Dear Fudds...

[Doco Overboard]

No clear cut, they call it select harvest. At least that’s what we were told for the lease we have. They did ours in January after they had too lay about a mile of heavy stone. And they did exactly like you said. Laid mats and stationed everything. It don’t make no difference to me what they do. I’ve got other places. I’ll certainly miss hunting there after the gun opener as it’s pretty much scarce of members. Sure would like to know the outcome now. This way I’ll opt out now and save my dues..

I wouldn't worry about it either. What this will do is drive down the cost per acre of privately leased land or at least I would suspect.

Somehow I also think this is also some sort of combined strategy with the big sell off to come including other forested areas that's going to occur in one or two years to supplant any parts that become entirely public.

Over time, some of it will also be developed at some point. Wouldn't surprise me one bit which is probably the end game.

 

[Mike3888]

Rodger that doc, I’m pretty sure the leased parcels were kinda grandfathered in some way. I know the lease we are on was started in something like the late 70s. So I’m pretty sure 40 or so years of dues paid for that parcel. You can bet the whole thing is money related.

 

[dannyp]

a dollar to a dounut says lease prices will go up , all the guys looseing state leases will look to go somewhere . right off the bat 8900 acres is going to public that was leased .

 

[Doco Overboard]

a dollar to a dounut says lease prices will go up , all the guys looseing state leases will look to go somewhere . right off the bat 8900 acres is going to public that was leased .

I wouldn't think as much. The guys that are killing good deer are going right back to where they killed last year and know the woods. They wont move until they get pushed out by other hunters or will go back to the mountains.
Some will get taken advantage of for sure but that's their own mistake.

What they will want is a place to keep the camper nearby for a few weeks until it's time to roll out. At least that's what I would do. It's already going on now that I think about it.

 

[traveller]

I wouldn't worry about it either. What this will do is drive down the cost per acre of privately leased land or at least I would suspect.

Somehow I also think this is also some sort of combined strategy with the big sell off to come including other forested areas that's going to occur in one or two years to supplant any parts that become entirely public.

Over time, some of it will also be developed at some point. Wouldn't surprise me one bit which is probably the end game.

I dont think the state can sell the Chesapeake forest lands. Those came with perpetual conservation easements.

 

[cww]

If you don’t own it you will eventually loose it to someone or something in most cases. Yes it’s a bummer but it is your choice as a leaser to put in a ton of effort or money to improve the property all in the name of horns, or keeping the deer on your property, or easy access despite the fact you could loose it to a higher bidder, land sale, etc at any moment. And what’s to say the guy next door isn’t hurting your big plan and shooting basket racks or everything brown.
I’ve lost 2 spots due to land sales and have come close to loosing due to a high roller trying to snag it and another because the land owner wanted to cut the hunter numbers in half out of the blue. If you like hunting enough you will find somewhere else eventually.

 

[Doco Overboard]

I dont think the state can sell the Chesapeake forest lands. Those came with perpetual conservation easements.

That's right, I just keep thinking that the amount of it that has already been made public would be leverage for the difference that has remained leased buried deep in the language.

 

[Bob A]

8900 acres is a bit under 14 square miles. Somehow doesn't seem all that extensive to me, but I'm probably wrong.

Still, Brian Frosh, so you can count on a hidden agenda with outcomes that no one here will appreciate.

 

[dannyp]

the big issue with the larger tracts is no one will be useing it beyond the fringes . no motorized vehicles allowed , how far do you drag your deer ? a piece near our club ( 500 acres + or - ) was not leased a couple of years ago, state changed it to public . at most you see five cars on the lot , and you will have to walk past all five of them to hunt .

 

[lazarus]

So if you had held a lease (a LEGAL agreement between the state and the hunters) and all of the sudden out of the blue they decide to terminate your lease and hand over your hard work and dedication to anyone you would be OK with that? Because that's EXACTLY what the state is doing...and it's being done by someone who hates guns and by extension anyone who owns them INCLUDING HUNTERS..I'd be organizing the lease holders and showing up on opening day and daring them to come and stop us.

I realize I am jumping in before reading all of the replies and maybe the public meeting said otherwise, but it seems like their program is changing stuff so that some leases may not be allowed to be renewed.

That isn't cancelling a lease. Beyond that, what does the language in the leases say? Can they be terminated early for certain reasons? Is compensation provided if it is?

If I have a tenant on a lease for my house and I tell them I am not allowing them to renew at the end of the lease term, I am not kicking them out.

So if the state proposal is that some of the leases where land on the boundary has changed and the state is proposing once the leases term has ended that it will not be renewed because they are going to add that tract to public land I really don't have an issue with that at all.

Yes, I am not a member of a hunt club or looking to join one. I am a public land hunter. So it directly benefits me.

