Trespass Fee

[chambero]

Back to the original question - I'm paying $425 for a very good three day antelope hunt on a ranch in NE WY. I have a friend who got me on it. Two years ago he killed a buck that appeared to score just high enought to make B&C but his taxidermist cracked the horn covering. Last year he got one only slightly smaller. The ranch allows very limited hunting and as a result, has very nice animals.

I'm from Texas and hate what is happening to hunting in our state. I hunt on my father-in-law's land (about 3K acres) and also lease the hunting rights on a landlocked piece of land just to keep other hunters from traveling through us. Leasing in Texas varies dramatically, but just "average" quality land leases for around $10-$12 per acres for year-round hunting rights. You can't find anything really for less than $1,000 per gun for a hunting season, most "decent" places are around $2,000 per year. If I had to pay these actual fees, I just flat wouldn't for myself. My boys someday - maybe if that was the only way to take them.

My father-in-law refuses to lease his land. With him it is more a matter of not wanting to give anyone unrestricted access to his land. We still let select friends (and particularly their kids) hunt for free. We are very much the minority though. It is just simple economics. Hunting has gotten so expensive that lots of city-dwellers are actually buying up 200-1000 acre tracts just for hunting. You can know buy the land and pay for it over a 10-20 year period cheaper than you can pay the lease fees.

Unfortunately, Texas is not alone. Look at what "lodges" are charging for hunting in the southeast US and the midwest. It is a matter of economics for the ranchers lots of time who are fighting to pay their bills. I doubt any of you would turn the money down if you really needed it. However, this does lead us to a very tough situation where the average person may not be able to afford to take his kids hunting some day.

The other side to this coin, particularly out west, feeding the fees people are willing to pay are ever decreasing availability of tags for nonresidents. A lot of people really like to hunt out West and will pay relatively high fees if it allows them to skirt the drawing process or at least better their odds. They would rather spend their money for the opportunity to hunt than blow it on whatever else they could be doing in the city. They aren't bad people, they are just trading what they can get easier in the City (money).

It is one heck of a vicious circle that really worries me. I for one would like to really see youth hunting opportunities and tags expanded. I can see where kids of western residents may not have nearly the interest if they are only getting to hunt every two or three years.

 

[chambero]

The difference between "access" to federal land and access to tags kind of sticks in the craw of many nonresidents. Yes we can go walk on to public land just like anyone can. I understand the fact that states own the wildlife and can charge what they want for tags and can dole them out however they want to. However:

1. State wildlife agencies are not using the money they get for habitat management (at least not more than a very small fraction of it). Their money is spent on managing the allotment of tags, counting animals so they can figure out how many tags they can issue, etc. Federal land resource agencies are paying for the vegetation management. When nonresidents argue against perceived unfair restricted access to tags, it is because we pay as much for habitat management as the western residents do.

That being said, I would get really ticked off if I couldn't hunt in my own state any time I wanted to. I understand both sides, but I think restricting NR to 10% of tags is pretty ridiculous and obviously unfair. Policies like those have caused NRs to swing much too far the other direction fighting it (see USO.)

2. I wish the western states would step back and look at their licensing programs from scratch. They have gotten ridiculous with extremely short seasons, multiple start dates, etc. None of it makes sense from a wildlife management perspective and directly causes a lot of the overcrowding problems and chasing of wildlife off of public land by concentrating pressure into such short periods of time. I don't have the answer, but common sense tells me these systems don't have to be as convoluted as they are.

3. I believe I am correct in that a lot of state wildlife agency hunting revenue actually goes to support their fishing programs. Now - if you want to get some real money for your states - hit the nonresident flyfishermen. I can guarantee you they would pay a lot more than what they do now. I love to fish as much as anyone else, but there is a big discrepancy between hunting and fishing costs for NRs. And states have to spend a lot of money to keep enough fish in the rivers to support the demand.

3. Texas has gotten where it is for lease fees because our rural real estate prices have gotten so high and ranches have to do everyting they can to make enough money to pay for their land. You can't pay for land with cows any more. Also, our state wildlife agency does not pay anything for wildlife habitat on private land. Landowners are bearing it all. And no, there is not enough public land to amount to anything in my home state.

