It's not all climbing hills and chasing hogs!
So I had a little time to hang out with Michael over at his music studio the other night. Our new friend, Cork Graham came over for our first face-to-face meeting, and as usually happens around this group, the stories flowed freely. Conversation ranged from Cork’s new book to hog-dogging, and all points in between.
One topic that came out though kind of hung with me. We were talking about Michael’s operation, and how it’s becoming more and more common in many parts of the country. Hunting land is being locked up by entrepreneurs, and anyone who wants to hunt it will have to pay admission.
It wasn’t that long ago that all you had to do to get access to a property was just ask a property-owner’s permission. I remember my youth back in NC, when it was a matter of getting my dad to run me over to Mr. Batson’s house so I could ask permission to hunt his farm for whitetail, doves, and squirrels. With a stern warning against shooting his pigs (domestic, not wild) or shooting up his barns, and to leave gates the way I found them, he turned me loose over his place.
Of course, a large part of Mr. Batson’s farms are gone now… seeded over with subdivisions and mini-estates along with the blight of golf courses that cover such a huge chunk of the southeastern US. The remaining large land-holders (big farms, paper and lumber companies, etc.) are now drawing down thousands of dollars per year in leases from hunting clubs, effectively locking out the individual hunter, or the father-and-son partnerships who could once wander these lands for the price of asking permission.
Likewise, out here in central CA, 15 or 20 years ago it wasn’t at all unusual to be able to simply ask a farmer for permission to come hunt hogs. In fact, many ranchers were happy to have folks come shoot the destructive beasts, and would throw open the gates with an enthusiastic, ”come kill as many as you can!”
Since then, the spectre of the almighty dollar crept into the picture. Ranchers found out that folks would pay for the privilege of shooting hogs, turkeys, or deer. At the same time, outfitters and guides began to lock in leases on these properties, in order to take paying clients to these productive areas.
It’s happening all over the country. Prime, private land is being locked up and folks who want to hunt it are going to have to pay. Texas is a prime example, of course, with almost 98% of the state in private hands, but we’re seeing it in other places as well. Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina are all experiencing the phenomenon.
On the other hand, there is a trend in other direction. In Montana, the Access Montana program has been working with private landowners to provide access to public hunters by offering incentives to the landowners. Other states, particularly in the west, are trying similar things.
In California, the DFG and other organizations are working on similar programs with private landowners. The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) has a program called “HUNT”, and the CWA is also working with California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA) on the SHARE program. Both of these programs are designed to open private lands to public hunters, either for free hunts, or for a reasonable fee.
Even so, the bottom line is that someone has to “pay” the landowners for access to their lands. What happens to the hunter who doesn’t have the means to pay the price? Public land is the only remaining option, and as more people take to the field, that option gets more and more crowded.
Not that this is new. In 1960, Outdoor Life magazine ran a three-part series on Paid Hunting, and addressed a running argument about whether pay-to-play would spell the end of hunting, or if it is simply the way of the future. The articles looked at the upsurge in pheasant preserves, land leases, etc. The final part of the series, in the November edition, left the question pretty-well unanswered.
That was almost 50 years ago, and the biggest change since then is that we’ve lost huge tracts of huntable land to development and the flight of suburbanites into formerly rural areas. More non-hunters are taking to the field, even as hunter numbers have dwindled. The influence of these non-hunters threatens to close areas to hunting, as conflicts (real and perceived) arise.
All in all, the picture of the future is murky. Will hunting become a rich man’s sport… the domain of the monied and privileged? Or will the “common man” still prevail? Any readers out there have an opinion on this?
