Encouraging private land being opened to general hunting

[Jaeger]

As a former big land (200+) acres land owner, I'm not sure there are many incentives that would open these lands to the public.

Basically there are two types of big land land owners, commercial (like family farms) and recreational (those who buy big pieces for themselves for hunting or otherwise).

The recreational land owners (of which I was one) will probably not open their land to the public.  Remember, that's why they bought the big land, to have a place and the peace of their own property.  Then not only pay huge $$ in taxes to have their own place but many of you forget they also pay a huge $$ mortgage as well.

Think about it, if you could afford 50+ acres for your own personal hunting or hiking and were paying taxes and a mortgage to have it, and struggling to keep trespassers off it and out of your stands, would you let the public use it for some incentive?  I think not, otherwise why did you buy it in the first place.

The only possibilities for opening large private land to the public will be with the commercial owners, especially farmers.  While they get agricultural exemptions on farmed land it is only a percentage of the total tax based on soil quality and only on the land actually farmed.  A full 100% exemption from BOTH town and School taxes may work as an incentive.  Especially the School taxes which are huge for large land owners.  The forestery tax exemption (480A) is already 100% but it is very complicated and very restrictive.

My landlord is in this position, he owns over 800+ acres in several parcel and has to lease it to various unsavory groups just to pay off a very small part of his taxes on unused land.  He would jump at a 100% public land use tax exemption.

Again, please keep in mind when you try to lease a persons land for hunting, what you are willing to pay will only be a small fraction of what it costs the owner in taxes (and sometimes mortgage) to keep it.  I see people wanting to pay a few dollars an acre for hunting rights on land that costs the owner much more than that and think it's fair.  

I was once offered $10 an acre on my best 80 acres of hunting land for a season (remember that's why I bought it) when it was costing me close to $10/day/acre to own it!!  The guy got furious I wouldn't lease it too him calling me a greedy land owner, Greedy?  I was paying a fortune to own it and he wanted to use it practically for free!!

Hunters feel they are getting over charged and the owner feels he is not getting enough to cover the costs of his taxes and insurance to make the hassle worth it.

Just my personal experience with the situation.

 

[growalot]

Well said!

[grampy]

32 minutes ago, growalot said:

Well said!

X - 2

[stoneam2006]

As I understood it, the opposition to the 2-week doe only season in bow season wasn't because no one wanted to shoot does. It was because of the ridiculous notion that deer populations should be (or even could be) controlled only by bow hunters, alone. Perhaps if the DEC was really serious about taking does, a day or two of the regular season could have been made "doe only" and maybe then they would have gotten the result they were looking for without singling out archers only for the task of cutting doe populations. But either way, that doesn't change the situation with hunters being locked out of private lands and the result of strangling the growth and maintenance of the activity of hunting.

The problem is deer are easier to hunt during bow season once first gun shot happens state land gets empty fast. Xbow full inclusion would help with numbers during bow season...they need to offer incentives for people to allow hunting imo


Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Doc]

19 hours ago, stoneam2006 said:

The problem is deer are easier to hunt during bow season once first gun shot happens state land gets empty fast. Xbow full inclusion would help with numbers during bow season...they need to offer incentives for people to allow hunting imo

 

 

 

 

If that was the logic used by the DEC when they decided that bowhunters alone should be controlling deer populations, then they are as screwed up as I suspected they were. And those that are clinging to hopes that crossbows are going to make any significant difference really are engaging in wishful thinking.

If you want to make significant increases in doe-take and are truly serious about that, then all of your options should at least include the regular gun season. Any solution that does not include gun season is really only a half-measure that is purely window-dressing.

[jjb4900]

I think the best solution for increased doe take is an "earn a buck" law in the heavily populated areas......I know quite a few guys who are only interested in killing bucks.....and I also think that is a reason the doe only for the first few weeks in certain areas failed, most guys did not want to screw up an area by going in too early and either having to pass on the buck they were after or just screw up the area in general, make harvesting a doe mandatory and you may have very different results....and yes if it's that bad let the gun hunters have at it as well.

