View Full Version : Check this out!

December 11, 2000, 10:32 PM
Found this on another forum today. What a nice rack!

Robert the41MagFan
December 12, 2000, 12:01 AM
"Hunting Club!" :(

Does more damage to our hunting heritage in one season than PETA can do in a life time.


December 12, 2000, 09:18 AM

I don't get it. Can you 'splain it to me? :) (serious question)



Art Eatman
December 12, 2000, 11:31 AM
He has posted before on this; I won't put words in his mouth, but IIRC he objects to hunt clubs tying up tracts of hunting lands...

From a landowner's point of view, in this wonderful A.D. 2000 United States of Lawyers and Litigation, dealing with an organization such as a hunt club with insurance to cover a landowner's liability is a Good Thing.

Historically in Texas, a "deer lease" was money paid to a rancher so he would allow you to trespass on his land and shoot a deer. Liability? Nope, it's range land, and your doings of stoopid stuff is your fault, your problem. Personally, I don't see how a rancher is responsible for *anything* that happens out in a pasture. But, I ain't a danged lawyer, and lawyers and legislatures and judges have certainly changed the world. Not for the better, either.

A drawback to a landowner's dealing with a hunt club is that you don't know the skill/maturity level of a member. Small, private groups which lease a ranch are usually known to one another, and are self-policing. Here, again, though, a hunt club's insurance can repay a rancher for a dead cow--not that it pleases a rancher to "sell" a cow in this manner...

Insofar as tying up tracts of land, my leasing of a ranch ties it up just as does a hunt club's...



December 12, 2000, 12:37 PM
I also stand against buying and tying up public lands, fencing in the peoples deer, and eventually making it so there are no public lands to hunt at. Since you can only hunt on your own land, or public (which is gone now), you efeiciently can no longer hunt. So why don't everybody just start keping their guns at the hunting clubs, and getting them when they go to hunt? That way when they come to confiscate them, they'll all be rounded up neatly, miles and miles from their owners. Yeah, I'm paranoid, but this was one of their "schemes" in england, aside from all the other political "it's for your own safety" BS. I'd rather a few people had ranches, and the rest was public land. No paying to tresspass to hunt. If you wanna let them on your land, good, if not, fine. I would never pay/charge to hunt wildlife that is all of ours, and I think its wrong. (aside from licsences/tags that go to research and development for the wildlife, and not some ranchers deep pocket.

Art Eatman
December 12, 2000, 06:20 PM
Bad Medicine, I think you're swinging too wide a loop. "Buying public lands"? Where?

In Texas, the majority of all land is private and has been so since the earliest days of statehood. As the population has grown, and as people have become more affluent, the bid-price for hunting has gone up. Some ranchers have found they can pay their school taxes more easily by catering to hunting than by seriously raising cattle, sheep or goats.

"Game Fences" are not built to keep deer in a pasture (mostly). They are built to keep other deer from migrating into an improved pasture which has better conditions of food and water. Whitetail deer in Texas have been found to have a home territory of no more than a Section or two (640 acres to a Section). A single pasture of 5,000 to 10,000 acres is certainly not curtailing any free movement...

Deer may "belong" to "all of us" or "the State", but it is the tax-paying rancher who feeds and waters them. And whose taxes paid for the eradication of screw worms, which used to kill far more deer than the combination of hunters and cars ever did. If the rancher is raising goats, deer compete for browse, herbs and forbs. If he gets paid for the right to trespass, he is a bit more prone to regard deer as a resource, rather than as a pest. "Shoot, shovel and shutup" can apply to more than wolves and grizzlies.

Nationwide, I'd bet that more deer are killed on farmlands and in thick, non-ranch wooded country than on all ranches and public lands combined. Certainly, the heaviest ones are.

The western states, with their high percentage of federal lands, have their own problems. Solutions here don't necessarily apply, there--and vice versa.

Regards, Art

Ron Ankeny
December 12, 2000, 07:39 PM
Out here in Wyoming, we have plenty of public land to hunt on. I used to figure hell would freeze over before I would pay someone to hunt or fish. Well, I have paid for trespass rights and it's no big deal. In fact, I don't fault landowners one bit for charging to hunt. What I do object to is the Game and Fish still pays wildlife damages to landowners who charge, and I think that is wrong.

