I have an opportunity to purchase a property adjacent to a State Wildlife area. I also have an opportunity to purchase a similar property that isn’t.
The wildlife area allows rifle and archery deer hunting during the season, so there would likely be hunters on the wildlife area. But it is also multi-thousands of acres that could be hunted in addition to mine. Plus since its state owned and operated, I assume the deer management is fairly good. THis is a state that really does take good care of its public wildlife and hunting lands
Assuming all else being equal, would you prefer to hunt on the property adjacent to the wildlife area or not. THe properties in question are about 80 acres and include fields, streams, woods in about the same amounts
I’ve included a third option, and allowed multiple selections.
My first thought was duck and goose hunting on land adjacent to a wildlive preserve, where hunting was absolutely prohibited at all times, and you had to be careful to shoot flying birds on your own side of the fence. But your “wildlife area” is apparently a state public hunting ground, which would have the opposite appeal. I would not want to hunt the land adjacent to an area that is hunted to exhaustion by an unrestricted general public.
I’m guessing that your state is Missouri, the only one I know that is so proud to take care of its public hunting lands at voluntary designated public expense.
You are a responsible hunter and a responsible firearms owner. Is everyone who hunts on the adjacent land a responsible hunter and a responsible firearms owner?
If not, you might end up getting some unexpected “termite holes” in your garage, house, cars, trucks, etc.
I used to have a desk next to a woman who had a house on land adjascent to land that was hunted in season in far western NJ. Each spring & each fall I’d hear about how she went home to find more bullet holes in her garage and in the siding of her house (a couple of times she said she found arrows).
Cue the next round of her filing a police report & the cop explaining (again) that,
“We didn’t see or hear anyone do this. You didn’t see or hear anyone do this. None of your neighbors did either and no one called anything in to us. We’re happy to take the report, but just how exactly do you expect us to find and arrest whoever did this?”
She even bought an outdoor camera system to ‘catch them’. All she found out was that bullets travel and awful lot further than can be captured by standard generic outdoor camera systems.
Neither place appears overhunted as there is ample deer in both areas.
This is vacant farmland on both places, no houses, I don’t intend on living there.
THis is indeed Missouri
Im interested in hunting attractivness from a market point of view. I plan on leasing out the hunting rights and am trying to get a feel of which would be more valued to hunters who would rent the hunting rights from me.
If your land upon examination revealed it was attravtive to wildlife you should be able to sell some leases. You may have to plant some desirable shrubery if it doesn’t allready exist. Access to water is another thing hnters often look for. Oak trees with acorns. Wild fruit things like that.
Yes, that’s the idea, but I don’t want to get too sidetracked by too many details and am looking to see if the property next to a wildlife area is a net advantage or disadvantage to hunters looking to lease rights; based pretty much on only the proximity to the public lands.
Both properties have quite a bit of deer sign and have ample food, water, and cover for deer.
Strictly vacant property or is there any kind of small cabin (or the thought of it)? Someplace to stay creates options of rentals outside of hunting season that might be better with the wider run of state property adjacent. The possibility might also raise the specter of someone thinking in those terms later when you try to sell.
Without a place to stay, it probably also helps if you try to take a look at the density of population in the area relative to available hunting land. If they aren’t heading off to a week at deer camp being closer to more people that feel a need might be a benefit for you renting hunting rights.
There’s a benefit of being able to track a wounded deer onto state property as opposed to potential issues with adjacent private property owners.
Do you know anyone that hunts in the area of that particular piece of state land? Asking them, or a related business in the area, might give you a clue about just how dense the hunters are going to be. That lets you narrow down how big an issue the potential swarms of hunters nearby is.
Any difference in other game (rabbit, squirrel, turkey, etc) between the two? That can open up options to either rent hunting rights for other seasons separately or make the rights more attractive for someone who isn’t just a deer hunter.
For a generation I’ve been hunting deer on private land next to private and public hunting. The land is almost evenly mixed cash cropping and managed woodlands.The public land is pretty well driven out by the end of the opening weekend. The portion of our land on the same side of the road next to it has “trespassing” problems if we are not there to police it. The stuff on the other side the road abuts all private land. This surrounding land is all ash and red cedar swamp and chopped into 20 and 40 acre parcels with one or two hunters. It is so under hunted that the deer simply cross the property line and lay down. Nothing moves them back except hunger after winter sets in. So I’ve gotten both aspects of it. The hunting worth of the 2nd parcel you are looking at actually depends on the usage of the private land surrounding it, the same as the public land.
Would either of your parcels allow parking campers on the property during the season? Some areas have restrictions on unimproved camping facilities, particularly the lack of restrooms. Outhouses aren’t as agreeable anymore.
both properties would allow campers on it. They are virtually identical except that one has private land (and presumably private landowner hunters) and the other joins thousands of acres of publicly managed land that presumably is hunted by multiple people. I don’t know how many hunters per square mile there are on either place, they could be the same, but i would guess there are more hunters on the public land.
I’m just trying to see if a hunter is more interested in one vs. the other…if the only difference is surrounded by private land vs adjoining (on 1 an 1/2 sides) by public lands.
In PA we have State Game Lands; a lot of State Game Lands. I’ve always found great hunting on the private land around them when I have been lucky enough to get permission. I don’t do that bad on the public lands but --------- I went with the first choice.
You can have private landowners as jerks as well as the people on public land. Some of the public land problems are controlled best by not having the parking areas close to “your” land. The public parking for ours is about 200 acres away. Problem starts when the public land gets to 200 yds from the road and we have a lane going right to it down our fenceline. Some think that gives them the right to drive and park in our field next to the public area. We usually leave one of the farm implements to block it. Our worst continuing trespasser is the landowner next door that feels we “should” allow him to cross our woods to get to his stands on the public land. Because we “always” drive his land when he isn’t there in his mind. We had permission from the previous landowner but stopped when he bought it. We did let them cross ours, if only they would have learned to stay reasonably close to the fenceline. Once we started seeing them about 150 yards away from it, that permission ended. Hard to deny when the footprints in the snow lead right to his camper.
I have friends that own 200 acres of Wisconsin woods next to land that is open to the public for hunting and they spend half of their hunting season dealing with trespassers and people “trailing a wounded buck”.
My preference would be to be surrounded by private land.
for those of you keeping score, I contacted a hunting land broker and they suggested the land next to the wildlife area is an inferior choice. These people deal with hunting leases all over and have a good handle on what is more attractive.