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, jjb4900 said:

I think the best solution for increased doe take is an "earn a buck" law in the heavily populated areas......I know quite a few guys who are only interested in killing bucks.....and I also think that is a reason the doe only for the first few weeks in certain areas failed, most guys did not want to screw up an area by going in too early and either having to pass on the buck they were after or just screw up the area in general, make harvesting a doe mandatory and you may have very different results....and yes if it's that bad let the gun hunters have at it as well.

I've got to say that likely a "buck only hunter", probably the first minute of the season, would sit down and fill out their doe tag whether they had shot one or not. So the only thing accomplished would be that the DEC would be reporting a higher doe kill than reality. I guess that would make everyone feel better, but the real result would be to screw up all the DEC calculations even more than they already are. Maybe it might be worth a try, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[jjb4900]

25 minutes ago, Doc said:

I've got to say that likely a "buck only hunter", probably the first minute of the season, would sit down and fill out their doe tag whether they had shot one or not. So the only thing accomplished would be that the DEC would be reporting a higher doe kill than reality. I guess that would make everyone feel better, but the real result would be to screw up all the DEC calculations even more than they already are. Maybe it might be worth a try, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

well, that was based on hoping we had honest hunters.....mandatory check in of the doe would be of help, but we know that the chances of them to setting aside the resources for that is pretty slim.

[growalot]

jjb..... none of that will work until they open their foolish eyes and realize they need to get the tags out there BEFORE NOV 1st!! They failed in that ridiculous poorly planned scheme because hunters saw it for what it was and stood up for them self's.  You have 2 DMP tags and a great #of hunters hunt more than one unit. Now for us that actually live here...we know this, you will ALWAYS get a chance at 2 more DMPS for our unit  Nov1. Now for bow hunters  you have your either or tag and your buck tag plus a chance at 1-2 DMP's..for many it is only 1...for like myself I go for the harder 8X at camp first then my 8N. Now if I wasn't willing to shoot doe during bow season and some aren't. I would go for both my tags in 8X and wait until Nov 1 to try and shoot a doe with the 2 extra tags I get then. You can be damn certain I'm not using that either or, I payed for to shoot a doe , not a buck. Give us those other 2 DMP's that for the last 10 or so years they give out EVERY SINGLE YEAR  on Oct1st.

No one is inconvenienced, pizzed off,and no extra money is spent by the DEC. If for some unknown crazy reason it doesn't work...well at least they can drop that if they want and won't look like a$$'s in the process.

Edited July 27, 2016 by growalot

[dbHunterNY]

the system we have now can work.  problem is most people want something for nothing.  if you knock on doors and work for it you'll get to hunt land.  especially here in NY no way would anyone just open their land up to the general public.  if they did it'd be abused by a few and ruin it for the rest.  there's enough hunting the property during the season that things are congested and drive deer into pockets.  it'd be even worse I'd imagine.  put in the time and work and you get to hunt land.  never settle for one spot.  give yourself options and something to fall back on in case you get the boot from one property for whatever reason, justified or otherwise.

[Doc]

23 hours ago, jjb4900 said:

well, that was based on hoping we had honest hunters.....

And then there is always reality that creeps in when you know that hunters feel put-upon....lol. We can't even get a majority of hunters to report their kills.

[growalot]

Seriously...cell phones..you can call anytime from any where. Make it  a part of the kill job.you gut and need to wipe off your knife before putting it away to drag. You need to pull out phone and hit speed dial to report kill before dragging. Just make it part of the recovery process.

[Nomad]

Farmers , farm a lot of land they don't own , but treat it as such . Asking them to hunt it ( a right they generally don't have to say one way or another ) is a waist of time ,  however they often just say no as if it's theirs .

Many many land owners never even visit or use their land they rent out to the farmers , THAT is who one needs to reach , and there are quite a few of us . I have one stand on our 120 acres and I don't think I used it once in bow last year and once or twice in gun , in almost 3 decades I recall 2 asking ME to,hunt it ( each granted ).