December 12, 2000, 07:41 PM
Yeah, I understand what you're saying about tejas, but some other places aren't like that, but are fast approaching. I guess I really can't do anything about it, but I don't have to like it:(

It's not that the fences keep the deer in, where they gonna go anyway? It's just that they keep the other hunters out. Hunters who may live in the city and not be able to afford land, or the right to tresspass and hunt, should these people just give up the sport they love because they aren't part of the elite? It may have been like that in tejas for a while, but there are other states that are just recently evolving into this warped state. When my parents grew up in Colorado, they could hunt anywhere, even most the private land was open to hunting free. (free means you don't have to pay to hunt wildlife that by law is yours, I'm explaining this for those in texas, because from what I hear, it has never been that way.) But now, all the rich ranchers and movie stars understand how pretty of a place it is, and want to be greedy and not share (they can afford to be.) They're buying up all the land, and chargeing large sums to *tresspass* and shoot *thier* animals. This is wrong and It makes me madder than he11. But I can't change it, and niether can laws now that it's all privatley owned. You can't even leave the road in that state and take a walk in the woods, unless you have a "hiking permit, or trail pass." -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-?? This kind of stuff just gets me bent when people can't hike or hunt in their own country without paying in-excusesable prices. Like I said before though, I can't change it, so I guess I'll just stay up here in AK, the last great outdoorsmans refuge, and steam about how F-ed up this country has become.

December 12, 2000, 09:03 PM
Maybe Im getting the wrong idea here, but it seems like there is almost an attitude of "i'll hunt where ever I want regardless of who owns the land." I dont own any land. I hunt public land. If I ever live in a place where there isnt any public land (God forbid), I won't be able to hunt. I certainly wouldnt tresspass or poach on somebody elses land. That is as wrong as it gets. Imagine you are the landowner and every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the county is crawling all over your property screwing up your hunting. I'd be mad as hell. I have no objection to somebody using a fence to keep poachers out. Like I said, I may be getting the wrong idea, but that seems to be the vibe here.

Art Eatman
December 13, 2000, 12:23 AM
CD1, I'll be generalizing a lot, so bear with me. In many of the more eastern states, with little or no ranching as in the private lands of the west, it was historically common for hunting to be sort of a non-issue insofar as trespass. Owners were more concerned with their croplands, not the woods and river bottoms.

I guess a person who has not grown up farming and ranching in a private-lands state has difficulty in understanding the strength of emotions if some stranger is seen wandering across a pasture. I've been known to cloud up and rain all over somebody who's wandering loose without a keeper across my pasture. Back at the old place near Austintatious, after paying a $3,400 tax bill, I just really didn't appreciate some doofus's "excuse" of, "I didn't know anybody owned this..."

You buy or inherit land. You build fence, buy cows, build water systems and barns. Cross-fencing so you can rotate the cattle from one pasture to another and not over-graze anywhere. Haul hay, buy feed for winter. Pray to God you get some rain. Pray to God you don't get a serious cold snap when calves are dropping--but it comes. Try pulling a breech-birth calf when it's two degrees out, at 3AM. In the old days, we fought screw-worms. You get a lot of scars on your hands. You do a lot of prayin' that something bad doesn't happen--dunno what, but just wait. There's always something broke, and needing repairing. One eye on the banker, one eye on the tax man, and t'other'n' on God. Hmmm...Yeah, I know.

If you can run an animal unit (cow and calf) on ten acres and you get an 85% calf crop and calves bring $400, that's $34/acre/year. Gross, before expenses. A high-tech fella in Austin can make $85 grand in salary. How many acres ya gotta have to net that? If you sell the land to Jane Fonda, for $1,000 an acre, you can drag more interest from a CD while sitting on the porch than you can by working from daylight to dark. Don't ask me why folks ranch--it ain't for the money.

But deer-hunting money can buy a "new" good-used pickup...

In the western states, "newbies" with fat billfolds are buying up private lands adjacent to national lands, and closing or trying to close off historical-road access. They're running from the cities, but bringing their city ways with them. "Five acres, five miles from town." is the way some folks have named a portion of the process. And then there are the Ted Turner types...

And if you get around that, a Clinton comes along and by Executive Order closes off anothe few million acres to that evil thing known as "hunting".

All this has been coming on for 30-40 years. I saw it coming, and built up my own little deal here. Too many people, too much loose money, I guess.

The larger problem is that if there is less and less hunting, there is less and less money to protect wildlife (game wardens, etc.) or enhance habitat. This latter helps non-game animals as well as the game we hunt, including songbirds.



December 13, 2000, 01:12 AM
Sorry if I sent it wrong, but the vibe I was trying to sent wasn't that I would hunt anywhere, regardless. I won't poach (on purpose,) and I don't tresspass, where it's clearly marked. I don't know the rules else-where, but I've had a few run-ins while crossing land.

