Lease hunting in the long term
By Alan Newport

Leasing land to hunters grows in popularity and brings cultural questions.

Rick Duncan leases his 470 acres near the Lake of the Ozarks to deer hunters to make the cash flow. In that way, he is entirely typical of most landowners who lease recreational rights to their land.

Yet in other ways, he is acutely atypical. He does not farm or ranch, nor does he cut timber from the land, at least not commercially. He leases the deer hunting to raise cash to help him convert the land back to habitat more suitable for quail and quail hunting.

His quest is for personal recreational benefit, and also for his own altruistic appreciation of habitat—and perhaps for the possibility of lease money from future quail hunters.

Woven into Rick Duncan’s actions and reasons are the threads of nearly every argument for and against lease hunting.

These things begin with mumblings heard around hunters’ campfires: “It just keeps getting more expen-sive. I don’t know if my grandkids will be able to hunt. Do you think we’ll end up like Europe, where just the rich folks hunt?”

These questions cut to the heart of modern American wildlife management, tradition, social economics and politics.

The cost of outdoor recreation is rising, and the statistics show that the poorest people generally don’t hunt or fish. The leasing of land for these outdoor sports is apparently increasing, even in places like Missouri where it has never been well accepted. Activities like pay-per-view bird watching are growing, and limited access to national parks and rising fee schedules for those parks are leaping forward under the pressure of our burgeoning population and the public’s desire for temporary escape from their city and suburban lives.

Duncan said that when he advertised the land for lease in St. Louis papers, he got a significant res-ponse, some 10 calls in a week. He said hunters there complain that nearby hunting grounds are too crowded or have poor hunting.

With these dilemmas, what is the future of ecology, of wildlife, and particularly of consumptive outdoor recreation such as hunting and fishing?

Will the monied class ultimately control the access rights to the wildlife resources which, through our uniquely American legal viewpoint, actually belong to all people?

Will the upward pressure on access, and therefore on prices for access, drive too many people out of the market? If so, will that ultimately undermine public support for wild things and wild places, hunting rights, and by association, gun rights?

A matter of perspective

If you exist primarily in the world of agriculture, you seldom hear such things discussed. Most often, leasing for wildlife recreation is represented purely as a godsend. It provides money for something which formerly was only a burden.

Although some landowners still complain bitterly about wildlife and financial losses caused by the presence

of wildlife on their land, many say they have great appreciation for wildlife, and even count themselves as

wildlife watchers.

For landowners who don’t specifically cotton to wild critters, placing an economic value on wildlife species usually makes them less objectionable.

In a 2004 survey by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, landowners expressed a generally positive attitude toward wildlife.

They also allowed how they might have more favorable attitudes toward deer if there was reduced deer damage and better behavior among hunters. In the survey, farmers admitted they would prefer more appreciation from hunters, lower numbers of deer and easier access to hunting permits and/or longer seasons. However, there was no mention by the researchers or the landowners of whether increased compensation through leasing would improve their attitudes.

Yet every state continues to deal with wildlife damage complaints on agricultural land, with both federal and state money being spent to solve the problem.

Changing attitudes

Nonetheless, it can be argued that the practice of leasing access to wildlife by private landowners may be one of the great successes of modern wildlife management. In some ways it makes a quality wildlife experience more available to hunters and fishermen. It also creates a

business-like arrangement between the wildlife consumer and the supplier. This may be empowering to landowners, who may otherwise feel like victims—enslaved gamekeepers of an unwanted public trust.

Yet those who lease access to wildlife must have disposable income to pay for it. This is the crux of the cultural anxiety about leased hunting land. Will people spend the money and how much can they afford?

There is no question the number of people who fish and hunt is currently in decline. The most recent survey of wildlife activity by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, called the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-related Recreation, showed steady growth in the number of outdoor sports enthusiasts (people who hunt and fish) from 1955 through 1991, but then the numbers began to decline. Between 1991 and 2001 the number of hunters in the nation dropped from 14 million to 13 million.

Only 6 percent of people over 16 years old in this country go hunting, and only 16 percent fish. The percentages varied across regions, and USFWS said in the Midwest region, which includes Missouri, Iowa and Kansas, only 12 percent of people hunt and 27 percent fish.

It has traditionally been the enthusiasts who have spent large amounts of money on their hobby and on conservation, yet their numbers are shrinking. Will raising the cost further reduce numbers, or is that a function of an increasingly metropolitan population which has no connection with the land?

The amount people spent from 1991 to 1996 increased, but from 1996 to 2001 it declined significantly. Hunters, for example, spent $16 billion in 1991, $23.3 billion in 1996, and $20.6 billion in 2001. Wildlife watchers, on the other hand, increased their spending from $24 billion in 1991 to $33.7 billion in 2001.

Despite these totals, the disposable income of hunters and fishermen to pay for wildlife user fees such as leasing is still adequate, thinks Delwin “Del” Benson, Colorado State University wildlife professor.

“Outdoor recreationists still spend most of their money on stuff,” Benson said.

He said the statistics from USFWS’s survey show a relatively small percentage of total dollars spent by enthusiasts pays for land and leasing. In 2001, they used about $7 billion to purchase land or land leases out of a total near $70 billion they spent on sports. They spent almost six times as much on equipment—nearly $41 billion.

This begs the question of whether enthusiasts will continue to pay more for access. Will they buy less “stuff” and spend the money on access? When the 2006 survey on hunting, fishing and wildlife recreation is finished, we may see some short-term answers. Certainly it appears that more private land is being leased for hunting and fishing since the 2001 survey was done, and certainly much has been bought with that primary purpose in mind.

Forging a new future?

Benson and his co-authors think a properly stewarded move toward more financial reward for private land holders is a good thing. The past 100 years of conservation have been essentially government led, partly because our legal system says society at large owns the wildlife. Yet Benson thinks that phase of conservation may have run its course and is ready for a transition.

“I’m not convinced government is always successful,” he said. “The money runs out, the leadership runs out or programs die.

“I’ve seen the one thing that keeps people managing for wildlife is money. The economic value tends to stay,” he added.

Benson, who grew up in a small town in Colorado and once viewed leasing with jaded eyes, said 31 years as an extension professional working in Colorado, plus time as a wildlife professional in Ontario, Canada, and in South Africa convinced him otherwise.

“You can only afford to do so much altruistically,” he said of landowners. Benson suggested that paying for wildlife on private land through leasing should be seen as only one part of a larger cooperative effort between landowners, the public and the public servants who are charged with fostering wildlife and wild habitats.

This is the theme of the book Benson wrote with two other wildlife professionals, Ross Shelton, University of Tennessee, and Don Steinbach, Texas A&M University.

In Wildlife Stewardship and Recreation on Private Lands, these authors say “What is needed is a clear policy that says responsibility for wildlife management should be shared by the public and private sectors.”

They add, “...success will require a great deal of planning, trust and goodwill, with sufficient social and economic incentives to compensate landowners for producing wildlife and granting recreational access to it.”

If they are correct, the trend toward more leased hunting and fishing may play a role in keeping a healthy balance of wildlife in the Midwest.