Spurhunter":226ntmam said:
I've tried to keep the number of members low but it's getting harder and harder to do. . . . . I honestly think they believe you should have one member per 40 acres.
I've actually heard that from several people, who are giving up their leases with AMP this year,
and/or implied this year would be their last year to lease,
having found out that today's public hunting lands are competing favorably with crowded, over-priced leases.
Add to this some coronovirus and economic fears, the spread of CWD, etc.,
and fewer people than ever are going to be paying a premium, much less driving a long distance to hunt deer.
It's my understanding that much of AMP leases are leased to hunt club members who live several hours away from the lands.
Most locals know better (or may simply be unable) than to pay such $, especially when neighbors let them hunt without charge, or for very little.
Thus, AMP's greed appears to be destroying their own market,
as well as significantly contributing to lower numbers of deer hunters in the future.
Among those not simply "aging out", many are just taking up other recreation,
although good numbers are hunting other game and just doing a lot more fishing.
Most deer hunters, especially the ones who can afford AMP's high prices, are "aging out",
and younger hunters quickly find the public land hunting is little different, often even better, than crowded leases.
Like most everything, price becomes dictated by the law of supply & demand.
Contrary to what many of you think, the actual supply of deer hunting land is increasing,
while the number of hunters (the demand) is decreasing.
Deer lease prices should be going down, and I have no doubts, most will.
Also, among those licensed deer hunters, the average hunter is spending fewer hours afield hunting with each year. So it's not just fewer hunters, but each hunter (on average) is spending fewer days hunting annually.
From what I understand, most of AMP lands are timber-company lands, much of which is un-huntable cut-over, and should be worth (as a hunting lease) only a fraction what farmland deer leases can command. Go directly to farmers & landowners, and plenty of comparable to better deer hunting lands are often nearby available for much less money, and the landowner may still be getting much more money than what AMP is paying them.
Still trying to figure out just what AMP does for these hunters, other than take their money,
then pass along a portion of that money to the landowners.
I mean, how hard is it for a landowner to collect a check once a year to lease hunting rights to a hunter?
Lots of big farms are now passing from one generation to the next, and many the younger farmers aren't into hunting,
and are much more eager to lease hunting rights than their parents and grand-parents.
P.S. Each new generation is hunting less than the one before, and
the amount of deer hunting has been steadily decreasing on most public lands over the past many years.
I could only have dreamed of the quality of deer hunting on today's public lands in my youth.
It really does beat many of the private lands many are hunting.
Different dynamics, but you might find the deer are actually less hunted,
and the odds of a top-end mature buck just as good, sometimes even better.