|
Post by drs on Nov 5, 2006 10:39:16 GMT -5
This thread is depressing. I moved to a new part of the state a couple of years ago and I have found 3 places to hunt deer and without leasing. Two of them are pretty small but they all hold some deer. I think many people who say they can't find a place to hunt don't actually look very hard. I use a plat map and I also have a letter of introduction that I use and I always ask to just bowhunt first. After reading things like this thread I sometimes wish I never would have never been introduced to hunting and don't know wheter or not I care if my 7 year old Son takes up the sport I agree this thread is quite depressing. Glad you have some areas to hunt this year. However will those areas be there next Deer Season?? The way things are going in Indiana is: one year there's wooded areas & Habitat; next year there could be Homes on that same area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 11:29:08 GMT -5
Yes, Quite simply put it's GREED making prices go up. What we have is a resource owned by the people of Indiana being use, by a private corporation, to make a profit through some Loophole in the laws. Again these "Cartels" are circumventing a State's game Department ability to manage wildlife correctly, by taking over vast areas and excluding the proper amount of those wishing to hunt unless they can come up with the inflated lease fees. Again, this is pure BS. In 99% of all cases, the land that people pay money to use is managed better than land that has uncontrolled hunting on it. If it wasn't, then why are you whining about it and not hunting the millions of acres of public hunting land like the HNF and other areas that will never shrink in size. What loop hole in the law? ? Cite specifics please? The deer of Indiana belong to the license buyers and the non-hunters. The right to hunt them on private property doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 11:35:43 GMT -5
Smart move. Buy land and hunt. It's a great past time. Even if you have to lease to do it. No, My Brother & I are looking to buy......NOT LEASE!! By your posts, "timex" it doesn't take much brain power to realize that you are in favor of these so called "Cartels" taking over private lands through "sweetheart" deals which displaces many average Sportsmen from their places they have hunted in the past. Now when outfits like "Basecamp" come in and start charging greatly inflated fees; only the rich can afford to hunt. This type of enterprise will further reduce the numbers of Hunters, which will affect the economy & Business, of the sporting goods commerce catering to sport hunting. You mention to one poster that they should get two or more jobs inorder to afford their favorite sport. What a redundent statement to make to someone! What you and your kind fail to realize that many, who enjoy Hunting, also have Mortages, Car payments, Insurance premiums, and kids to put through college. This along with average household expenses limits the amount a Hunter can spend on his sport. Most are currently living paycheck to paycheck. Your Cartel buddies, while not saying directly, is that you really don't want the average citizen hunter to hunt but rather your rich friends. Again the State should outlaw these outfits that gouge hunters left & right. Everyone reading this should write the State and expressing a desire to not allow Outfits like Basecamp to just come in and take over nearly all the prime hunting areas. If a Farmer wants to lease out his or her property then they should do so on their own without the Cartel getting involved. Maybe the State could give Farmers tax breaks to allow a reasonable number of hunter to use his land, and the Hunters could either give them a money "tip" or help them out with a land problem. David, you don't understand the service that Basecamp is doing for the hunter. 1. they find the lands available for lease and locate that infomation on a web site so that hunters can find themselves a spot. 2. The handle the contracts between the farmer and the hunter, and the insurance coverage. Most farmers wouldn't have a clue on how to do this and would have to hire an attorney. 3. the monitor the deal through out the term of the lease and work through any problems. 4. they extend the lease into the 2nd year if both parties agree. They are entitled to make some money for the services they render. If you think it's easy what they do, go out tomoorow and find your own lease or someone wanting to lease land out. See how many tracts you can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Nov 5, 2006 12:42:24 GMT -5
#5. Basecamp & others circumvent DNR's ability to manage game soundly.
#6. Basecamp & others charge excessive fees for their "Services" which lock out the average hunter from his hunting.
However they shouldn't have the right to OVER CHARGE their customers.
No thanks, as I have my hunting spots I've hunted for years. ~ NO CHARGE!! Also if it as difficult as you say seting up a lease then we wouldn't see this trend keep growing like a Cancer, would we.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 5, 2006 12:54:39 GMT -5
Do either one of you guys think you'll change the others one's mind on this subject?
