly why I believe the traditional “outfitters” will be a thing of the past. Same thing is going on around here with hunting clubs buying property and charging an access fee.
Hunting clubs are the future... and where does that end? You will start to see more government involvement in game population control (vouchers/required quotas) as members cannot/will not control the population and farmers will demand reimbursement for damages.
Europe.
I’ve witnessed an argument between a hunting club owner and a farmer while in Europe. Wife translated, but NOT pretty.... several thousands of dollars.
And if you think we have problems...
Farmers and hunters DO NOT see eye to eye in Europe... I spoke with a couple farmers over there and they had nothing good to say about hunting clubs and game management (game management is almost completely out of the farmers control since the government owns the animal and majority of the woods). Throw in the “Green Party” and you’ve got a real cluster.
I have a theory as to how the “threat” of CWD coupled with Hunting Clubs may end the North American Conservation Model.
Some very good stuff here guys, but like Matt P. stated above, it's more of an in-house discussion of convincing each other. It's the legislators and commission who need to hear a "common" voice. It can be very tough these days. My one complaint is in my lifetime as a bow hunter I have a hard time of thinking of even one thing that has really changed for the better. "For the better" can obviously be taken several different ways. May have been better in some people's eyes, etc. Maybe? Better for the herd, I doubt it. I do know we need to be a strong voice, which I am not good at, but I think that's where it is important to support the organizations that can be that voice, such as the KBA.
