The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

Landowner charging to hunt- greedy or not?

14K views 142 replies 76 participants last post by  flintlock hunter 
#1 ·
Just feel the need to vent here, and also want to see what others think about this topic.

With the early goose season just around the corner, I'm starting to get guys asking for permission to hunt. For many years, I've let many people hunt my land, always for free. After the end of the season last year, this dumb farmer started to realize he's getting taken advantage of. I'd have guys roll in to my farm with 50k pickup trucks, 5k trailers, and probably 5-8k worth of decoys, not to mention being decked out in sitka gear from head to toe. With most farm commodities being low right now, I started looking at hunting as more of an incoming producing byproduct of the land I own, instead of a "nice guy free favor" given out to people who think a pack of jerky or fruit basket should suffice as thanks until next season. To be clear, when I've let people hunt for free in the past, I never really expect anything in return, it just amuses me that when some people come back with a trivial thank you gift, they act as though I got the better part of the deal.

Anyway, this year, when people have been asking me to hunt, I've been asking how much they'd be willing to pay. You should see the looks I get. I suppose I should expect people to be a little surprised since I never asked for payment before. However, it's amazing how rude some of the people can get. Before, they acted like my best friend and said what a nice, great guy I was. Now, I've had some say " I'll never pay to hunt", and then leave, and one guy who muttered something about greedy farmers as he left. I just have to laugh. All the money that they pour into gear, and they think it's absurd to have to pay for the spot to use the gear. Let me tell you from experience, a guy in the right spot with 2 dozen 20 year old big foot decoys, will kill more geese then someone in the wrong spot with 5 dozen brand new top of the line gear. Also, the "spot" to hunt, (the land), is the most expensive thing to provide. Farmland in my area is selling for 18-22k an acre, and I have a 170 acre farm. ( I'm not rich, my farm was handed down from generation to generation). Apparently I'm expected to provide 3.5 million in real estate for free. I just highlight this to reinforce my original observation that most hunters seem to be unwilling to pay for the most expensive, most important part of the hunt, ( the land ) but have no trouble shelling out thousands for gear. To them, I simply say, good luck to where ever you go, I hope you have fun staring at empty skies over your 5 thousand dollar decoy rig. I guess an extra hundred bucks is too much to ask to sit in a million dollar field.

I will say that not everyone reacted rudely. One individual simply said no thanks I don't have the extra money right now, and we talked for a few minutes. I didn't tell him he could hunt, but I will be calling him later in the season and tell him to come out and hunt a few times. In general, I like allowing people to hunt, I don't want it to become a "rich mans game", so I've thought about that quite a bit, but I also feel like it's not wrong to ask to be paid for providing the land to hunt. I'd be interested in hearing others opinions.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
I understand your point, but certainly hear a little bit of bitterness in your post.

Giving a person who has let you hunt a small token of your appreciation is a time honored tradition. Most don't quibble at the size of it.

You also mention "farming commodities being low right now." If prices were up, would you not be asking for money to hunt your land, or are you using that as the justification to make you feel better about charging other sportsmen and women to use your resource.

Also mentioned is the fact that the land was handed down to you. What a wonderful position to be in.

Finally, you don't mention if you hunt. If so, is all of your hunting done on your farm, or do you also use the public ground that those who cannot pay are relegated to? Having the opportunity to let others hunt and enjoy a sport that you also enjoy would, again, be a nice position to be in.

As others have said, it is your ground, your rules, and if making a few bucks off the land works, it works. No different than harvesting a crop, but it seems a lot of the reaction by those asking to hunt is due to the surprise of being asked to pay, which sounds like a normal response when it is not what normally happens during the conversation.

Sounds like you could put your ground up for lease and would have no issue getting a taker.....then the person seeking permission would know what they were in for when they asked.

Good luck!
 
#8 · (Edited)
Agreed. Just figure out what you think is a fair market price, and lease it out.

Strictly business, so treat it as business.

Don't get caught up in arguments, strife, conflict, etc.

Don't say things like "How much would you be willing to pay?"

Instead, check around to find out what the going market rate is, make the decision on what to charge, and go with that.

It's like someone selling sweet corn. They don't ask the customers "How much would you be willing to pay."