Over the last 28 years I can't tell you how often the farmer has gotten calls about our land , ( sometimes for people shooting "machine guns " on it  lol it's a bump stock AK )  or I'll be there talking to a local and they say oh I thought farmer Brown owned that .

[Buckmaster7600]

Seriously...cell phones..you can call anytime from any where. Make it  a part of the kill job.you gut and need to wipe off your knife before putting it away to drag. You need to pull out phone and hit speed dial to report kill before dragging. Just make it part of the recovery process.

I don't know about you but I would have a long walk until I get signal enough to call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[growalot]

hahaha thers one excuse....do you have to drive a long ways to get a signal after hanging it too......lol

[Buckmaster7600]

I wasn't trying to make a joke or an excuse but for me to get cell signal at my camp I have to drive to town 11 miles. So we will use last year as an example. My buck died 3.2 miles from the nearest road and 3.5 miles from my truck. So I would have had to walk 3.5 miles to my truck drive to town call drive back hike another 3 miles back to my deer and start dragging. That is the joke if you think anyone would do that.
Not everyone hunts in their fenced in back yards.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjb4900]

4 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I wasn't trying to make a joke or an excuse but for me to get cell signal at my camp I have to drive to town 11 miles. So we will use last year as an example. My buck died 3.2 miles from the nearest road and 3.5 miles from my truck. So I would have had to walk 3.5 miles to my truck drive to town call drive back hike another 3 miles back to my deer and start dragging. That is the joke if think anyone would do that.
Not everyone hunts in their fenced in back yards.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we get zero reception where we hunt and have our cabin, so that's not an option for us either, and I'm certainly not about to drive 30-40 minutes trying to get a signal.....but I've always been on top of reporting my game so it's not something I have to do right away or I'll forget anyway.

[Buckmaster7600]

Where reporting could be improved is just like in Ohio a butcher can't take possession of a deer without the "kill #" attached to the deer. I know everyone doesn't take their deer to a butcher but a lot do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Quote

My buck died 3.2 miles from the nearest road and 3.5 miles from my truck. So I would have had to walk 3.5 miles to my truck drive to town call drive back hike another 3 miles back to my deer and start dragging. That is the joke if you think anyone would do that.

You put  a lot of thought into that example...Now let me think on that.......if you reversed that scenario you would be dragging your dead buck to the truck were you had to in the first place. Then driving to town to make the call...hey doing a beer,soda.... whatever run..then back to camp.

jjb That's a good thing on your part...but many of those not reporting are in areas of exceptional signals ...that"s what my post was about. Those that make it a second thought ,that never gets remembered...you know, ones like me with 73acre "fenced back yards" we hunt...Or 68 acre remote camps we own or 70 acre properties we have invites on....lol

[jjb4900]

3 minutes ago, growalot said:

You put  a lot of thought into that example...Now let me think on that.......if you reversed that scenario you would be dragging your dead buck to the truck were you had to in the first place. Then driving to town to make the call...hey doing a beer,soda.... whatever run..then back to camp.

jjb That's a good thing on your part...but many of those not reporting are in areas of exceptional signals ...that"s what my post was about. Those that make it a second thought ,that never gets remembered...you know, ones like me with 73acre "fenced back yards" we hunt...Or 68 acre remote camps we own or 70 acre properties we have invites on....lol

as odd as may sound to some, it's actually part of the hunt, really no different then standing in line the first day licenses go on sale to see if you get the coveted DMP like some do...I almost enjoy logging into the website and doing that stuff, you can actually even see past reports on there, so it's kind of like keeping a journal of some sort.

[Buckmaster7600]

My buck died 3.2 miles from the nearest road and 3.5 miles from my truck. So I would have had to walk 3.5 miles to my truck drive to town call drive back hike another 3 miles back to my deer and start dragging. That is the joke if you think anyone would do that.

