re: According to the USFWS there are 2.6 million fewer hunters today than in 1991

It's mostly the cost. The first deer lease I was on cost $200 a family for year round hunting, camping, fishing, plinking, whatever. Families were typically larger also. Wasn't uncommon for a man and his 3 sons to get on the lease.

Last time I heard, that same lease was $2500 per gun, one guest after opening weekend, family counts as a guest, deer season only. And that's a fairly inexpensive and lenient lease by today's standards. So instead of a man and his 3 sons hunting, it's generally a man and maybe a son. That's a 50% reduction.

quote:

---

It's mostly the cost. The first deer lease I was on cost $200 a family for year round hunting, camping, fishing, plinking, whatever. Families were typically larger also. Wasn't uncommon for a man and his 3 sons to get on the lease.

Last time I heard, that same lease was $2500 per gun, one guest after opening weekend, family counts as a guest, deer season only.

---

Part of the reason for this is due to trophy hunters (just like most of the OB). They want to shoot big deer, so they let every buck walk until they are 3.5-4.5 years old. Then guess what, landowner realizes his land is worth a lot more per acre to hunt and some rich city yahoos come in and lease it out from under you because you can't afford it and you can't.

quote:

---

Idk...its the 40 to 50 yo age demographic that I see doing most of the stupid shite you have listed other than the sitka wearing. Millenials are generally more concerned with being responsible stewards than the old fart litterbug meat wasting washed up flyway federation survey flagging old shits.

---

Seniority rules bro. We've been paying taxes since you was shittin yella so we own more of the resource.

Well...I see this thread has already degenerated into the blame game and trash talking.

quote:

---

Its sad to say but lawsuit happy era has triggered not going hunt unless leased. I highly doubt you are that type but no one wants to lose everything they owned because some guy got hurt hunting squirrels. Sad sad day in the world.

---

Show me a single valid lawsuit against a property owner for someone getting injured on their property while hunting and the landowner didn't do something egregious.

quote:

---

These Skybusting, sitka wearing, setting up 100yd from ya, running thru your decoys, calling sounds like Aretha franklin with a sore throat, shooting $2000 dollar guns and $30 a box ammo, light bar running, mud motor using marsh abusing, breasting and tossing the rest millennials have got to go!

---

That’s poetry right there folks.

If the hunter is not compensating the landowner in any way then I think the landowner is protected by some form of recreational use law if I remember right.

I think reason timber companies are charging some much for leases is : 1 somebody will pay it, 2-the timber market has been so bad last 10 years they’re trying to make money where they can.International Paper,Boise Cascade have sold most if not all their land.Timberland is not good investment anymore.Wall Street Journal recently had article about 1000’s of individuals that invested in timberland years ago with the idea that it would be source of retirement income,didn’t work out.I’m one of those people,I’ve got about 100 acres I need thinned and haven’t been able to get it done.

There are plenty of government owned lands to hunt. Also, from personal experience, most of the people that hunt them are there for 2 hours max in their stands. I hunt Kitsachie and never see another person.

quote:

---

Show me a single valid lawsuit against a property owner for someone getting injured on their property while hunting and the landowner didn't do something egregious.

---

I understand what you're saying, but just the chance of being sued and held liable for someone's injuries is enough for most landowners to deny strangers access to hunt their property.