They check out the going price in the area, then set a price of $4 a dozen, then just go with that.

And don't make comments about their $50,000 pickups, expensive gear, etc. That is seeking out conflict and not good for attracting and keeping paying clients.

Keep it business-like.

The potential customers may very likely be different people than the ones who have been hunting there for free for years.
 
#17 ·
I find a ton. Never have to pay to hunt geese in ND or MT. The most we got asked was to drop off a cleaned duck or two. We happily obliged and made sure to get any pellets out first as well.

Trying to find areas back here (western PA) to hunt waterfowl is much much worse. If you find free areas it will be crowded soon.
 
#9 ·
Its not greedy, but once you start charging my expectations change a bit as a hunter. If you tell me you want $X to hunt tomorrow - my expectation is that you'll now tell everyone else that wants to hunt tomorrow "No"

I agree with the comment about not asking "how much are you willing to pay?" Come up with a price ... either something per person or some sort of flat amount.

I may be wrong, but this is something worth checking out - I believe that once you start charging to hunt your land, liability issues come into play. Back when we were leasing land, we carried liability insurance and named each property in the policy.
 
#21 ·
Its not greedy, but once you start charging my expectations change a bit as a hunter. If you tell me you want $X to hunt tomorrow - my expectation is that you'll now tell everyone else that wants to hunt tomorrow "No"

I agree with the comment about not asking "how much are you willing to pay?" Come up with a price ... either something per person or some sort of flat amount.

I may be wrong, but this is something worth checking out - I believe that once you start charging to hunt your land, liability issues come into play. Back when we were leasing land, we carried liability insurance and named each property in the policy.

The above is correct, if you charge hunters for access, your protection from law suit under PA's recreational use of lands and waters act" greatly reduced. below is most of the act, I did not post the whole thing because this s the crux of the law.

Introduction
Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA) limits landowners’ liability for personal injury and property damage if they make their land available to the public for recreation. The purpose of the law is to encourage landowners to allow recreational users onto their properties by limiting the traditional duty of care that landowners owe to entrants upon their land. RULWA provides that landowners do not have to keep their land safe for recreational users and have no duty to warn of dangerous conditions, so long as no “charge” (as defined by the Act, which provides certain exceptions described below) is required for entrance. This immunity from liability does not protect landowners who willfully or maliciously fail to warn of dangerous conditions; that is, RULWA immunizes owners only from claims of negligence.

This 1966 law, found in Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes, title 68, sections 477-1 et seq., was amended by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2007, 2011, and 2018 to enhance the protections for owners.

Because courts have tended to interpret narrowly the types of land covered by RULWA, landowners and easement holders should not rely solely on RULWA’s protection, but should couple the protection, where appropriate, with the steps and tools outlined in the guide Reducing Liability Associated with Public Access.

Scope of Immunity Defense
Like every state in the nation, Pennsylvania has a statute that provides a degree of immunity to landowners who make their properties available to the public for free recreational use. The Recreational Use of Land and Water Act provides that:

[A]n owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.

Landowners who permit or invite members of the general public onto their properties for recreational purposes, free of “charge,” can raise this statute as a defense if they are sued for personal injury or property damage.

On its face, RULWA applies to all recreational “land”—improved and unimproved, rural and urban. However, at least prior to the 2018 amendment expressly expanding the definition of “land,” Pennsylvania courts tended to read RULWA narrowly. It remains to be seen whether courts will broaden the scope of RULWA coverage now that the definition expressly includes man-made amenities, including trails, bridges, and parking areas (see “Types of Land Covered by RULWA” below).

RULWA does not prevent landowners from being sued; it provides them with an immunity defense to claims that their negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury. Negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care such as a reasonably prudent and careful person under similar circumstances would exercise. The level of duty of care that landowners owe to entrants depends on the classification of the entrant. Landowners owe a high duty of care to people invited or permitted onto the land (i.e., “invitees” or “licensees”). But landowners owe trespassers only the duty not to deliberately or recklessly harm them. RULWA essentially reduces the duty of care landowners would otherwise owe to recreational users to the lower duty owed to trespassers.