You all seem to be recycling the same posts over an over again.
.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Nov 5, 2006 13:00:51 GMT -5
As a hunter with a limited income, I have talked to several farmers about leasing. No I can not pay basecamp prices, Nor am I able to work a second job, since I DO NOT smoke, drink any alchoholic beverages and play the lottery only about once a month if that I can not stop those and see what extra I have to use for leasing. While a couple of farmers said I could hunt their property, which I am I have the feeling that if some corporation like basecamp came along and offered to lease these small plots less that 5 acres of actual wooded area,for big dollars, they might take it . After all when basecamp leases a place they lease the whole area not just the wooded. Both of my places have restrictions, which I am sure would be carried on, no turkey, no mushroom hunting. Now do I have anything against basecamp and free enterprise, no. Do I dislike their priceing someone like me out? Yes.
|
|
Gator
Full Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by Gator on Nov 5, 2006 13:25:33 GMT -5
explain to me how leasing farms is circumventing the states ability to manage wildlife...Not saying its you, but I'm I regularly read and post on several outdoor websites and have very few times read where anyone is in agreement with the way the state is managing wildlife...**** half of the threads i read are about hunters crying about the OBR. The state doesnt change management practices regardless if John DOe hunter leases a farm or if Basecamp leases it and then subleases it out to another party.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Nov 5, 2006 14:21:18 GMT -5
No, My Brother & I are looking to buy......NOT LEASE!! By your posts, "timex" it doesn't take much brain power to realize that you are in favor of these so called "Cartels" taking over private lands through "sweetheart" deals which displaces many average Sportsmen from their places they have hunted in the past. Now when outfits like "Basecamp" come in and start charging greatly inflated fees; only the rich can afford to hunt. This type of enterprise will further reduce the numbers of Hunters, which will affect the economy & Business, of the sporting goods commerce catering to sport hunting. You mention to one poster that they should get two or more jobs inorder to afford their favorite sport. What a redundent statement to make to someone! What you and your kind fail to realize that many, who enjoy Hunting, also have Mortages, Car payments, Insurance premiums, and kids to put through college. This along with average household expenses limits the amount a Hunter can spend on his sport. Most are currently living paycheck to paycheck. Your Cartel buddies, while not saying directly, is that you really don't want the average citizen hunter to hunt but rather your rich friends. Again the State should outlaw these outfits that gouge hunters left & right. Everyone reading this should write the State and expressing a desire to not allow Outfits like Basecamp to just come in and take over nearly all the prime hunting areas. If a Farmer wants to lease out his or her property then they should do so on their own without the Cartel getting involved. Maybe the State could give Farmers tax breaks to allow a reasonable number of hunter to use his land, and the Hunters could either give them a money "tip" or help them out with a land problem. David, you don't understand the service that Basecamp is doing for the hunter. 1. they find the lands available for lease and locate that infomation on a web site so that hunters can find themselves a spot. 2. The handle the contracts between the farmer and the hunter, and the insurance coverage. Most farmers wouldn't have a clue on how to do this and would have to hire an attorney. 3. the monitor the deal through out the term of the lease and work through any problems. 4. they extend the lease into the 2nd year if both parties agree. They are entitled to make some money for the services they render. If you think it's easy what they do, go out tomoorow and find your own lease or someone wanting to lease land out. See how many tracts you can come up with. Woody`s right-nothing is going to change anyone`s mind on here, but I have to respond to this before I hang it up- Basecamp is doing NO service for the hunter-they`re doing the service for themselves. Believe it or not, landowners and hunters got together and hunters had places to hunt long before these "service providers" came along. And what IS B.S. is that you and these outfits have landowners convinced that they must have their services since the land owner and the hunter could never take care of insurance and liability issues. Paleeese. These outfits are neither needed nor wanted by anyone who cares about keeping hunting land accessible to the average guy.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Nov 5, 2006 15:15:14 GMT -5
