Hunter overcrowding and the privatization of access

[MidTennFisher]

This. Started 3 years ago with waterfowl. And it's been a trainwreck.

I know Matt Rinella had Cameron Weddington on a while back. He was blasting TWRA for when they paid The Hunting Public to advertise how great TN turkey hunting was and of course that resulted in a spike of OOS hunters.

The next season he said a lot of public land near him went to draw hunts for turkeys due to how much the pressure increased.

But... we need more hunters! R3!! Turkey hunting pressure on public land has gotten so bad they had to reduce everyone's opportunity by making it a draw hunt, but we still need more hunters!!

 

[TNGunsmoke]

But... we need more hunters! R3!! Turkey hunting pressure on public land has gotten so bad they had to reduce everyone's opportunity by making it a draw hunt, but we still need more hunters!!

Don't overlook the reduction in bag limits for turkeys from 4 to 2. And with the proposed turkey regions, I figure some regions will be 1 with very limited dates.

 

[mike243]

You all need to clarify public and wma they are 2 separate types, it's hard to talk sense without knowing what's what, most tva land can be considered public maybe not all of it, CNF can be considered public, but there again draw hunts also happen and are ran by twra even though it's federal. everything is not black and white, it's a complicated system that they have to manage and try to keep folks happy plus pay to keep the lights on.

 

[Swampster]

To the answer of this specific question, please note I do not want it to necessarily happen, is to use capital to solve the access issue. At least in theory it could work here, in TN.

For example; a large corporation could come in and gobble up as much access as its capital would allow. It would be governed by a board of directors and financed by members.

Basically just one big hunting club. Dues would be manageable and not a complete burden on its members. To achieve this the corporation would lease up duck property, small game property, fishing property, camping, turkey, deer, bear, etc. The corporation would have "buying" power and pass the cost savings on to its paying members. The duck hunters would subsidize the deer hunters, the turkey hunters would subsidize the rabbit hunters, etc. So, instead of having one big deer hunting club you'd have one big recreational club spread throughout the state.

Access would be granted via a reservation system. Membership would be granted based on hunting preferences, so not to have too many deer or duck hunters.

Or, these non profits who claim to want to preserve the hunting heritage would simply invest their money into access.

Sounds like you are describing a co-op arrangement.

 

[backyardtndeer]

Seems even my small farm is being overcrowded by neighboring properties, and sure there will be some impact. They have moved in on top of a couple of my stands locations that I have hunted for over 30 years. Back 15-20 years when that land was leased out, there were some boys that also hunted very close to where I had my stands, and it had a negative impact because they were killing way too many, often killing deer I passed and watched walk off my property.

 

[kaizen leader]

Repeat post. I'd like some of your opinions on this suggestion. Not that TWRA would ever do it but to plant some seeds of thought. Out of the box.

Many land owners just don't want the hassle and worry. Maybe TWRA could have a hunter respect certification where hunters have to take classes on private land owner expectations and respect for nature. Certify them along with a commitment to follow those expectations or loose their hunting and fishing privileges for a year. Then reach out to private land owners with an agreement that those certified hunters cannot enter in litigation against the land owner. Maybe land owners would agree to something like that. It would require TWRA to respond and enforce these agreements and manage the training. All at a cost to the hunters.
Do you think that might work. It would create a new value stream, educate hunters, improve accountability, and develop relationships.

 

[MidTennFisher]

Repeat post. I'd like some of your opinions on this suggestion. Not that TWRA would ever do it but to plant some seeds of thought. Out of the box.

Many land owners just don't want the hassle and worry. Maybe TWRA could have a hunter respect certification where hunters have to take classes on private land owner expectations and respect for nature. Certify them along with a commitment to follow those expectations or loose their hunting and fishing privileges for a year. Then reach out to private land owners with an agreement that those certified hunters cannot enter in litigation against the land owner. Maybe land owners would agree to something like that. It would require TWRA to respond and enforce these agreements and manage the training. All at a cost to the hunters.
Do you think that might work. It would create a new value stream, educate hunters, improve accountability, and develop relationships.

Your idea sounds great but I just don't know how well it'd work in a state like Tennessee. Typically in the Southeast we don't have landowners who own 1000s of acres to let hunters use. It's usually smaller parcels of land that really can't handle a lot of hunting pressure.