Under this lower duty of care, plaintiffs must prove that landowners acted “willfully or maliciously” rather than negligently. (“Nothing in this act limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists…[f]or wilful [sic] or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.” 68 P.S. §477(6)(1)). While willful or malicious behavior is less than “intentional” misconduct, it requires reckless or egregious behavior well beyond mere carelessness. Proving this is a heavier burden than proving negligence, and thus plaintiffs are much more likely to have their suits dismissed before trial (on a motion for summary judgment) or ultimately to be unsuccessful in their litigation.

Which Kinds of Recreation Are Covered?

The broad range of activities that constitute the recreational purpose covered by RULWA was further widened in the 2018 amendment to the statute. RULWA now defines “recreational purpose” as:

any activity undertaken or viewed for exercise, sport, education, recreation, relaxation or pleasure and includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultralight operations on private airstrips, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle riding, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites. 68 P.S. §477(2)(3)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohunr
#11 · (Edited)
I more so blame the lessees for the greed element of it. I suppose when hunting morphed into a competitive ego contest it became an inevitability. Hunters set the market. I don't blame landowners one bit for monetizing their assets. It would be stupid to leave money on the table. Research, set your price, and negotiate from there. You are contracting a right to use your property, that's a significant transaction. "How much would you pay" is a disrespectful start to any negotiation.
 
#14 ·
I travel quite a bit out of state to hunt ducks/geese and any private property I hunt is leased by someone that you pay to get on the property or your paying the farmer directly to get on his land. I hunt New York Finger Lakes region a lot and 99% of the farms are Posted and your going to pay to hunt on that property. Not all land created equal so obviously if you have the spot where ducks/geese want to be the price goes up.
I'm really surprised more farmers in Pennsylvania don't charge access more than they do.

My grandfather was a large dairy farmer until he past away years ago so I understand the amount of work that a farmer puts into his farm along with the amount of work that goes into it never seems to pay equally financially so asking a fee to hunt daily or yearly I'm OK with.

Your property you make the rules and don't feel bad about asking for a fee.
 
#16 · (Edited)
A wise old woman once laid this statement on me while talking about land and it's uses. "Dang Land"

I completely understand your position. Friends hunt our land, good friends. They help or contribute in various way to the place.

Definitely check into liability if you charge a trespass fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohunr
#18 ·
Since you are asking for opinions...

To a degree, I agree that a token fruit basket or pack of jerky really isn't much to have access to good hunting all season long.

You are holding all the cards. I would think of what type of reimbursement you really want, in turn for giving others a chance to gain access to your property (help around the farm, cash, respect?), make a decision, and stick with it. Being a nice guy is admirable, but in the end you are the person responsible for paying the real estate taxes twice a year.
 
#19 ·
No, Southeast Farmer, I don't see you as greedy. You own your farm and are within your rights to lease if you choose.

The farm I've hunted the past few years I've done so free of charge, just tried to thank the farmer and family for the privlege of being allowed to hunt the farm by sharing as much of my harvested deer as they wished, cut in their perferred way, and, at their request, bringing the head,hide,bones etc back to the field so the farmers wife could watch the wildlife on it, I do this with every deer harvested. I also attempt to control the groundhog population around the soybean crop till the beans get too high. I have no problem with any requests they might have if I am able to do so.

I know I love that farm, and appreciate the privleges I am allowed, but mostly I value them as friends.
 
#23 ·
I’ll just put it like this: the only spot where I’m guaranteed to hunt for “free” is the spot I paid $200K to buy.

I have benefited from the generosity of farmers letting me hunt for free in the past, but if you need the money in a low commodity market, be up front about that fact and feel zero guilt making it a condition.

Honestly, if you pitch it as a need to “lease the place out” to make up for a tough market vs. “I’m going to start charging you to hunt here”, I think you’ll get takes from your existing pool of hunters pretty quickly.
 