 

[Tom]

Marv, just count the tags used on federal land and count the tags on state, etc. Say you count 100 for the federal land, x for state, y for Indian, etc. as an average number over a year, year in and year out, then you use that number for that type of land. What kind of work do you do? You must have to count up stuff and allocate it somehow, charge for this, charge for that, just think about elk and mule deer, etc. like that. Reimburse who needs to be reimbursed and charge who needs to be charged. That's the basic idea.

Greenhorn is a what? The picture changed it looks like.

Here's an example, a democrat in Montana thought of it, for more fair pricing. It only costs, $2000 to poach a grizzly bear in Montana right now. That's way cheaper than an actual grizzly hunt is usually. Make that a higher fee, that's good, right?

http://www.huntingclub.com/document.asp?did=7419

 

[BigHornRam]

For those of you in Montana or other western states that don't think your states is heading toward the way of Texas in a fast clip, your mistaken. Look at any Real Estate literature and see what's promoted first. Elk, deer and other wildlife "on the property". FNAWS tried to put together a land purchase on Wiskey Ridge near Winifred Montana last year. Would have kept the land from future development, walk in access for all hunters, access to many more acres of land locked BLM ground, traditional use of ag land excluding sheep and goat grazing, and more. Well by the time FWP diddled around moving along at their usual glacial speed, some wealthy individual came along and made the land owner an offer too good to refuse. Land purchase down the drain. It's only going to get harder and more expensive for sportmens groups to preserve land in the future. It's also going to be harder for the traditional landowners to pass up the big bucks being offered for their land. It's reality.

Look at the Block Management Program. It's predominately funded by outfitter sponsered tags. The wealthy non resident hunters spend big bucks to hunt here, but also have big expectations. So the outfitters with non resident dollars go out and lease the best private ground for their clients. What's left for BMP is mostly what the outfitters didn't want to lease. Thats the problem with something for nothing programs. And those that think that going through BMP is not similar to paying a tresspass fee is fooling themselves. Their just getting the guided non residents to fund it and FWP to act as the go between. JMO however.

 

[ringer]

And that my freinds is why you will never buy a landowner tag in Arizona. Lots of rich people want it, outfitters, Indians and landowners want it. The residents won't support it. It destroys the ability to hunt at a reasonable cost and relegates the lower income family hunters to the scrapings. I can afford it and I still fight it at every turn. Get in the lottery and take your chances.

 

[Tom]

We're talking apples and oranges here, different game, different hunting, different liscensing, etc. when you think of comparing a lease here and a trespass fee somewhere else good for a few days.

I'd like to point out that the Texas hunting liscense has multiple whitetail tags, multiple turkey tags, a mule deer tag and that exotics, including hogs are unlimited on it and that it covers hunting 365 days/year. If I had a $2000 lease as described above, or if I spent that here, in a year, I'd have a bunch of animals on the ground, in the freezer, and on the wall. I'd be hunting year round too for a variety of game.

You really have to consider what you get for what you spend, what your chances are, what you want, etc. There's so much variety in all these things.

 

[tnctcb]

ringer it seems that you cant buy any tag in Az EVERY year. that in it self is a shame and will stop the pass it on type of hunting that goes on alot of places. it is a shame that states have let hunting get to a point where the average working man cant afford to hunt in even his own state and then has to compete with a limited amount of tags to boot.

 

[ringer]

You can still go bowhunting for deer OTC. Yes it may be sad but when you have only a small number of animals for a big group of hunters plus a bunch of non-residents who feel they have equal rights to hunt then what do you do? Let people kill 'em all? Arizona has very little acreage vs total that will hold elk but we have worked to try and be fair while developing some of the finest animals in the country. We can take the kids out for deer, pretty much javelina, birds and yotes. It just kills me that USO and the Indians who are leasing the Boquillas want to have landowner tags to sell off to a bunch of rich boys. We will fight that one to the end.