Blog Archive
August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009Categories
Hi Native,
Obviously I’m not familiar with the ‘hunting scene’ over on your side of the pond so perhaps my comments might well be irrelevant. Unfortunately it seems to me that all aspects of ‘the outdoors’ appear to be attracting the attention of people or of corporations wanting to make a fast buck with hunting being no different. As long as people are willing to pay for what ever their interest is then there will always be somebody willing to provide a service at a price. As populations grow then land becomes scarcer and the cost of use will undoubtedly rise, and for people, like myself, who love the wild places then there may well be a cost to pay and as land becomes more populated this cost will probably rise. With “global warming” dominating the environmentalists’ debates it seems that issues closer to home such as land use, nature preservation for the future, pollution, population spread etc are being put on the back burner whilst politicians seem to want to make gains out of the latest fad. Don’t get me wrong I don’t disbelieve in global warming I just have not been convinced by the politicians who want to rise my taxes further to ‘cool down’ the planet that the issue is a solvable one with the direction they’re asking us to take.
Perhaps I’m going off on a tangent, seems to me that the future cost of hunting could perhaps depend upon the purpose of the ‘hunt’? A hunter going out expressly to put meat in the pot seems to me to be a different kettle of fish than one who goes out solely for the kill or the trophy. Perhaps then these should be viewed and treated differently if it des come down to a matter of cost? But then again more regulation, more red tape I guess. It’s only my view for what it’s worth.
Best regards,
John.
Great points made John!
The correlation to what is happening to the outdoor sports in the United States right now and what has already happened over in Europe and Africa is (I believe) really at the heart of the matter.
My best phrase which sums it all up and which I have used for over 30 years now to describe this “Pay To Play” phenomenon is simply: The King’s Deer!
Of course there are many other factors involved such as, The Great Suburban Flight followed by a clash between City Mentality vs Country Mentality.
“Poaching” leading to High Fencing such as is the case in South Africa, as well as large numbers of people taking to the field and then said field hits Overcapacity and then there is no more game left to hunt there.
So then the next place to go and hunt is a “Pay To Play” ranch where there is some game still left to hunt.
But, here in the States at a Federal and State level there really has not been a concerted effort to address the overcapacity issue, except by special interest groups who would rather have “Not A Single Human Footprint” out on our public lands.
These special interest people have gained so much political power and are closing down public held lands at such an alarming rate that soon there will be no public access at all anywhere except a small public park where you will not be allowed to hunt.
The current method of these closures are: Due to a public health concern this area no longer is accessible to the public.
This has been anything from Asbestos in the soil, to the current Lead Ban trend and all the way down to protecting an Endangered Salamander or some sort of Plant!
And last but not least, Imminent Domain being declared by the State.
This is where the “King’s Deer” comes into play, all of these lands after such closure’s are eventually purchased by the government and then portions are later resold at a large profit for the State and Federal entities involved, (The Natures Conservancy is notorious for this) and with maybe a little set aside for a Public Park where hunting is not permitted.
* Except to maybe a privileged few like the Governor and his friends, etc. etc.
The amount of individuals who want to hunt as opposed to the amount of available land to do so is now way out of balance.
I also saw an era in the music industry where the market was so glutted with talent (loose term) and so very few venues to showcase the talent that a “Pay To Play” atmosphere developed.
This was where a band would want to play at a certain local venue, but would be required to purchase at least 200 to 400 tickets (at face value) to that venue in advance of the performance.
Then it was up to the band to market those tickets (which in the 80’s could be $15.00 apiece or more) at a very small profit (if any at all) before they would be able to play at that venue.
And another “Pay To Play” is currently going on as we speak, this is where if your band wants to get in on the roster of an event where a large name band is the headline act, you must “Pay” the headlining band a “Fee” to have the privilege to be one of the opening bands. This amount could very well go up into several thousand dollars!
But, as is in both Hunting and playing Music or whichever topic that we could discuss here, the “Elite” always seem to figure out a way to make us: “Pay To Play”
Hi John, and thanks for dropping by. I think your comments are exactly relevant, as Britain, Europe, and Africa are the models that instruct our thinking about this issue here in the States. The question, to me, is whether these models are being put to work for better or worse.