#25 ·
Ultimately, it is your land to do with as you please. I think if you follow the above advice and start charging (at least enough to cover the required liability insurance) and there are enough geese using the ground, you'll get customers. You might lose some of the guys that you used to let hunt for free, but if the geese are there and your rates are reasonable, you'll be alright. If I were one of the hunters involved tho, my expectations would change. By charging me, you will have changed my view of you from "friend" to "land manager". If I'm paying now, I no longer hope for a good hunting experience, I expect it. Depending on how I measure that, and how much you charge, I might quit hunting there. Again, if the hunting is good, and the cost reasonable, I might stay and even if I leave, you might not have trouble replacing me. It might also depend on how many "customers" you allow on the place and how you manage it. Understand that this will fundamentally change the relationship you have with these hunters and future hunters. Your post makes it sound like you don't care for them much, so maybe it doesn't matter. But when hunters go from being friends or acquaintances and turn into customers, there will be a much different vibe to your relationship with them. Good luck and I hope it works out for you.
 
#26 ·
It's your land, do what you want. This reminds me of a guy I knew.

Back in the late 1970's, before everyone had an SUV or AWD vehicle, this guy had a big 4x4 Chevy Blazer. He'd wait for one of the frequent snow storms (back then) and drive around with a tow chain pulling people out of ditches and up hills. Sometimes me, my dad and brother would ride along. He'd pull up beside them and ask them what it was worth to get out of the ditch or up the or up the hill. Some would offer $5 or $10. He'd wind up his window and drive away leaving them stuck. He wouldn't help unless they offered at least $20. Twenty dollars was alot more money back in the 1970's , than it is today. I was just a kid, but even then, I knew what he was doing wasn't right. I'd have a bad feeling as he would drive away.
 
#27 ·
I don't care what the op does, however, once he charges he loses protection from liability if someone gets hurt on his property under the state law. I any one charges, they should talk to their insurance agent about how much liability insurance to carry to they can pay it or require the hunters to provide their own policies. Read the law I posted that protects landowners unless they charge a fee to hunt or fish.
 
#29 ·
This is a very good point and one you need to explore. I know for a fact that the liability policy I carry on my farm only covers 1) incidents involving my tentant farmer and 2) occasional guests who visit or hunt with me at no cost. The minute I start charging to hunt, it falls under "hunt club" rules that requires a different and more slightly expensive policy. Your mileage may vary.
 
#28 ·
If I lived closer I would lease a good goose field in a minute . We provide proof of insurance to the land owner we lease from every year that way he is covered . He also determines the game we hunt and if Sunday hunting is ever allowed it is up to him whether we have permission to hunt on his property on Sundays. We also post his property yearly ,show up off season walk the property and report anything we see that he needs to know about . We have a great relationship with him and have become good friends.
 
#31 · (Edited)
I agree with what others have said. I don't know what your situation was before, but when guys pay they usually want exclusive access to the property. I know for me, if i'm going to pay to hunt a place(which I don't) I want to be the only guy there. I also don't want other guys hunting there when I'm not around, more like a lease situation.

I think you can go one of two routes here. Either lease the property to 1 group of people for a large sum, or charge a smaller "trespass fee" to anyone that approaches you and wants to hunt.

You're certainly not out of line IMO. It's your property, you do what you want. Just my personal opinion, but I think that all this leasing and pay to play stuff is not good for the sport. We talk all the time about hunter recruitment and retention and the #1 reason often cited for people quitting the sport is LOSS OF ACCESS.
 
#33 ·
I agree with what others have said. I don't know what your situation was before, but when guys pay they usually want exclusive access to the property. I know for me, if i'm going to pay to hunt a place(which I don't) I want to be the only guy there. I also don't want other guys hunting there when I'm not around, more like a lease situation.

I think you can go one of two routes here. Either lease the property to 1 group of people for a large sum, or charge a smaller "trespass fee" to anyone that approaches you and wants to hunt.

You're certainly not out of line IMO. It's your property, you do what you want. Just my personal opinion, but I think that all this leasing and pay to play stuff is not good for the sport. We talk all the time about hunter recruitment and retention and the #1 reason often cited for people quitting the sport is LOSS OF ACCESS.
Was watching "the hunting public" youtube video the other night and they stopped at a farm to get permission. The guy had a sign and a box. Basically it was a $5 per day trespass fee. If I recall the farm was a perfect access to a large piece of public land. Probably worked out well for the farmer with the box as then he didn't have to deal with the people.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top