On the other hand, I see no issue declining to renew a lease. It is a LEASE, not your property.

If the state is cancelling leases EARLY, now I have a serious issue and that isn't even a tiny bit right.

 

[lazarus]

My views on the first point have been stridently expressed many times , and not motivated to repeat this morning .

On the second point , that's not anti hunter , that's actually pro hunting . Public hunting lands should be available to the public, not restricted to small groups of well off and/ or well connected people . I do get it , that they indeed like having tracts of land where they can control access, and manage the habitat intensively . That's a fine goal . They are perfectly free to lease hunting rights of whichever privately owned tracts they wish, on mutually agreeable terms .

I'd want large tracts I can control also.

Plenty of large farms are willing to sell a lease. or if a hunt club REALLY wants land they can all their own an manage exactly how they want it, change their charter and BUY a large property and maintain it. Yeah, that's pretty expensive, but could be cheaper in the long run. Lease the farming rights then, let some of it go back to woodland (or encourage it to).

I just spent a few minutes on Redfin. I see a number of properties in the general Salisbury area. A couple of empty tracts of ~60 acres for around $200k. A few larger 100+ acre tracts ranging up to around a million, but those all have houses on them. Sure 60 acres isn't huge, but for a small club of a few guys that would probably be fine.

5 guys splitting that is maybe $2000 a year on the mortgage payments and property tax to buy the property for a $200k property. You can structure it so that the club itself owns the property and that someone who leaves gets bought out by the club. Eventually if a member was there long enough and the property paid of then their membership would go down to the cost of property taxes (and any improvements).

At any rate, it IS public land that is allowed to be locked up in a lease to only a handful of people. I am sympathetic to the argument that this have been long term leases, wanting to improve it, etc.

I've had leasees ask me on improving the house I rent out. As I tell them that's on them, but they can't take it with them and I am not paying for it. Only exception I ever made was my first renters I split the cost of recarpeting the basement as it had some mystery large stains from before I bought the house (yes, I maintain it nicely, but maintain and improve are two different things).

With the argument for keeping up the properties and what not, I'd rather they move forward with consolidating some of this and opening up to the public, but also allowing longer lease terms at higher rates. Want your own personal or hunt club lease to be longer than annual knowing there is a decent change under the new lease lottery you'll lose it next time around? Fine, you win it, you can do 2-yrs for a 10-20% premium. Want 3-yrs, 20-40% premium (on total cost of the years). Don't allow longer than 3 years.

I have sympathy to having put work in. I have sympathy for wanting to manage the land and the deer on it. I have sympathy for wanting hunting access and not having to deal with the general public.

I have no sympathy for "its our land". It ain't. It is the public land. I also have no sympathy for this being anti-hunter. It isn't.

I also have a lot of sympathy for public land hunters (which I am one of) who may gain much greater access. It could have been a singular example they showed in the presentation where the state buys up some land and now you have good access to a large contiguous tract rather than the old situation where it was one or two small tracts that aren't easy to manage for public hunting. That seems like the exact example where they SHOULD be opening up that land to the public once leases are up.

 

[WillB]

For those that think there are not enough public land to hunt you must not be looking hard enough. There is tons of acreage both east and west that hunters never step foot on. These are the people that want to benefit from everyone’s hard work they gave into providing the best opportunity on their leases. Typical Democrat. Private leases have outpriced the average hunted but DNR allows the average hunter to afford a lease and be good stewards of the land.

 

[WillB]

Then there will be those that claim “my tax dollars” well let me tell you, your tax dollars have been wasted in Baltimore City for years because of the corruption. You should be more upset about those tax dollars than the ones associated with DNR leases. How much of your tax dollars have been spent wisely with wildlife management. When’s the last time they have done clear cutting in the mountains. At least if you allow these leases the land will be cared for probably better managed than what DNR would do.

 

[BeoBill]

Then there will be those that claim “my tax dollars” well let me tell you, your tax dollars have been wasted in Baltimore City for years because of the corruption...

That is not a valid comparison. Sorry for any butthurt. I pay for the land every April 15; I also expect a return, even if it's just taking in the sights. Deal with it.

 

[lazarus]

The argument of “I am a better steward of your land” isn’t really a good argument for why only you should get access to it and not anyone else.

I do roadway cleanup a couple of times a year. I sure as hell take better care of those roads than probably any of the drivers on it. Maybe it should be my private road.

Access isn’t just “is there any land available I can hunt on”.

The land should be managed for the most benefit to the most people if it is public land if land has access issues or is too small to manage for open hunting, that sounds like private leases, lottery or quota systems sounds like the best way to manage it. But if none of those exists absent some other compelling reason, it should be managed as publicly accessible hunting/fishing/hiking/etc land.