 

[tnctcb]

tom i gotta disagree with you too.you have it backwards hogs are on farms and FERAL PIGS are in the woods. i dont have any problems with you but i would bet money if you look at the texas hunting regulations that it will say feral pig. i call them hogs and so do you but they are feral pigs. i think you usually have your facts straight on most of your posts but on this one, unless texas is different than every other state that has feral pigs i call BS

 

[Tom]

tnctcb, Here's some example where Texas Parks and Wildlife uses the term "feral hog", it some public hunt data. Matagorda Island they harvested more hogs than hunters. There's a place in the northeast part of Texas with a lot more hogs harvested, and a lot more access too, for people who want or need a cheap hog hunt.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/hunt/public_hunting/statistics/2003/feral_hog/

I just looked for mtmiller's dictionary quote, it seemed like pig was small, hog was big, in that definition. That's why I say, I hunt hogs, I guess. haha

Hey, Marv, I'm thinking they give tags out based on trying to balance the animals to the resources, i.e. land and food and water and cover. That means, how many tags they give out, depends on how many animals are on the land, how many it supports, the doe/buck ratio, and things like that. The tags come from the land, what it supports, I was thinking that way and typing it kind of sloppy, I guess.

 

[noharleyyet]

Tom, MtMiller, where I live we call any size pigs 'hogs' and free-ranging hogs 'wild'. These terms are colloquialisms not meant to be semantically correct. When they destroy whitetail bedding areas or decimate quail nesting areas we call them something else, also not semantically correct.

It has become common practice for landowners in my area to do preseason game surveys for the purpose of deer harvest parameters. When the population drops, the harvest allowance is lowered. When the census is higher, the landowner usually raises the price.

 

[tnctcb]

interesting tom.i guess texas does use the term hog. thats the only state that i kow of that uses it every state i know of calls them pigs. florida, georgia,south carolina, mississippi, california.guess it aint wrong its just different.

 

[Tom]

Like mtmiller said from the dictionary, its the little ones that get called pig and the big ones that get called hog. Maybe wild boar, is the correct term, that's what Records of Exotics calls them, no matter what state they are from.

Here's a cut and paste of those 3 definitions from this online dictionary.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pig&x=16&y=18
Main Entry: 1pig
Pronunciation: 'pig
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English pigge
1 : a young swine not yet sexually mature; broadly : a wild or domestic swine
2 a : PORK b : the dressed carcass of a young swine weighing less than 130 pounds (60 kilograms) c : PIGSKIN
3 a : one that resembles a pig <an unkempt... person is a pig -- S. S. Hall> b : an animal related to or resembling the pig

Main Entry: 1hog
Pronunciation: 'hog, 'häg
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hogs also hog
Etymology: Middle English hogge, from Old English hogg
1 : a domestic swine especially when weighing more than 120 pounds (54 kilograms); broadly : any of various wild and domestic swine
2 usually hogg British : a young unshorn sheep; also : wool from such a sheep

Main Entry: wild boar
Function: noun
: an Old World wild hog (Sus scrofa) from which most domestic swine have been derived


I guess I should use the term, wild boar, based on that, at least, if I knew they had some old world sus scrofa blood in them.

tnctcb, I went here:http://myfwc.com/search.html Florida Wildlife Commission. If I search on "hog hunt", 89 links are found for Florida. If I search for "pig hunt", it finds nothing. pig means small hog, hog means hog or pig, it seems pretty clear. Look at Georgia hunting info. It calls them hogs too. Were you drunk? You were pulling my leg right?
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=300&txtPage=9

 

[Nemont]

I don't know why anyone would ever pay a tresspass fee to shoot an antelope in Montana. Elkgunner came last year and the worst thing he had to do was put up with my sorry ass for two days.

As for the rest of the issues on leasing. It is here in the Milk River Valley and it isn't going away. Ever RealTree TV? They are hunting in Montana on the Milk just about every week. The places they have leased used to open to the public but now you can't get within 2 miles of them during hunting season. I laugh every time I hear the RealTrees guys say, " Pass on the tradition and take a kid hunting." Well they don't let kids hunt the places they have leased.

Tom,

You have lost me on this thread.

mtmiller,

Hope you got lucky with the Vino and glove.

Gunner46,
Don't pay a tresspass fee to shoot a speed goat. What unit are you hunting in? I bet there are plenty of guys who will say, " if you shoot one make sure you shoot a couple more for my dogs."

Nemont