Looking for an area to lease?

[gurkster]

Yeah - Leasing is a slippery slope, but it is hard to knock a farmer or land owner for trying to get an extra buck out of their land (not saying anyone here is knocking them). I have lived in a few other states, but born and raised here in MN and been back for the past 10 years. We are very lucky with all the public land that we have. I know it is not always ideal land, over crowding, etc. BUT if you want to hunt and put in the time you can probably find a decent peice for any game animal we hunt here in MN. I just sold my land early this year and am looking to buy again, but weighing the costs it is far cheaper to lease. However, I love going up to "The Shack" knowing it is mine, and I can manage what I own as I wish.

[fishuhalik]

What can possibly be wrong with leasing? I don't see the big deal. There's still a TON of public land, albeit it is getting harder and harder to find an acre of public land that doesn't have 3 people sitting on it. If you have a little extra money a lease is a great option, it's land that would otherwise just sit there and not get used.

And as far as just asking permission, try getting in on a decent piece of hunting land when you tell them you're from "The Cities". Not gonna happen if you don't know someone or are from the area.

[InTheNorthwoods]

What can possibly be wrong with leasing? I don't see the big deal...If you have a little extra money a lease is a great option, it's land that would otherwise just sit there and not get used.

You are missing the crux of the argument against leasing. Most land that would be available to lease is being used by hunters currently who aren't paying anything. By leasing, you are then theoretically coming in and displacing the people who are hunting for free, who then need to find another option - whether that be leasing somewhere else, etc. One of the ideas against leasing is that if there was no market for leasing people would get free access to the lands. Also, it is still possible that a person who knocks on a few doors can still find access for free.

Obviously leasing provides complete control of the land according to the lease agreement, but there are consequences for every action, and that is what you are missing when stating "what can possibly be wrong with leasing".

Put me on the fence, as I do not like the consequences of widespread leasing, but I can very much understand the desire for some control over the land you hunt to improve habitat and the herd structure.

[ANYFISH2]

Fishuhalik, getting permission is tough, but should always be the first option. There is nothing wrong with leasing as long as it is the landowners idea IMO. Us hunters are doing a disservice to our fellow hunters by throwing money in landowners faces to get a piece of land that they would have given permission to for free (or some work in trade). I would guess if you leased a piece of land, that you woudn't give a local 30 year old permission to hunt it (I hope you would). That is what is potentially wronge with leaseing. Good luck on your search there is land that is available.

[gurkster]

I used to hunt deer in Pike Co. IL and in the early 90's you could get permission to hunt a local farm pretty easy. Once word got out that the area held big bucks outfitters moved in and started leasing farms for exclusive hunting rights for a few $ an acre. Then they would sell private hunts to other hunters for $1000+ per 4 day hunt. So they basically made it a rich mans sport out there. If you wanted to hunt prime land you had to pay the outfitter. It was a mess. I haven't been back in 10 years so I am not sure what the situation is like now, but I see Pike Co. IL hunts on TV fairly often. A quick story is that a farmer sold a lease to the outfitter. Then deer opener came and the farmer went out to hunt his land. The outfitter told the farmer that he had EXCLUSIVE hunting rights to it and the farmer could not hunt his own land, as the outfitter leased it out as a private hunt. This may well be urban legend as I never knew the farmer, but I know there was some bad blood on both sides as the leasing was getting started.

[gurkster]

For the record I am not really against leasing I see both sides, pros and cons, but it is a "slippery slope" in my opinion.

[honker23]

Your story of Pike county is what I fear in SE MN.

I see something wrong with leasing huge chunks of land to "manage" and guide hunts for 5K. The people are essentially taking the DNR's herd and holding them hostage on huge chunks of land (no slugs, only xxx inches, etc....) They are making a lot of money off it. To me it is like raising live stock to make a living....only the DNR provides you with the livestock. Something is wrong with that to me. I don't know what the answer is, but when you "control" that much of the hunt and the herd, it should be considered a ranch and you should have to put a fence up and supply your own deer.

For the record leasing 40 acres for a small fee so that you can take your son to a hunting spot sounds great and doesn't cross my imaginary line.

