I've being saying for years to all who would listen that lease prices are dictated by the law of supply & demand. Demand has been going down (most areas), while supply has actually been increasing.
Keep in mind I'm speaking in general terms, and locations close to a major metropolitan area should dictate higher lease prices than more rural areas.
There are at least five significant factors which have played majorly into this:
1) Big Buck Destination States Became Way to Expensive for the Market. But as many large landowners watch their properties go "unleased", they will either stop leasing or lower their prices.
2) Wanting to get in on the action, many smaller landowners began leasing. This has created a large amount of "private" hunting lands for small groups of hunters, such as 1 to 4 hunters who go in together, by-passing the big outfitters who tend to drive up prices. We could say both of the above factors are highly correlated with our economy as well. With a good economy, more people were able to pay higher lease prices. With a bad economy, more smaller landowners have figured out they can come up with extra money by leasing hunting rights.
3) Because of the relatively high-lease prices, a significant percentage of those hunters who were among those ABLE to pay such prices ---- they just bought their own land, taking themselves out of the higher-priced lease market.
4) More widespread and improved public land hunting opportunities. Some will disagree. Yes, we've lost a lot of hunting land over time to housing and commercial development. But we also have more deer in more counties than ever before. If you look at TWRA's WMA's, many of them have fewer hunters and much better quality deer hunting than just a few years ago. A growing number are "same as statewide". Not to mention, some of the former "public" lands are now "privately" leased to hunters, meaning there may be fewer public land hunters per acre (on these WMA's) than in times past.
5) There has been a trend of decreased time spent hunting annually even among avid deer hunters, as well as more older hunters dying than younger hunters replacing them.
For sure, leasing has been a factor in all the above. For many, it allowed them to have a place for safer and better hunting. For many, it took away where they had been hunting. Change is constant, and ultimately price reflects value.
My take is even with deep pockets, you will generally be able to lease more land than to buy. If your primary interest is deer hunting on a large intensely-managed acreage, most are going to achieve better quality deer hunting by leasing vs. owning. What one does will ultimately come down to what kind of values he places on other factors besides the deer management and deer management. There are only 24 hours in a day, and only so much one can do in a lifetime.
Nothing really new about shifting land ownership patterns, other than some of the current reasons for the shifts. People moved into cities, people moved out of the cities, people moved to California, now they're leaving.
Another issue is how the internet and cell phones have enabled many people to work from their homes. Many even moved to isolated rural places because of this, only to later conclude they didn't like being so isolated, and are now moving back closer to civilization. This is a part of why some hunters have been buying their land, as much has been relatively cheaper than leasing, except that in most cases it's not a large enough parcel for effective deer management.
Just depends on what you want most.
But my take is these are the good ole days of deer hunting.