Out West they have great programs like you described that might open up a ranch that could be as big as 10k acres to public hunting. Getting a handful of 40-100 acre tracts opened to the public won't be nearly as significant.

They will be jam packed and over hunted in one weekend unless there is some sort of draw system. Having them on a draw/lottery system isn't ideal but it certainly does add some opportunity for hunting pressure to spread out a bit. Any amount is a positive thing. I would gladly agree to an increase in hunting license costs if it went directly to opening up more access. Who knows, with enough time we might have hundreds of 40-100 acre tracts of land in that program and now we're talking about a significant increase in publicly accessible hunting land.

 

[Urban_Hunter]

I just wanted to add two things:

First… the paper company lands of the 80's and 90's with the $12 permit or whatever… they were an outlet into hunting nonetheless, but they were absolute worst of the places I've hunted. I don't know why… but it seems like there were 10x as many hunters per acre and 10% the number of deer compared to today. If it went back to that I'd throw in the towel undoubtedly

Second… about TWRA buying more lands. Look at a priest WMA map from 1990 compared to today. The entire lower end of the lake is off limits now for "safety zones".

 

[kaizen leader]

Your idea sounds great but I just don't know how well it'd work in a state like Tennessee. Typically in the Southeast we don't have landowners who own 1000s of acres to let hunters use. It's usually smaller parcels of land that really can't handle a lot of hunting pressure.

Out West they have great programs like you described that might open up a ranch that could be as big as 10k acres to public hunting. Getting a handful of 40-100 acre tracts opened to the public won't be nearly as significant.

They will be jam packed and over hunted in one weekend unless there is some sort of draw system. Having them on a draw/lottery system isn't ideal but it certainly does add some opportunity for hunting pressure to spread out a bit. Any amount is a positive thing. I would gladly agree to an increase in hunting license costs if it went directly to opening up more access. Who knows, with enough time we might have hundreds of 40-100 acre tracts of land in that program and now we're talking about a significant increase in publicly accessible hunting land.

The smaller parcels are what I think have the most potential for this. I think there are a lot of them that are just plane afraid to let anyone on their property. Take that fear away may open up some great hunting. Thx

 

[Antler Daddy]

Regardless of the land size, an online reservation/check-in system for wma/public lands divided into management areas would help to alleviate overcrowding, provide Managment data and prevent overhunting of areas. These systems exist and do work well provided the tech support is behind it to keep it working.

 

[chris1976]

First… the paper company lands of the 80's and 90's with the $12 permit or whatever… they were an outlet into hunting nonetheless, but they were absolute worst of the places I've hunted. I don't know why… but it seems like there were 10x as many hunters per acre and 10% the number of deer compared to today. If it went back to that I'd throw in the towel undoubtedly

Second… about TWRA buying more lands. Look at a priest WMA map from 1990 compared to today. The entire lower end of the lake is off limits now for "safety zones".

The west vaco lands I grew up hunting in Stewart, Houston and Montgomery counties were a sportsman's dream. Some of the finest hunting there was.

 

[megalomaniac]

It's a little funny.... used to be you wanted to own a small piece of private that bordered public, as it gave you access to hunt much more land, often unpressured. Now owning private next to public is becoming a detriment as the public is often overhunted.

 

[DeerCamp]

DeerCamp's thread on the Meateater podcast, and the follow-up posts about Matt's arguments has me considering this problem. Without question, out West this is a huge issue. But even here in TN it's an issue. I keep seeing TNdeer member after member talking about how they're losing access to hunting land. Some of it is due to suburbanization of areas that used to be rural. Honestly, I see absolutely no recourse for this. More and more people want to live outside of urban centers and want to live a more rural or at the least, suburban life. This is not going to change, although at some point you would think we would reach a saturation level of suburbs.

The one major problem perhaps we could address is the locking up of large areas of land into "high-dollar" leases and clubs. In the past, timber companies used to own hundreds of thousands of acres of TN that were accessible to hunters for a $10-20 permit. However, many of those lands have been sold off. And many of those lands have been sold off into chunks that all become personal hunting preserves, which does not help the overcrowding issue. I know this because I work for a lot of these new landowners that bought their own 300 to 1,000-acre chunks of this once publicly accessible land. My family did this very thing many years ago - we bought a nice chunk of land specifically for hunting access and control. But what is the answer to this in a free market capitalist society? How do you entice a farmer or rancher NOT to lease their land to outfitters or clubs that will definitely take better care of the land than if it was open to the public? Those lease fees can be a nice addition in income, AND the landowner knows the property will be respected and cared for.

