• Help Support TNDeer:

Hunter overcrowding and the privatization of access

kaizen leader said:
I agree but it gets damn cold šŸ„¶.
Click to expand...
You can dress up for cold.....heat is another story. We are only at 7350' elevation at the house here in Colorado. When that sun comes out in summer it will cook you, you just can't work long in it. So when someone tells you, "yes but it's a dry heat", that just a pure crock. The intensity of the the sun at this elevation is amazing. I've worked at temperatures of -40 + and when the sun came out ended up removing my Carhart insulated jacket.
 
Be careful what you hope for. In 2000-01 I was an anti state income taxer, now I regret it cause that is thrown up constantly to people looking to move here. It's the no state income tax States that are the destination now.
You've got a set amount of land public and private, you've got a rapidly increasing population, the result will be overcrowding and a diminished experience on public and skyrocketing costs on private. It's unavoidable, the only way it reverses is for the population to start decreasing which isn't gonna happen anytime soon.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that's what I see.
 
mike243 said:
Loosing hunting property has nothing to do with the government, $$$ is what is driving leases, trophy hunting is what's driving folks to leases, not wanting to hunt public and share the resources, reckon it could be classified as greed to drop out as many competitors as possible. No nice way to put it but it boils down to the same thing imo. I'm not against leases by any means but it's a way to control how many folks are hunting Your deer.
Click to expand...
Color me guilty! We bought our land before the trophyism was ever a thought and even before private land management became a thing, but without question we bought the land to "drop out as many competitors as possible." We were tired of having to constantly seek land to hunt on. We had tried the public land hunting a couple of times and were not impressed. We simply wanted a place we could always hunt and where we would have limited competition from other hunters. Luckily, we "got in" before buying land to hunt on was even considered by most hunters.
 
Look up hunting in Britain and know we are headed that direction at some point, $$$ will be needed to hunt 1 way or the other and the average joe won't be able to without forking $ to hunt a preserve or own the property, TWRA has bought property and hopefully will continue but they don't make it any more and gets higher every day, these big company's that have land for 1 thing these days, growing tree's was a good business at 1 time but the $ is very slow, 25-80 years to harvest and a lot of places they would have bought has been divided into smaller places the average person could afford, that's getting up there where few can get a fair amount to hunt on. We are in the last of the good old days I give it 15-20 years, folks will find a way to chip away at the wma's, everything public will be a draw hunt,
 
We don't need more hunters and we dang sure don't need anymore recruitment. Everyone agrees that with the population growing and land disappearing, we are crowding more and more people into a continually shrinking resource. So what in the world about that absolute fact would make anyone think we need to recruit more hunters?

Someone said that the younger generation isn't hunting as much. Who do you think all these flatbill hat wearing goofballs that post all over Instagram and TikTok to fuel their dopamine addictions are? 18-30 year olds!

I do believe that if all forms of social media were to disappear that within one full hunting season we'd see a dramatic reduction in hunting pressure and that would be the best thing that could ever happen to hunting. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Social media has been the most destructive thing to ever happen to hunting.

As for buying land to hunt, forget it. If you haven't bought it already, or have the money saved to do it soon, it's out of reach. Land prices have outpaced wage increases at an unprecedented rate over the last decade. Especially bad the last 3-4 years.

The younger generations are so screwed. And I'm not some whining millennial with an Arts degree working at a coffee shop thinking I should be able to afford 40 acres of land, just to be clear. I went to college to get an Engineering degree and have worked very hard in my career.

Unfortunately, I started making decent money just a few years too late. Seems like my generation is better off trying to just buy a house on 3-4 acres and raise livestock to eat. That's more feasible than thinking I'll have access to quality (or any) public hunting in 15-20 years or ever be able to afford the 40 acres I really want.
 
Antler Daddy said:
Anyone caught littering fined $1000, 2 days in jail with bubba, and banned for life.

People to dumb and stupid to carry out their wrappers, bottle, etc. shouldn't be allowed to have access to any land.
Click to expand...
I've discussed this a lot lately. Why are Southeastern people so bad about litter? I drive through the National Forests here and see, and not limited to:

couches
mattresses
old appliances
beer cans
styrofoam fast food boxes
plastic bags
tampons
oil filters
batteries

While walking through the woods or fishing a lake it's beer/soda cans, bags, dip cans, trail tape, bottles, fishing line, discarded lures, ripped clothing, literally anything they didn't want to take out.

When we went out to Colorado last Summer we hiked on some busy trails and I fished some lakes with plenty of people around, not one speck of trash. Not even a piece of fishing line or a single cigarette butt.

I've made the comment that it was so clean that if it weren't for seeing other humans, I'd think I was the first person to discover those woods or lakes. With how disgusting Southeastern people, of course not all of us, seem to be I can't blame private land owners one bit for not wanting to allow access. I probably wouldn't allow it either.
 
MidTennFisher said:
I've discussed this a lot lately. Why are Southeastern people so bad about litter? I drive through the National Forests here and see, and not limited to:

couches
mattresses
old appliances
beer cans
styrofoam fast food boxes
plastic bags
tampons
oil filters
batteries

While walking through the woods or fishing a lake it's beer/soda cans, bags, dip cans, trail tape, bottles, fishing line, discarded lures, ripped clothing, literally anything they didn't want to take out.

When we went out to Colorado last Summer we hiked on some busy trails and I fished some lakes with plenty of people around, not one speck of trash. Not even a piece of fishing line or a single cigarette butt.

