• Help Support TNDeer:

Hunter overcrowding and the privatization of access

I meant on public tv, there's tons of it on utube ect but unless you pay for access to it there's not much. The over the air free stuff aint what it use to be
 
mike243 said:
I meant on public tv, there's tons of it on utube ect but unless you pay for access to it there's not much. The over the air free stuff aint what it use to be
Click to expand...
But that's true of everything (except asinine primetime shows on the 4 major networks). Look at how news programs and everything else on TV is going. They're all dying out because everything is moving to internet programs.
 
MidTennFisher said:
And that's only 5000 hunters, there's a lot more in TN. And I'd have to guess most of us would be ready and willing to pay more than $20 extra IF, and that's a big if, we knew for certain that it would directly open up significant amounts of access for us to hunt. I know I certainly would.

These giant tracts of land at < $2k an acre sound great and all but the issue is they are giant. So even at a low price per acre it is way out of reach for most people. So what eventually will happen is they'll get bought up by developers and never again be habitat for wildlife.
Click to expand...
This^^^
 
Antler Daddy said:
My guess is that some landowners would open their land provided:
  • Tax break or income from state
  • Printable permit placed in dash of vehicle
  • Release of liability
  • Signed agreement by hunters to respect land and follow game laws
  • Reduce liability by not allowing any tree stand hunting
  • Potentially shotgun/ml or archery only
  • Walk in or bike only...no atvs
  • Hunters buy a an additional access permit for these lands
  • Hunters reserve an online permit/spot to control access, checkin by 8am or lose spot
  • Game seen and taken for data at check-out
  • Quality buck standards to protect 1.5 aged bucks
  • Area closed to either sex or doe only once some quotas met so not over hunted- none of this is difficult
I have 53 acres to enroll. $25 an acre should do it. :)
Click to expand...
Hahaha.. sorry but I had to laugh at "tax break". I'd say it would be easier to get permission to rifle hunt on the front lawn of the state capital than get a tax break. Unless of course you can pad the pockets of politicians.
 
The internet and public land hunting are hand in hand. As most YouTube hunting videos are almost exclusively public land hunting. It's as if they figure they can't get any respect and or views unless it's public land. Let the state of Tn and conservation groups buy more big tracts and preserve them for the present and future for all sportsman Before there isn't any big tracts left to purchase. And it won't be long before it's to late.
 
It's already almost to late, show them the property they must be blind right? Shouldn't cost much of a raise to the license.
 
MidTennFisher said:
These giant tracts of land at < $2k an acre sound great and all but the issue is they are giant. So even at a low price per acre it is way out of reach for most people. So what eventually will happen is they'll get bought up by developers and never again be habitat for wildlife.
Click to expand...
What will happen is a group of financially successful guys will band together and buy the property as a club. The property will still be hunted, but by a limited number of people.
 
BSK said:
What will happen is a group of financially successful guys will band together and buy the property as a club. The property will still be hunted, but by a limited number of people.
Click to expand...
That is what's happening.

The overall process of it is the most mind boggling of it all.
Take Realtree for example. Their whole business model is to promote hunting to increase their sales to increase profit. However, what do they do with some of that profit? They buy property and severely control access.

They literally recruit people to hunting and simultaneously take away their access. Mind blowing.
 
AT Hiker said:
That is what's happening.

The overall process of it is the most mind boggling of it all.
Take Realtree for example. Their whole business model is to promote hunting to increase their sales to increase profit. However, what do they do with some of that profit? They buy property and severely control access.

They literally recruit people to hunting and simultaneously take away their access. Mind blowing.
Click to expand...
Realtree, Mossy Oak, Whitetail Properties, they all do the same thing.
 
AT Hiker said:
That is what's happening.

The overall process of it is the most mind boggling of it all.
Take Realtree for example. Their whole business model is to promote hunting to increase their sales to increase profit. However, what do they do with some of that profit? They buy property and severely control access.

They literally recruit people to hunting and simultaneously take away their access. Mind blowing.
Click to expand...
Are they buying public land and selling it to private buyers?