Ideas?

I think this is why outfitter option is so popular in some states.

It allows the landowners the opportunity to monetize their land, which they have every right to do, while also opening up opportunities for people to participate in those experiences for a fee.

I'm not saying it's a great option, just pointing out that it exists.

There's also a big caveat here - if your goal is just to be able to harvest A deer - then there should be no complaining here in the South.

I hunted public land 7 times this year. I never once ran into another hunter, and could have killed deer on every trip but one.

 

[DeerCamp]

TWRA has bought a lot of property and will continue, I haven't read recently what all they have bought but it's considerable over the last 10 years,

Here's the other answer - License derived, hunter funded purchasing of tracts of land for public use.

The tracts of public land I hunted this year are huge compared to the private land I hunt, and based on the harvest reports, the actual kill pressure is much lower... about 2 deer/square mile. Contrast this to some of my home acreage. The collective amount of land around my house is around 1000 acres in the entire bottom, and consists mostly of 30-100 acre tracts.

Judging by the number of shots we heard this year plus deer we know were killed, I would wager that the kill pressure on the private land access is 10X as high as on our public land access.

 

[MickThompson]

The smaller parcels are what I think have the most potential for this. I think there are a lot of them that are just plane afraid to let anyone on their property. Take that fear away may open up some great hunting. Thx

Small parcels are a management nightmare in a program like that.

State law already protects landowners from liability to people they give permission to hunt.

 

[kaizen leader]

Small parcels are a management nightmare in a program like that.

State law already protects landowners from liability to people they give permission to hunt.

My concern is the lack of educated hunters on respect for people's land and nature. I've known people that think it's ok to litter. After explaining to them why it's not and letting them know I won't go with them unless they change it starts to sink in. Ignorance is a huge issue not stupidity. IMO.

 

[MickThompson]

My concern is the lack of educated hunters on respect for people's land and nature. I've known people that think it's ok to litter. After explaining to them why it's not and letting them know I won't go with them unless they change it starts to sink in. Ignorance is a huge issue not stupidity. IMO.

How do you think a government program can fix this? A landowner can absolutely choose who has permission to be on their land or not. Trespassers will still try to sneak on to government program land just as well as private land and mistreat both equally. If you put the government in charge of that program, you have given the bad actors rights and appeals.

Litter is cultural- in other states I've hunted, litter isn't a thing really. Hyper-urbanized people seem much more sensitive to garbage than rural folks for whatever reason. Maybe it's because we tend to take it for granted and voluntarily devalue our natural resources?

 

[kaizen leader]

How do you think a government program can fix this? A landowner can absolutely choose who has permission to be on their land or not. Trespassers will still try to sneak on to government program land just as well as private land and mistreat both equally. If you put the government in charge of that program, you have given the bad actors rights and appeals.

Litter is cultural- in other states I've hunted, litter isn't a thing really. Hyper-urbanized people seem much more sensitive to garbage than rural folks for whatever reason. Maybe it's because we tend to take it for granted and voluntarily devalue our natural resources?

I agree. Gov Lee can do a lot to change the culture.

 

[Antler Daddy]

My concern is the lack of educated hunters on respect for people's land and nature. I've known people that think it's ok to litter. After explaining to them why it's not and letting them know I won't go with them unless they change it starts to sink in. Ignorance is a huge issue not stupidity. IMO.

Ignorance is a huge issue not stupidity?

If your too ignorant to not know not to litter, than by definition that person is stupid.

All they have to do is rerun the old Tennessee Trash and the crying indian commercials.





A couple of cellphones and we can make can make a remake of some ignorant folks leaving wrappers and water bottles all over the forest.

 

[Antler Daddy]

They could also cover some in the woods pooping etiquette. #1 stop eating crap that causes you to poop in the woods. #2 poop before you go #3 don't poop where you park or on the walk-in trail and throw your baby wipes in the pile...for goodness sakes go find a tree and kick some leaves over it.