Hunter overcrowding and the privatization of access

[BSK]

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?

 

[Hduke86]

i honestly don't think there's much you can do about it. Maybe if TWRA had unlimited funds they could start snagging every piece they could but we know that's not possible.

One of the BIGGEST if not the BIGGEST contributor of the overcrowding is the YouTube/internet community. They show or promote promote and promote some more of lands private and public. I'd give anything if YouTube and the likes never came about.

 

[BSK]

I have absolutely no doubt the Youtuber/influencer crowd is contributing to over-crowding on public lands. I've heard too many horror stories about hunters flocking to public lands that influencers have touted on their YouTube channels. But private land is just that, private, and the VAST majority of deer and turkey hunting land in TN is private. I've seen some of the ideas they've been trying out West, such as the block programs to get ranchers to allow more public access, but I don't think those are going well. Most interesting is it appears the main problem with these programs is the bad behavior of hunters accessing those private lands.

 

[BPhunter]

Canada's wide open and we aren't that far from it. However, I despise spending money anywhere they have the same or worse Nazi government that we do. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, just to name a few, still pretty much wide open public land, but for you folks East of the Mississippi, that be a might pricey to travel, license, etc.

 

[MickThompson]

I have absolutely no doubt the Youtuber/influencer crowd is contributing to over-crowding on public lands. I've heard too many horror stories about hunters flocking to public lands that influencers have touted on their YouTube channels. But private land is just that, private, and the VAST majority of deer and turkey hunting land in TN is private. I've seen some of the ideas they've been trying out West, such as the block programs to get ranchers to allow more public access, but I don't think those are going well. Most interesting is it appears the main problem with these programs is the bad behavior of hunters accessing those private lands.

I don't see how those programs could work in the southeast with hunting lease culture. There's far less unhunted but huntable land than folks realize.

 

[notgreg]

This seems exactly right to me. It's an uncomfortable truth, so we don't look right at it enough, but true nonetheless.

I'm glad you bring it up BSK, because this is an issue that (I believe) a lot of tn hunters spend time angry about without any real hope of that anger making a difference. It would do us good to direct that energy toward wildlife issues we can have a tangible effect on, and accept the things we cannot change as the prayer would have it.

I wonder whether increased hunter attrition is the only real answer to public land overcrowding. I understand the concerns about the future of hunting if fewer people want to do it, but sometimes I think to myself that paying twice as much for a license and having half as many hunters in the woods seems like a pretty good deal. A lot cheaper than a lease.

 

[MickThompson]

I think we also have a duty to hold each other to ethical standards, both to our benefit and to that of those coming after us

 

[PickettSFHunter]

Walk In Hunting Area type program where landowners are compensated by the state for allowing hunter walk in access. Tax break, direct payment, etc. Yes TN hunters will screw it up a lot and tick off landowners by violating rules but it can successfully work.

 

[Tn Joe]

And the YouTubers keep saying we need to recruit more hunters.

 

[Antler Daddy]

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?

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. :)

 

[MickThompson]

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 a permit/spot to control access, checkin by 8am or lose spot
• Game seen and taken for data
• 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.

state law already protects landowners from liability. Stands or not don't matter. Landowners simply aren't liable unless they personally do something that meets the standard of negligence- accidentally shooting someone, for example.

That first one is the kicker- how much $/acre would it take to give all of the public access to your land?

 

[Antler Daddy]

state law already protects landowners from liability. Stands or not don't matter. Landowners simply aren't liable unless they personally do something that meets the standard of negligence- accidentally shooting someone, for example.

That first one is the kicker- how much $/acre would it take to give all of the public access to your land?

I think elevated hunting is over rated. No cameras on the property either. Anybody driving an EV or wearing a man bun should hunt elsewhere.

 

[Antler Daddy]

state law already protects landowners from liability. Stands or not don't matter. Landowners simply aren't liable unless they personally do something that meets the standard of negligence- accidentally shooting someone, for example.

That first one is the kicker- how much $/acre would it take to give all of the public access to your land?

A minimum amount per acre to enroll and then 1/2 of a daily permit fee per use might also be an incentive. Heck, I might clear 3-5 acres and add a late season food plot.

 

[BPhunter]

You know, many ranchers and farmers don't like the damage that deer & elk do to their fences, eat the hay, etc. We've always found, knocking on the door, asking to hunt with their rules, offering compensation, and not damaging anything worked pretty well so far.
UPDATE: I should have included: not all would accept our offer, but hey, their property. Many did though. References always help also.