I've made the comment that it was so clean that if it weren't for seeing other humans, I'd think I was the first person to discover those woods or lakes. With how disgusting Southeastern people, of course not all of us, seem to be I can't blame private land owners one bit for not wanting to allow access. I probably wouldn't allow it either.
Click to expand...
I've made the same observation on public lands up north as well. Perhaps it's a side benefit of urbanization?
 
MickThompson said:
So it's generally accepted that we need more land/access, more/better management, but we don't want more recruitment (competition) and licenses are too high.

So what gives? Something has to.
Click to expand...
You remember the thread here about getting rid of the TWRA tax stamp in ammo? So many here supported that.

Only on Planet Tndeer would hunters vote to remove a consumption tax that has direct benefits to them. Not to mention it was one of the few taxes that had an eye on fiscal responsibility.

So what gives? IMO, it's about making what we got now and making it the best it can be and keeping it forever. Do I have to give up a turkey tag to make it better? I'm ok with that. Better than no turkey tag or paying $1500 to lease a place for turkeys.

But the reality is if we can get more people on the pro hunting train, the funding will flourish.
 
MickThompson said:
So it's generally accepted that we need more land/access, more/better management, but we don't want more recruitment (competition) and licenses are too high.

So what gives? Something has to.
Click to expand...
I'd gladly pay more for licenses IF AND ONLY IF there is a demonstrable benefit to the hunters. That benefit being more land to hunt and proven better management of that land.

The increased cost might deter some of the new YouTube hunters to find something less expensive to make videos about.
 
mike243 said:
Look up hunting in Britain and know we are headed that direction at some point, $$$ will be needed to hunt 1 way or the other and the average joe won't be able to without forking $ to hunt a preserve or own the property, TWRA has bought property and hopefully will continue but they don't make it any more and gets higher every day, these big company's that have land for 1 thing these days, growing tree's was a good business at 1 time but the $ is very slow, 25-80 years to harvest and a lot of places they would have bought has been divided into smaller places the average person could afford, that's getting up there where few can get a fair amount to hunt on. We are in the last of the good old days I give it 15-20 years, folks will find a way to chip away at the wma's, everything public will be a draw hunt,
Click to expand...
From my understanding you don't have to go across the pond to find it. Texas is the example.
 
AT Hiker said:
From my understanding you don't have to go across the pond to find it. Texas is the example.
Click to expand...
And even if you have land in Texas, you better be pouring bait piles that reach to Heaven if you want to attract any game. Because you can bet your butt that all your neighbors are.

Sorry but paying $2k (at the very least) to "hunt" game over bait piles is not interesting. I could use that money to buy enough beef from a local farmer to feed my family all year and just go fishing more. And if that's the direction hunting is going to go, I'd rather just see it all go away.
 
mike243 said:
Loosing hunting property has nothing to do with the government, $$$ is what is driving leases, trophy hunting is what's driving folks to leases, not wanting to hunt public and share the resources, reckon it could be classified as greed to drop out as many competitors as possible. No nice way to put it but it boils down to the same thing imo. I'm not against leases by any means but it's a way to control how many folks are hunting Your deer.
Click to expand...
Thats the beauty of private leases... you can pretty much find a lease to fit your budget. I've seen deer leases recently for as little as $300 per year (now that's in very rural areas with 1 hunter per 40 acres on large tracts of plantation pine) plus one or 2 'work days' per year. The $10,000 per year clubs are 1 member per 200 acres, have a camp skinning guy on weekends, camp cook on weekends, full time caretaker to maintain roads, plant plots, etc, etc. You basically don't have to lift a finger.
 
MickThompson said:
So it's generally accepted that we need more land/access, more/better management, but we don't want more recruitment (competition) and licenses are too high.

So what gives? Something has to.
Click to expand...
There is no good answer to this. The reason why you never hear of TWRA buying more land near an urban base, where it would do the most good, is because land values have gone up too much for them to justify buying it. They can buy a substantially more amount of old strip mine land in BFE for the same total price. Not only does it cost more near population bases, but they'd have to find a willing Seller who owns a large enough tract, to even create a new WMA. These large tracts of land are in short supply.

And, not to pile on with the negativity, but a good portion of the existing WMA's near population bases aren't even owned by TWRA. Not only are we going to have to just get used to more hunters crowding public lands, but there's going to be an influx of "other users" (hikers, bikers, etc.) in the coming years. I'll keep complaining about it, but it won't keep me from being out there. Last year, I learned to adapt to the pressure during turkey season. I'm sure I will for the other species also.
 
megalomaniac said:
Thats the beauty of private leases... you can pretty much find a lease to fit your budget. I've seen deer leases recently for as little as $300 per year (now that's in very rural areas with 1 hunter per 40 acres on large tracts of plantation pine) plus one or 2 'work days' per year. The $10,000 per year clubs are 1 member per 200 acres, have a camp skinning guy on weekends, camp cook on weekends, full time caretaker to maintain roads, plant plots, etc, etc. You basically don't have to lift a finger.
Click to expand...
I wonder how far a drive from Lebanon (Wilson Co middle Tn) it would be to reach a $300 a member club lease. Been quite a while since I entertained the idea but I wouldn't be surprised if I had to drive well over two hours. I'd love to be wrong. If someone wants to correct me or knows of a lease looking for new members at an affordable price I'd at least consider it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top