In Idaho there are fences everywhere, literally, everywhere. When you're driving and you get to a gate, you open it, go through, and close it behind you, and that's that. Because alot of states allow farmers to graze their stock on BLM (buruea of Land Managment) land. The farmers don't want their cows wandering off, so they build and maintain fences on public land. Crossing a fence while hunting was not a thing, and you could hardly avoid it in alot of places. One time while hunting we met a farmer. He was very, very angry that we were out hunting on HIS land, "probably shooting his cows" he said. Actually we were hunting pheasants, and as it turns out, it was his land. We had hunted there for 3 years without knowing it because he failed to post it. The law there says there must be a fourescent orange fencepost every fifty yards to mark private property, or posted sign the same distance seperate. Oh well, he got over it.

I know alot of farmers and ranchers have a hard time competeing with big companies like Simplot, but that's how the world is run these days. I don't like it how people get it coming and going, maybe I should be a farmer. I'll get paid stipends for not growing certain crops to keep the prices up, where the govt likes them. I'll get money from the government for damage caused by wild range animals. I'll charge hunters to hunt my land and take their game, and then I'll reap money from the grzzly bear and wolf reintrodroduction programs because their cause causes me grief.
It's a hard life, and every business has it's sucky points that go along with it. Iwish I was just rich and could buy half of Alaska, and half of Wyoming, and half of Montana, but some people aren't as lucky as others and have to work their whole lives through, And it's people like this who get screwed out of their hunting by these "rent by the head" hunts.

Robert the41MagFan
December 13, 2000, 01:32 AM
I believe that Art has a good grasp of what is going on in the west.

One reality about farming and ranching in today's world, it is a hard and extremely financially challenging business. Most large property owners are no longer family held, but controlled by corporations and wealthy individual holdings (Like lawyers and law firms for example). There are good neighbor land owners, others, not so nice. One thing that must be respected is the owners right to manage his property the way he feels fit. If that land owners wishes no hunters on their property, so be it. We as have to respect that.

The problem comes from a loophole in the Regulations. It allows landowners to get special tags or LPT's (landowner preference tags). Hunting clubs or outfitters, whatever they call themselves, sublease the lands with the LPT's and they sell these tags from anywhere from $1000 to $5000 a head. Profits are pocketed and a portion set aside to sub lease more lands. Even the people who manage the actual ranch are not allowed to harvest the game on it.

Keep in mind, this is Oregon law, but we are not alone. It breaks my heart when I'm hunting birds and varmints on these same lands and have a young man who works the land escorting me. We spot a beautiful herd of deer or elk and have this young person explain to me that the landowner will not allow his family, who manages the range, to hunt the very land that they work. All because the big game hunting rights have been sold to a hunting club. They don't hunt anymore, because they can't afford to pay the fees and don't have any other place to go. And worst of all, the moneys that we are talking about are peanuts in comparison to the money required to manage huge ranches.


December 13, 2000, 09:15 PM
Looks like I inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest -- I just wanted to share a picture of a really nice deer! Sorry.

Being from Texas and way too accustomed to paying for hunting rights, it never occurred to me that I would cause so much controversy with the post. In fact, when I read the story attached to the picture, I didn't even notice the phrase "hunt club". I guess this just underscores how different folks from different places tend to see things differently!

Regards, jbgood

Art Eatman
December 13, 2000, 09:35 PM
You didn't stir up any problems...The thing is, laws vary from state to state about hunting, landowners' rights, and such things as trespass. And, of course, there are many differences between states with federal land and those without.

My overall "mainest" point is that there is no such thing as "one size fits all". In so many of these deals, what works one place does not work in other places. Another aspect is that--in Texas, for instance--the system has taken some 75 years to get to where it is now. Even now, though, things in Texas are changing.

That's why I regularly harp about learning how things are done elsewhere, and try to understand the "why".

Regards to all,


December 13, 2000, 11:01 PM
Certainly no problems with the post jbgood. Anything that gets an intelligent discussion started is worthwhile. I hunt in MS, TN, and AR, and really dont know what issues confront my fellow hunters around the nation. Its always enlightening to find out whats out there. I guess I have it pretty good all things considered. I have a ton of public land within an hour of the house. The downside is that it is public, and every idiot in the state can, and does hunt it. My brother in law came within six feet of being shot this year by one such idiot. Pro: lots of land, Con: lots of pressure. Double edged sword, but all said and done, its pretty good.

Art Eatman
December 14, 2000, 08:50 PM
Something for those accustomed to hunting on public lands, comparing to the Texas lease-hunting on private lands: The owner controls the number of hunters, and thereby to a great extent the number of deer killed.