[ntrider]

i've knocked on many doors and have been turned down pretty much all the time lately...not like it was in the 80's when you could pretty much guarantee that they would let you...some people make it sound like a lot of landowners don't know what is going on and would let you on there land to hunt without a benefit to them...why would they??? to be nice??? that went out the door a decade ago...they all know people will pay...so now we can go back to some of the comments on here about leasing rates...big bucks=big money...so those of you that criticize people for taking smaller bucks you cant have your cake and eat it too...

[InTheNorthwoods]

...big bucks=big money...so those of you that criticize people for taking smaller bucks you cant have your cake and eat it too...

False. Big bucks are a product of not shooting little ones. Not big money. Money can provide you a safe haven (large plots of land) to protect little bucks, but really it has little to do with equaling big bucks. People need to lay of the trigger on the small ones, plain and simple. That means not filling a tag sometimes, thats the price you pay, and it has nothing to do with money. Paying a bunch of money to lease 40 acres (or even 300 acres) has nothing to do with shooting big bucks if the neighbors aren't laying off the little ones.

I have proof on my walls that mature bucks can be shot on public land in MN (as well as in other states where access is free). The frequency of these deer will only increase if people don't shoot the little ones. Its a mentality thing, not a wallet thing.

[ntrider]

ITN...i have hunted public land also and have seen some really nice deer...my big bucks=big money stmt comes from the corporations coming in and like in an earlier post lease the land and charge big money to hunt it...if people want mn to be known as a big buck state this will happen and then it will be money talks...i don't mind the idea of leasing (because i am losing my place to hunt)and think that that is going to be the future...i also believe what you said b4 and i know it is happening already...people that have hunted for free are being pushed off that land because someone now approched the owner and offered to lease...so how do you stop it???

[Coach1310]

I think we are missing the point a bit... As hunters we are all looking for a "quality" hunting experience. For some that is just being out there and not getting shot, for others it is a chance to shoot a deer and for others an opportunity to hunt in an area where you have control, and can assure you are safe and not subject to the public land zoo that others are. Fishahulik is willing to spend his hard earned $$$ in order to ensure a better experience during his hunting season. You may think leasing is a slippery slope, but the fact remains it is here and it isn't going anywhere... it is one of those things, if you really want exclusive access to quality land you purchase some property, lease some property or be fortunate enough to have a family member or friend willing to let you hunt. I don't think anybody needs to "think about" leasing a property because they are worried about displacing another hunter.... if the landowner wants to lease his property, he will probably give those currently hunting it first chance if they have treated the owner fairly and appropriately... so if that is you agree to a fee or labor exchange for rights....

Hunting is a passion for many of us.... how committed we are depends on the individual, but if I want to lease some land, I'm not going to feel guilty because I may have "displaced" another hunter.... they have had the same opportunity to lease as I have.... Now if you want it to be the "good 'ol days" again.... sorry but that ship has sailed.

As crazy as it sounds, we used to lease about 1000 acres for 8 guys at $50 a piece throughout the late 80's into the 90's.... we never knew how good we had it.... we spent days and days out there before season checking stands, checking for rubs/scrapes, as kids building forts... etc... I will cherish those memories forever and I would do anything to be able to go back for one more hunt...

[InTheNorthwoods]

ITN...i have hunted public land also and have seen some really nice deer...my big bucks=big money stmt comes from the corporations coming in and like in an earlier post lease the land and charge big money to hunt it...if people want mn to be known as a big buck state this will happen and then it will be money talks...i don't mind the idea of leasing (because i am losing my place to hunt)and think that that is going to be the future...i also believe what you said b4 and i know it is happening already...people that have hunted for free are being pushed off that land because someone now approched the owner and offered to lease...so how do you stop it???

If MN gets to be a big buck destination state, which is a HUGE "IF" at this point, the simple solution would be to greatly limit non resident tags and make it a weighted draw. Then I would make guiding illegal in the state. Right there you would keep out a large number of "big money" out of state hunters or hunting operations as they wouldn't want to put up the money to only hunt once every 5 years or so. This spares the residents, as goal is not to hinder their opportunities to hunt.

Quite frankly though, I don't foresee this as a problem that will need to be addressed any time soon.

[honker23]

I agree with some of your thoughts on guiding and limiting tags.

I don't like the idea of someone selling MN deer for 5K to someone willing to pay that price. If you lease land and hunt on it yourself, great and good luck.