Do either one of you guys think you'll change the others one's mind on this subject? You all seem to be recycling the same posts over an over again. You're right, Woody. I am tired of discussing this silly & stupid thread on leasing. Big Time Leasing outfits, like "Basecamp" are verya negative approach to wise game management; and no one will change my mind of this fact. If the State looks away from this and their DNR management plans suffer; they have only themselves to blame, by not passing laws to stop it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 15:41:51 GMT -5
#5. Basecamp & others circumvent DNR's ability to manage game soundly. #6. Basecamp & others charge excessive fees for their "Services" which lock out the average hunter from his hunting. However they shouldn't have the right to OVER CHARGE their customers. No thanks, as I have my hunting spots I've hunted for years. ~ NO CHARGE!! Also if it as difficult as you say seting up a lease then we wouldn't see this trend keep growing like a Cancer, would we. #5 Explain how, when most places under lease have better hunting than sournding properties?? #6 They charge from 15% to 25% -- most places that sell hunting equipment and other products mark up the goods about 33% or more. Here's what happens because of guys such as yourself. this is a general comment and is not a personal one. Because of resistance from residents that have hunted under the "good ole boy" system for so long, that they won't spend a few dollars with the landowners, a lot of these leases end up going to NR hunters who know the value of a good hunting spot. When I have a Indiana lease, I always look for residents first to fill the spots. You can verify that by looking at some of my past classified ads on the Ind. spots that I have. When that doesn't work, I can normally lease the properties in a couple of weeks or so with out of state guys--mainly the south. So, with the attitude that leases are a cancer, in a way, your confirming it because of the resistance to spending some money on hunting land.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Nov 5, 2006 15:59:18 GMT -5
#5 Explain how, when most places under lease have better hunting than sournding properties?? Gotta be careful about the statements like the one you made above-you have no verifiable evidence to prove that somehow leased land has better hunting than surrounding areas. It can be your opinion, but nothing more than that-just opinion. And maybe everyone else on here already knew, but it is new information to me that you are involved in leasing-that would explain your hard line stance that middleman outfits are just fine. Everyone is entitled to any opinion they may have-even if that opinion is driven by business ventures and personal gain-that`s the way our economy works, but…… I still don`t like leasing in general-DO NOT like these middleman outfits in particular-Just my opinion.
|
|
Gator
Full Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by Gator on Nov 5, 2006 16:44:30 GMT -5
Timex, you got any more places up for lease next season? Im from out of state, but will manage it as well as any resident, as far as game taken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 17:24:16 GMT -5
Timex, you got any more places up for lease next season? Im from out of state, but will manage it as well as any resident, as far as game taken. Nope, I've got hunters from Fla., La., Ga. and Tn. on spots though and they like what they have. I'll post up when something comes available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 17:31:14 GMT -5
#5 Explain how, when most places under lease have better hunting than sournding properties?? Gotta be careful about the statements like the one you made above-you have no verifiable evidence to prove that somehow leased land has better hunting than surrounding areas. It can be your opinion, but nothing more than that-just opinion. And maybe everyone else on here already knew, but it is new information to me that you are involved in leasing-that would explain your hard line stance that middleman outfits are just fine. Everyone is entitled to any opinion they may have-even if that opinion is driven by business ventures and personal gain-that`s the way our economy works, but…… I still don`t like leasing in general-DO NOT like these middleman outfits in particular-Just my opinion. David and Woody both know. All of the land I have in Indiana was closed to hunting by the owners before we got it to offer out. That is except the last tract in Gibson Co. That tract came available because of trespassers using the guys land without his consent, ended up too many that it evolved in a war between the illegal hunters that the landowner had to get invloved with. He didn't care for the trouble and decided to put a stop to it. Most of those guys have stop trespassing, but a few will end up being cited before they stop. The same for my other tract. We had uncontrolled ATV riding and illegal dumping and illegal hunting to contend with, not to mention evidence of meth being cooked in a couple of spots. The landowner appreciates us cleaning up the mess and rif-raft that was there before hasn't like it much. Several have made trips to court because they insist on trying to by-pass the law. Oh, yeah. photo evidence of the deer on those leases show that the management is doing just fine under the lease agreement.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Nov 5, 2006 17:43:35 GMT -5