 

[WillB]

That is not a valid comparison. Sorry for any butthurt. I pay for the land every April 15; I also expect a return, even if it's just taking in the sights. Deal with it.[/QUOTE
Again I’m sorry the have nots cannot have. Not butt hurt my friend, I’ve applied to these lotteries just as others have. There is land that has recently gone unclaimed because nobody applied for those specific pieces. Interesting that some of you side with a gun grabbing Attorney General. Most hunters this affects are the middle aged Conservative. I guess if I take your hunting lease no need for you to hunt anymore. Why not force farmers to allow you access to their land. How much of your tax dollars go to support them???? Sorry you guys don’t take initiative to find leases or look for land that has minimal human interference. I guess you pay taxes and want access to everything. Frosh is as anti hunting as they come. Enjoy supporting him!

 

[SRD]

I really wanted stay out of this potential shit storm.

That is not a valid comparison. Sorry for any butthurt. I pay for the land every April 15; I also expect a return, even if it's just taking in the sights. Deal with it.

The argument of “I am a better steward of your land” isn’t really a good argument for why only you should get access to it and not anyone else.

I do roadway cleanup a couple of times a year. I sure as hell take better care of those roads than probably any of the drivers on it. Maybe it should be my private road.

Access isn’t just “is there any land available I can hunt on”.

The land should be managed for the most benefit to the most people if it is public land if land has access issues or is too small to manage for open hunting, that sounds like private leases, lottery or quota systems sounds like the best way to manage it. But if none of those exists absent some other compelling reason, it should be managed as publicly accessible hunting/fishing/hiking/etc land.

That is not a valid comparison. Sorry for any butthurt. I pay for the land every April 15; I also expect a return, even if it's just taking in the sights. Deal with it.[/QUOTE
Again I’m sorry the have nots cannot have. Not butt hurt my friend, I’ve applied to these lotteries just as others have. There is land that has recently gone unclaimed because nobody applied for those specific pieces. Interesting that some of you side with a gun grabbing Attorney General. Most hunters this affects are the middle aged Conservative. I guess if I take your hunting lease no need for you to hunt anymore. Why not force farmers to allow you access to their land. How much of your tax dollars go to support them???? Sorry you guys don’t take initiative to find leases or look for land that has minimal human interference.I guess you pay taxes and want access to everything. Frosh is as anti hunting as they come. Enjoy supporting him!

Yes,if my taxes go to the purchase of said land.How much money is funneled in to these purchases beyond taxes? I'd venture quite a bit,Pittman-Robertson comes to mind as well as other grants.

 

[44man]

That is not a valid comparison. Sorry for any butthurt. I pay for the land every April 15; I also expect a return, even if it's just taking in the sights. Deal with it.[/QUOTE
Again I’m sorry the have nots cannot have. Not butt hurt my friend, I’ve applied to these lotteries just as others have. There is land that has recently gone unclaimed because nobody applied for those specific pieces. Interesting that some of you side with a gun grabbing Attorney General. Most hunters this affects are the middle aged Conservative. I guess if I take your hunting lease no need for you to hunt anymore. Why not force farmers to allow you access to their land. How much of your tax dollars go to support them???? Sorry you guys don’t take initiative to find leases or look for land that has minimal human interference. I guess you pay taxes and want access to everything. Frosh is as anti hunting as they come. Enjoy supporting him!

As a farmer who gets $0 dollars of tax support I say if folks want large tracts of private land to hunt, do as farmers do, go buy some and get all the satisfaction of paying for it and leave folks that want to hunt state land and can’t because some rich guys have it leased have a shot at it.

Rich folks should go buy their own land to manage for deer and game

 

[Mike3888]

I totally understand both sides of the fence. My opinion is that the larger tracks with good access will probably go public. The smaller tracks will be lottery. I’m on one that is roughly 300 acres, been on it twelve years but the original members leased it from the pulp company. Like I said in a previous post I don’t care what happens. I’ve got a private farm near blackwater. Also hunt Pa where I can walk out of my camp in any direction and hunt. West Virginia is an option also. 3500 acre private mountain. Buy a share and get an acre of ground and all the rights. My brother and his friends all have shares and built 1 camp. Basically securing land to hunt is part of the process. And yes we put a ton of work into our CFL lease, it’s just part of it. No regrets if I’m out next year. At least I can buy an over the counter bear tag for Pa or West Virginia.

 

[willtill]

As a farmer who gets $0 dollars of tax support I say if folks want large tracts of private land to hunt, do as farmers do, go buy some and get all the satisfaction of paying for it and leave folks that want to hunt state land and can’t because some rich guys have it leased have a shot at it.

Rich folks should go buy their own land to manage for deer and game

I'm not splitting a payment on a lease for my share ($2,000.00 for example) just to drive umpteem miles to kill a deer or two for all year.

Hunting is not supposed to be cost prohibitive for the average Joe - American.