If our goal is to not hinder our opportunities to hunt, then some of this stuff needs to be addressed sooner than later. I think we are all on the same side....we all enjoy our hunting opportunities and want to keep them for our kids someday.

[PostFrontal]

I'd like to hear your answers to this:

Farmer A sells his land. The new owners want to exclusively hunt the land so the people that had hunted there before can't hunt it anymore.

Farmer B leases his land. The lessees have exclusive rights to hunt the land so the people that hunted there before can't hunt it anymore.

What's the difference?

[mabr]

I'd like to hear your answers to this:

Farmer A sells his land. The new owners want to exclusively hunt the land so the people that had hunted there before can't hunt it anymore.

Farmer B leases his land. The lessees have exclusive rights to hunt the land so the people that hunted there before can't hunt it anymore.

What's the difference?

The farmer still gets to plant his crops and harvest them. Which is a plus plus to him as I see it. Takes care of the deer eating his crops and benifits from the aded income from the lease.

Im not putting you down for this, I actually have family land that is a cousin of my wifes. he told me point blank we should feel happy we have the land to hunt for free as he was offered 300.00 from a local that wanted to hunt it. It has caused us to think about our future there. We have always giving a few walleyes a year to this cousin who doesnt hunt but how does a few walleyes compare to 300 dollars in his pocket. I want to offer him way more than that for leasing exclusive rights to hunt it but I dont think he would be willing to give up exclusive rights as he has a hard time sayig No to to his neighbors who shoot whatever moves.

But it has made me think about what Im going to do in the future. I have 20 acres exclusivly that I bow hunt, BUT during Gun season there is a group of hunters from the cities tht HAVE ALWAYS HUNTED THERE, that hunt during gun season. And they shoot whatever they see. It has seriously made me think about asking for exclusive hunting and paying for it. Nuthing makes you madder than seeing the 5 0r 6 small bucks you have let walk all season long to be hanging from their meat pole during the gun season.

[mabr]

should be 200 acres instead of 20

[honker23]

postfrontal,

There is no difference in that scenario, both people are actually hunting the land, which is fine.

I have a problem with someone buying/leasing large tracts of land and selling the hunts for large sums of money. Is it fair the farmer that boarders this large "hunting preserve" has to watch this massive herd damage his crops all year and when hunting season comes along the deer can't be touched, of course unless it is 160+ inches. But that sure doesn't help control the problem for this farmer. The yearlings eat corn too!

I guess I just see something wrong with this. If you have 2 or 3 more of these operations start up to compete we will all have the choice pay 5K for a deer or don't hunt.

[anamod]

...people that have hunted for free are being pushed off that land because someone now approched the owner and offered to lease...so how do you stop it???

You buy your own or pay more than the next guy. It's becoming the cold hard truth. The era of entitlement is ending. Just because "I've hunted this land for ____ years" does not mean you will be able to continue. I hunt on private land owned by a family friend, this was probably my last year due to him bringing his friends there next year. Just because I help a little with maintaining it and his friends don't does not mean I should get to hunt and not them. I realize this and will probably not hunt next year at all due to no land to hunt on. I refuse to hunt public land and get into those [PoorWordUsage] matches about "I scouted this land for the last 2 weeks it's mine to hunt", but that is a whole different conversation. My plan is to save some money and buy my own. I enjoy hunting and value it so whats wrong with spending money on buying or leasing land. The trend is already there, I woud recommend buying your own as in the next 5-6 years the price of hunting land will only go up.

[fishuhalik]

Geez folks, I just started this to ask if anyone knew of where I should start looking if I wanted to lease. I guess I poked a hornets nest.

[fsh4trout]

How bout Wisconsin.

[ntrider]

Geez folks, I just started this to ask if anyone knew of where I should start looking if I wanted to lease. I guess I poked a hornets nest.

thats what i like about this board...there are so many differnt people all with different things that are important to them...if we can't disagree once in a while or listen to others legitimate concerns we will generally just do what is best for ourselves...it's all good...even the "arguing"

[RBuker]

I wonder if all the farmers leasing their land realize they have to adjust their insurance policies to include leased hunting. Without it, they may be in a world of hurt should their paying hunter fall and hurt himself.