Or just flipping private tracts?
 
BSK said:
What will happen is a group of financially successful guys will band together and buy the property as a club. The property will still be hunted, but by a limited number of people.
Click to expand...
That's the other option, besides developers buying. Neither option results in an increase of the number of huntable acres per hunter. Even if the land is bought and turns into a high dollar hunt club, that is not considered huntable acres per hunter in my opinion. That is huntable acres for a few wealthy people. I could never step foot on that land.
AT Hiker said:
That is what's happening.

The overall process of it is the most mind boggling of it all.
Take Realtree for example. Their whole business model is to promote hunting to increase their sales to increase profit. However, what do they do with some of that profit? They buy property and severely control access.

They literally recruit people to hunting and simultaneously take away their access. Mind blowing.
Click to expand...
That's why Matt Rinella said they literally use our money from the products we buy to ensure we have fewer places to use the products we bought. He is certainly correct about that.

Private land that is turned into a "hunting property" and then sold for an outrageous price to the wealthy that can afford it is not preserving hunting for the future. It's preserving hunting for the wealthy, which is not the direction this needs to continue in.
 
DeerCamp said:
Are they buying public land and selling it to private buyers?

Or just flipping private tracts?
Click to expand...
You know the answer but the prior land ownership is irrelevant.

Access is access. Whether it is publicly controlled land or a private landowner that grants access.
Once it is gone to the highest bidder it is removed from access. Therefore increasing crowding on the available access.
 
MidTennFisher said:
Private land that is turned into a "hunting property" and then sold for an outrageous price to the wealthy that can afford it is not preserving hunting for the future. It's preserving hunting for the wealthy, which is not the direction this needs to continue in.
Click to expand...
I completely agree MidTennFisher.
 
AT Hiker said:
It doesn't matter if you like it or not or what side of the property line you're on. It's just a simple fact.
Click to expand...
Yup, and in my line of work, I see this all the time. Good for me work-wise and good for the deer (large clubs usually manage well), but bad for the average deer hunter.
 
BSK said:
What will happen is a group of financially successful guys will band together and buy the property as a club. The property will still be hunted, but by a limited number of people.
Click to expand...
It may not be the best case scenario but it's certainly not the worst. Once development happens, it's gone forever
 
MickThompson said:
It may not be the best case scenario but it's certainly not the worst. Once development happens, it's gone forever
Click to expand...
That's why I think some of the smartest most forward thinking individuals in history had some of the best ideas. Those ideas involved the preservation of federal public land and wilderness.
Unfortunately, too many want to give these ideas up.
 
MidTennFisher said:
That's the other option, besides developers buying. Neither option results in an increase of the number of huntable acres per hunter. Even if the land is bought and turns into a high dollar hunt club, that is not considered huntable acres per hunter in my opinion. That is huntable acres for a few wealthy people. I could never step foot on that land.

That's why Matt Rinella said they literally use our money from the products we buy to ensure we have fewer places to use the products we bought. He is certainly correct about that.

Private land that is turned into a "hunting property" and then sold for an outrageous price to the wealthy that can afford it is not preserving hunting for the future. It's preserving hunting for the wealthy, which is not the direction this needs to continue in.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but nothing can be done about it. That's the worst thing. When I was a kid I used to hunt in spring hill in 2 spots there's a thousand houses sitting there now. So much so it's moving down towards where I live and land is selling for 20 plus k. So either way it's getting ridiculous no matter who is doing it. They aren't making more of it and it's become in crazy high demand. Wild times at the end of the day. Not only that what's not getting talked about and I hate to bring him up, but seek one and what he is doing. Public land getting ridiculously overcrowded. You will see stupid prices paid for little to no land to hunt on in these neighborhoods and you will see an increase I'm arrows in deer and wounded deer in these Suburban areas. It's coming from all sides.
 
The other side if I'm not mistaken aren't we technically on the verge of not keeping up with the current population? Aren't birth rates down? If that's the case then we will have a reset but it's quite a ways down the road.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top