 

[Antler Daddy]

A minimum amount per acre to enroll and then 1/2 of a daily permit fee per use might also be an incentive. Heck, I might clear 3-5 acres and add a late season food plot.

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.

 

[BSK]

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 a permit/spot to control access, checkin by 8am or lose spot
• Game seen and taken for data
• 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. :)

Dang man, you've put some thought into this! Well done you!

 

[mike243]

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,

 

[Boll Weevil]

I don't know one single solitary landowner that would grant public access to their property for ANY amount.

 

[Snake]

Walk In Hunting Area type program where landowners are compensated by the state for allowing hunter walk in access. Tax break, direct payment, etc. Yes TN hunters will screw it up a lot and tick off landowners by violating rules but it can successfully work.

Always have bad apples in the bunch .

 

[DMD]

I think elevated hunting is over rated. No cameras on the property either. Anybody driving an EV or wearing a man bun should hunt elsewhere.

I think unelevated hunting is overrated. What a comment. Sheesh.

 

[Buzzard Breath]

When TWRA started the tiered system for duck hunting, I lost my deer hunting buddies to the ducks. Maybe, if they converted more year long blinds into tier 2 blinds, less people would be leasing and/or hunting public land for deer. :D

Go ahead and boo me now. I know its not a popular answer, but its true.

 

[recurve60#]

Gotta realize how the population has grown here since the mass exodus also.
A bunch of those hunt. I get asked all the time where to hunt. I always reply i dont know. Ive been squeezed out myself.

 

[MickThompson]

Gotta realize how the population has grown here since the mass exodus also.
A bunch of those hunt. I get asked all the time where to hunt. I always reply i dont know. Ive been squeezed out myself.

Exactly. TN is like #6 fastest growing. That's not good for public or private land hunters or the wildlife we all pursue.

 

[Lost Lake]

Gotta realize how the population has grown here since the mass exodus also.
A bunch of those hunt. I get asked all the time where to hunt. I always reply i dont know. Ive been squeezed out myself.

This.


Since the Great Exodus, it's really gotten crowded.

 

[paboom]

I think the pressure we're seeing on public lands will be significantly decreased over the next 20 years. You have to realize that the majority of hunters are 40+ years old and so when they start to either die off (harsh but true) or don't have the health to hunt anymore, then it will ease up. The numbers of hunters behind the boomers are much lower.

 

[BPhunter]

I think the pressure we're seeing on public lands will be significantly decreased over the next 20 years. You have to realize that the majority of hunters are 40+ years old and so when they start to either die off (harsh but true) or don't have the health to hunt anymore, then it will ease up. The numbers of hunters behind the boomers are much lower.

Going to be fortunate if there's a Country left to hunt in in 20 yrs.

 

[deerhunter10]

I don't see a fix. I am blessed enough to be able to buy some hunting/farm land and hopes to add more to ensure my hunting future. The biggest problem I have seen is the just pure recklessness and neglect of people leasing land. A lot of people have no respect for others people's land so many are reluctant to lease. Then the other side is affording the leases now days. As bad as I hate to say it but it has turned into a "rich man" game and I do not see any way around that at all. I used to turkey hunt public land years ago and it was outstanding. Now, honestly if I were to be forced to hunt public exclusively I would be looking out of state. I live close to many gates of yanahli and there are people at 1 of those gates every single day of season except some very bad weather days. The saving grace could be hunter recruitment seems down to me personally. I only know very few kids (18 and under) when 15 or 20 years ago they seemed to be everywhere. Not to mention a lot of people have quit because of the mess. But of course with lack of hunters opens up many many many other problems. There's land around me selling for 20 to 25 thousand dollar an acre for raw land without a bat of an eye.

 

[AT Hiker]

. But what is the answer to this in a free market capitalist society? ….

Ideas?

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.

 

[AT Hiker]

When TWRA started the tiered system for duck hunting, I lost my deer hunting buddies to the ducks. Maybe, if they converted more year long blinds into tier 2 blinds, less people would be leasing and/or hunting public land for deer. :D

Go ahead and boo me now. I know its not a popular answer, but its true.

Another campaign slogan for "The Breath".
Make duck blinds tier 2 again!

To your point. If current available public access was higher quality, pressure wouldn't matter as much. Just imagine if LBL actually had turkeys? Many people could enjoy it, instead many people fight for the few birds that exist.

 

[recurve60#]

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.

So the poor cant afford to hunt anymore? Exactly where its headed though.