Working with the State, he can get enough doe permits to make sure the land is not over-populated, that the deer herd's numbers are in line with the carrying capacity. It is not uncommon to find reasonably-priced "day-hunting" for some part of a season, with the hunt limited to does. This varies with individual ranchers, of course.

There are numerous seminars during the year, statewide, about wildlife management. Information is provided about types of plants to grow for the benefit of wildlife. Info about mineral requirements for best antler development, etc. Same for quail and turkey as for deer, although deer are the primary interest from a money standpoint. At any rate, there is much interaction between universities' range management research people, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department biologists, and the public--and it's free or at worst inexpensive.

On many ranches, the gross numbers of deer are reduced, and the size of animals (not to mention the antlers) is larger.

SFAIK, the feds spend no time and money on range enhancement for wildlife on public lands. (Note that on public lands, efforts at improvements to benefit the Desert Bighorn are purely private sector money, with some state cooperation about "allowing" the efforts.)

Nuff fer now,


December 15, 2000, 12:12 AM
Just a thought here. We farm a bit over 900 acres here in Iowa. We've got some pretty heavy timber that makes for some excellent whitetail hunting. When opening day of deer season comes around I've got more traffic in and out of my drive in search of permission to hunt than we usually get the rest of the year.

This past summer while I was picking up a little over 400 bales of alfalfa I just got done baling, some guy that I've never seen before shows up. He introduces himself, says he'd like to talk to me about maybe hunting our land this winter, but first he wants to help me pick up this hay. So with my 11 year old daughter driving the tractor me and this stranger load up 3 racks full of bales. He then helps me stack them in the loft of our barn, BTW, it's like 95 degrees out with the humidity about as high. Just plain brutal.

I'm gonna skip the rest of the story and get to the point. When deer season rolls around who do you suppose has the run of our place.

A: Guy who has been out here more than once bustin' his a$$ helping me out.

B: Other guy who only shows only on opening morning.

Final answer?

Like Art said, there's always something broke. Always something that needs doin'. Get out and try to establish some kind of relationship with a landowner. You may not have to pay for the privelage to trespass. This guy has made me promise to give him a call a day or two before I bale next summer and he'll be out to help again, we get 4 cuttings a year. He'll be hunting my place as long as he wants. Oh yeah, a couple days ago he dropped off a heart and a backstrap. I just love heart.

This is probably a bit off subject, but I thought it may make for a good suggestion for some of you guys who have a hard time finding land to hunt.

December 15, 2000, 02:17 AM
I don't think it's too off the subject, since we're talking about paying for hunting. That guy paid "in kind" which is sometimes the best way. You guys both got a good deal. That guy probably does about half the work on bailing days, and he get's a good spread to hunt. You get ALOT of help, and one other person to share 900 acres with, plenty of room for one more. Bartering with a farmer for a season on his land, or even paying for land use is really not what I don't like. It's the big organizations who do it. That buy up huge tracks of public lands and then only make them available for "members" who pay high annual dues. I think this kind of hard work by a man who's willing to work for his fun is what makes hunters look good. I doubt you ever have to tell this guy to shut your cattle gate, or pick up his shutgun shells either??

Long Path
December 15, 2000, 06:27 AM
Muleshoe wrote:
When deer season rolls around who do you suppose has the run of our place.

A: Guy who has been out here more than once bustin' his a$$ helping me out.

Let's see, I can come up with a three day weekend this summer, and bring my truck... I'm 6'5", and can load a lot of hay in 2 days... LOL



December 15, 2000, 10:05 AM
LP, you ever build any fence? :)

December 15, 2000, 08:26 PM
I like the idea of trading work for hunting rights, but I'm afraid that doesn't go too far in Texas. Many ranchers in this state rely on the cash they receive from hunters to pay property taxes, buy/repair equipment, or pay other ranching expenses.

Personally, I try to invest some "sweat equity" wherever I hunt, and I believe that it is always appreciated by the rancher -- it seems to help with the relationship between us. However, these folks are usually looking for a positive cash flow -- not just a part time ranch hand. The bottom line is still the bottom line. Wish it weren't so, but that's the way it is.

Art Eatman
December 15, 2000, 10:27 PM
I'd appreciate some more explanation about a group "buying up" any public lands. Are you talking about federal lands, as with the Forest Service or the BLM? State lands? Are you talking sale? Leasing? If the latter, under what system? What agency?

I've read a lot about western lands and the problems there, but your comment is brand new to me.

Regards, Art