No it is literally exactly the same thing. A lease agreement between an owner and tenant. You don't have to rent a house. That is a choice. Funny thing about logic...it's hard to argue with. Are you suggesting that who is at fault for inflated prices is determined by whether it is a need vs want?
My brother and I lease 75 acres for $300 a year. Guess I finally found something in NY that is awesome. $2 a acre for the last ten years. The guy behind my other woods leases for $600 a year per hunter to 10-12 guys and he has 300 acres. NY is crazy y'all
A guy I work with is married into primo property in northern Missouri. One of the relatives (who is an old lady) parcel is 600 acres. She leases the whole thing to a guy for $1500/yr. she probably took the first offer thrown at her. That’s what I need to find, a rich, sweet, senile old lady with primo property who doesn’t care about the money. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
It is a stupid comparison. In both scenarios. They are both worth what the market prices it at. The market self corrects all the time. Charge a resonable amount and papers get signed, charge to much, it sits vacant. It is a stupid comparison because, people aren't one-upping each other on a monthly rent payment.
Nice job ducking my original question yet again. I'll answer it for you. You can't shift blame for increasing prices depending on what the commodity is. You say it's a stupid comparison yet you have proven you know nothing about either the hunting lease market or the real estate lease market. People absolutely do one up each other for apartments and condos in desirable areas and neighborhoods. Developers and property management companies count on this. They spend millions to build properties in highly desirable areas...and guess what happens? Everybody who lived there before that happened sees increased property taxes, increased rent, increased cost of living. Pretty soon, only a certain class of people can afford to live in a particular neighborhood. Hunting leases have turned into a commodity to be traded and brokered like real estate. Just because I have one for my personal use doesn't mean I am responsible for the actions of people who do it for profit. To insinuate that is the case is ridiculous. If you are anti-leasing that's fine. But don't talk about things you don't understand like you're an expert. You said yourself you have never leased any land. That does not give you a great deal of credibility on the subject.
I did not dunk anything. Just telling you you look like a cry baby complaining that you can't afford to "live in the highly desirable areas" because you have been out bid on hunting land. If the land you wanted was in your budget, you'd be posting about your awesome new lease. But since it is out of your budget the land owners are money hungry. If they can get someone to pay what they ask, good for them... They deserve every last penny. So, the gist... If it is in your personal budget, it's all good! If it is out, the land owners are out for profit money suckers. I am not anti-lease either. If the right situation arises down the line, I absolutely would. I just can't understand being part of the driving prices up, then complaining about the cost to play.
I never said the farm was out of my budget. It was just over what I thought it was worth. I didn't want it bad enough to overpay just because of where it was. Just like I won't pay 400k for a house just because its in a certain neighborhood when I can get the same house for 250k a county over. I'm fully aware there is a cost to play. I'm just not happy about the fact that the cost had been driven to obscene levels by middlemen.
Normally I agree with Buckeye on things, but not necessarily in this case. I think it's fair for a consumer of any product - whether it's a gallon of milk or a hunting lease - to complain about rising prices. While I understand some things in life are necessities and other are luxuries, it's still within the consumer's right to be concerned about how much these goods are costing them. I don't think that just because a person purchases something that's in high demand and short supply they are actively and wantonly contributing to the increase in price of that item. It's simply a side effect of the economy of it all. But to the OP's point yes, the cost of leases in the Midwest is out of freaking control. We paid $50 acre for a couple years on a primo piece of ground in West Central IL. After a few years, during the down turn in the economy, we tried to get the landowner to back it down to $35 or so. He opted to continue leasing it for $50 to one of multiple outfitters that had approached him over the years. Too bad, so sad - we were out. At $4,000 a year he only has to run two hunters on that property (80 acres) and he's already made his money back and then some. I now have two leases that I hunt on. One we get for $22.50/acre and the other $31.25/acre. The $22.50 property is a flat out steal compared to what it could go for if the landowner wanted to squeeze us. The other is probably about right for the area it's in - although I'm sure finding someone to pay $40 of $50 wouldn't be all that hard if they really wanted to.
Talk about outer space! Average crop rental around here (In Iowa) is $150. That comes from a large farm manager I just had lunch with today. Pasture ground is around $60. Even when commodity prices were through the roof, the rental rates were no where near the rates you quote. The very best zones in Iowa today are still not averaging over more than about $240 per acre. That and the fact that he was talking about Illinois, not Iowa. lol.
I personally couldn't conceive leasing a property (out of state) that I couldn't have quick, easy access to, regardless of the rate per acre. I'd be too worried about what's going on during my absence, that I'd be miserable.
I see what you are saying and agree to a point. I agree consumers have the right to complain about the rising costs of milk, trail cameras, treestands, trucks etc... The difference, the consumer is not driving the cost of those things through the roof by out bidding or one upping someone else. I am just saying, if "you" choose to pay to play and out bid others on hunting leases, "you" have no leg to stand on to complain when someone else does it to "you" and call land owners money hungry for taking the highest bid.
I think some of ya'll are focusing too much on the mini-gripe of what he does/is willing to pay vs. what he was really griping about which was what another plot was offered at which he would NOT pay - over $120/acre for a dinky plot. Breaking it down, what he was saying is something like "the only liquor store here in town charges $60.00 for a handle of Makers Mark. That's a steep price but Makers is the best whiskey they carry so I guess I'll have to pay it. It could be a lot worse - the next county over is dry, and the county over from that is trying to charge folks $300 for a fifth of Jim Beam. That's crazy!"
I live in the east. Not a lot of leasing going on here. Some for sure. I love deer hunting as much as anyone here maybe more than a lot of guys. Iv'e hunted as many as 4 states in one year. Never and I mean NEVER would I pay for a lease. I don't care if that property held the next world record buck and the lease was 2 bucks a yr. It just goes against my core to pay for deer that belong to all of us living in the United States. I will never shoot the world record buck but a fat doe and meat in the freezer and the outdoor experience is good enough for me.
To be clear I don't try to ever outbid someone who has a current lease to oust them. All the farms i lease or have leased, were not leased previously. I approached the landowners and we agreed on a price. When that outbidding crap started that's why I was out..I don't need a farm bad enough to fight about it. If I can get access to a piece I like for a fair price, I'm all over it. If it becomes clear its about the money...I'm out. Iv'e walked away from lots of farms. So I do not think I contribute to what you are suggesting at all. I prefer face to face deals directly with landowners. i have never gone to an owner who I know leases their farm to someone else and ask them how much it would take to get it. That's just wrong.
Except that is another bad comparison, try knocking on a gas station door and asking to use their gas for free. Ain't going to happen. The oil game has been a for profit venture since day one. Now a lot of hunting land rights are for profit for the landowners. Fletch recently sold some hunting land for 5x what he paid for it and he deserves every last penny. But, if he listed it for a high dollar per acre lease he is money hungry? I don't think so. It is worth what people will pay, and the land access for cash crew are who drove the prices to where they are. So, if you lease land for hunting rights... You have a hand in what it costs in the pay to play game.