#5 Explain how, when most places under lease have better hunting than sournding properties?? Gotta be careful about the statements like the one you made above-you have no verifiable evidence to prove that somehow leased land has better hunting than surrounding areas. It can be your opinion, but nothing more than that-just opinion. And maybe everyone else on here already knew, but it is new information to me that you are involved in leasing-that would explain your hard line stance that middleman outfits are just fine. Everyone is entitled to any opinion they may have-even if that opinion is driven by business ventures and personal gain-that`s the way our economy works, but…… I still don`t like leasing in general-DO NOT like these middleman outfits in particular-Just my opinion. David and Woody both know. All of the land I have in Indiana was closed to hunting by the owners before we got it to offer out. That is except the last tract in Gibson Co. That tract came available because of trespassers using the guys land without his consent, ended up too many that it evolved in a war between the illegal hunters that the landowner had to get invloved with. He didn't care for the trouble and decided to put a stop to it. Most of those guys have stop trespassing, but a few will end up being cited before they stop. The same for my other tract. We had uncontrolled ATV riding and illegal dumping and illegal hunting to contend with, not to mention evidence of meth being cooked in a couple of spots. The landowner appreciates us cleaning up the mess and rif-raft that was there before hasn't like it much. Several have made trips to court because they insist on trying to by-pass the law. Oh, yeah. photo evidence of the deer on those leases show that the management is doing just fine under the lease agreement. The "bad" non-lease areas don`t have photo`s of white-tails? No disrespect intended, but again, it` s nothing more than your opinion-which lacks credibility with me, as due to having a business interest, you would not be capable of being objective.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Nov 5, 2006 19:19:17 GMT -5
480 - Your statement .... "Basecamp is doing NO service for the hunter-they`re doing the service for themselves." is plum crazy. That's about like saying that "Cadillac provides nothing for the driver" just because you may not like or can't afford one for one reason or another.
If Basecamp wasn't providing a service for the hunters, then they wouldn't be able to fill those leases. And why in the heck wouldn't they try to make a few bucks off of each deal? I believe that is called "running a business". Pretty hard to keep going, selling at a loss.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Nov 5, 2006 19:34:02 GMT -5
480 - Your statement .... "Basecamp is doing NO service for the hunter-they`re doing the service for themselves." is plum crazy. That's about like saying that "Cadillac provides nothing for the driver" just because you may not like or can't afford one for one reason or another. If Basecamp wasn't providing a service for the hunters, then they wouldn't be able to fill those leases. And why in the heck wouldn't they try to make a few bucks off of each deal? I believe that is called "running a business". Pretty hard to keep going, selling at a loss. I swear this is the last time I`ll even comment on this damned thread-but as I said before-unbelievable as it may sound-a long time before outfits like basecamp came along, hunters and landowners managed to find each other, and guys had places to hunt, so there is ZERO niche they`re filling-only their pockets, at the expense of ALL hunters. For those who choose to use `em-fine. I won`t ever, I`ll tell anyone I know not to use `em, I`ll contact the DNR about `em, and I`ll do anything I can to inform landowners that they do not need them. After that-it`s all good. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 19:53:16 GMT -5
Hunting is changing. So are hunters. So are landowners. Small farms are now sold in lots and sections to multiple landowners. If there was plenty of FREE hunting available out there for just knocking on a few doors, Basecamp would not stay in business long. You can tell the landowners what you want all you want, it won't matter. Farmers and landowners like what a lease does for them, especially the ones that require insurance to protect their livelyhood.
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Nov 5, 2006 21:09:42 GMT -5
Oct 1955 Cover of Field and Stream: "Is Public Hunting Doomed" Looks like this problem been around a few years.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Nov 5, 2006 21:15:32 GMT -5
Looking over the Base camp leasing website I see hunting leases this year small and large in Indiana going for 15 to over 35 dollars per acre . I guess if you want to hunt as more land is leased and less land is available we can expect to pay 50 dollars per acre real soon.
|
|