North Dakota Ranchers Support Ban on Sale of Hunting Rights

[deerminator]

I guess I had never considered this, the legal possibility of selling off your hunting property to a farmer or rancher but retaining the permanent right to hunt the property. I can actually really side with the ranchers on this. Most hunters are ethical and responsible, but why would you want to chance some yahoo tearing up your land. Sure, you can say, then don't buy it if there's that stipulation, but what if everyone decided to do this, then all of the land would have this stipulation attached. You can also see how they would lose revenue from outfitters or how guys could take advantage on the land they have rights on and set up their own outfitting business with the rancher getting nothing.

Plus, as a hunter, I'm not so sure I'd like this arrangement, what if the rancher was a yahoo and you were always walking on egg shells with him. Seems like the legal agreement would have to be VERY defined to keep one side or the other from taking advantage. I'm kind of partial to the old system, buy your own land, or if you don't have the money, help a farmer or rancher out, gain their trust and be able to hunt the land for free or a nominal fee.

http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_10485887

[tealitup]

I do not see a problem with retaining rights to hunt on property. If someone wants the land bad enough they will agree; if you do not agree do not buy the land.

I see no difference in this compared to retaining rights for minerals on a property. What if you bought some wooded land and the paper company wanted to retain the right to log out the property and you only wanted it for hunting. Price comes down and you have some land to call your own.

[96trigger]

Boy, unless the rancher had land that was just sitting there, never being used, I don't think that I would do it. It could be a very sticky situation. The contract would have to be very tight.

That said, I know some areas around here that would be cool to buy the hunting rights on. It would be much cheaper than buying and maybe more concrete than a lease.

[BobT]

Quote:

Sure, you can say, then don't buy it if there's that stipulation, but what if everyone decided to do this,

If everyone rejected the idea, nobody would be able to sell their land.

Personally, I'd really have a hard time buying a chunk of land while still giving the seller some legal access or rights to the property. Do those sellers also then pay for a portion of the taxes or are they legal bound to pay an annual user fee? If I was buying and they wanted to sell to me, they have to agree to those stipulations as well otherwise, they could find another sucker.

Bob

[FrankGWP]

This type of "use and enjoyment" easement is very common. I have never heard of one specifically for hunting. However, I really don't see it as any different from a hunting guy buying a plot then leasing it to a farmer or a farmer purchasing a lot then leasing it in the fall to a hunter. Just a more permanent arrangement.

[deerminator]

Regardless, whether you agree with whoever, it just seems like it could become a big mess no matter how many rules and stipulations came into play. I'd rather own property free and clear or find a rancher or landowner who I could have a good relationship with and if things turn sour for whatever reason, move onto a new piece instead of battling it out with them.

[Bear55]

I agree, this might seem like a good idea at first but could be a big mess in the future. Especially when you are talking about multiple hunters owning hunting rights to a peice of land.