You put  a lot of thought into that example...Now let me think on that.......if you reversed that scenario you would be dragging your dead buck to the truck were you had to in the first place. Then driving to town to make the call...hey doing a beer,soda.... whatever run..then back to camp.

jjb That's a good thing on your part...but many of those not reporting are in areas of exceptional signals ...that"s what my post was about. Those that make it a second thought ,that never gets remembered...you know, ones like me with 73acre "fenced back yards" we hunt...Or 68 acre remote camps we own or 70 acre properties we have invites on....lol

I have no idea what you are trying to say? Why would I be driving to town in your scenario? My camp is an hr drive down 8 miles down terrible logging roads/ snowmobile trails from an asphalt road. There is no run out for a soda or a beer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Padre86]

On 7/22/2016 at 4:30 AM, Doc said:

So, to the landowners who have posted their land, what would it take to convince you to open your land to general hunting? Is there anything that would convince you to take down those posted signs, or enter into a cooperative plan to allow general public hunting access.

 

We have repeatedly heard that the biggest danger to hunting and wildlife management is lack of land access. We all want the DEC and legislators to get landowners to open their land to the general public so that deer management can be achieved. What effective kinds of incentives or laws would you all support to make this happen?

Just to clarify, are we talking about legislation that will force landowners to open their land up to public hunting?  Or are we talking about legislation that will allow landowners to open their land up to public hunting?  Because one is an obvious violation of rights and the other one isn't.

 

If we are discussing the latter, then I agree with what others have already said.  Some form of protection for the landowners against being sued by hunters who get hurt and some form of tax incentives to motivate landowners to volunteer their land.

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Padre86 said:

Just to clarify, are we talking about legislation that will force landowners to open their land up to public hunting?  Or are we talking about legislation that will allow landowners to open their land up to public hunting?  Because one is an obvious violation of rights and the other one isn't.

 

If we are discussing the latter, then I agree with what others have already said.  Some form of protection for the landowners against being sued by hunters who get hurt and some form of tax incentives to motivate landowners to volunteer their land.

As far as I am concerned, a man's home is his castle, and that includes the land that he owns too. There is no way that I would ever come down on the side of trying to "force" open a landowner's land to hunting under any conditions. I don't even like zoning! But even incentives have to have some significant possibility of working or they are not worth the cost of the legislation. From what I have heard in this thread and even from my own personal feelings, it really sounds like there is little hope of opening up private land without significant financial reward for the landowner (leases and such). It appears that there really is nothing that the DEC can ever do that will open any significant amounts of land. So if we are expecting the DEC to do something, I think we can forget about that notion.

[Padre86]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

As far as I am concerned, a man's home is his castle, and that includes the land that he owns too. There is no way that I would ever come down on the side of trying to "force" open a landowner's land to hunting under any conditions. I don't even like zoning! But even incentives have to have some significant possibility of working or they are not worth the cost of the legislation. From what I have heard in this thread and even from my own personal feelings, it really sounds like there is little hope of opening up private land without significant financial reward for the landowner (leases and such). It appears that there really is nothing that the DEC can ever do that will open any significant amounts of land. So if we are expecting the DEC to do something, I think we can forget about that notion.

Like I said, tax incentives (which is a huge hindrance to many rural land owners) and some form of liability protection would go a long way in persuading some landowners to open up their lands.  This is something that would have to go well beyond the scope of the DEC and get bipartisan support in the state  legislature and judicial review to ensure that some landowner doesn't get screwed over when a hunter shoots himself in the foot and then tries to the sue.

 

I think such a program is totally feasible on small, regional scale and applicable to certain areas (the ADK landowners and hunters probably wouldn't be interested in this because of all the public land that is available there).  But hunters and landowners in the Finger Lakes region for example, might see some value in this.  Couple this with some sort of mobile app (which isn't hard to do nowadays) and it should be fairly easy to inform hunters on which landowners have opened their land to public hunting.

[tom343]

It is the notion of not having to share the woods that makes hunters want to get on posted land, They want to get on this land by themselves. Just look at how much public and co-op land in NYS is available for hunting now. But you have to walk if you want to beat the crowd! There are fewer hunters every year to boot. If the state was serious about opening up private land, they'd forbid hunting on posted land even by the owner.