Low deer numbers up north driving up central hunting land prices?

B

BJE80

Guest
Just thinking out loud here. If I was looking for hunting land right now I would not be looking in far northern Wisconsin. The low deer numbers would be enough to scare me away and not knowing what the future holds up there would be a big risk IMO. Instead, I would be looking in the transition zones where the farmland transitions to big woods. I'm guessing the lack of deer numbers are also scaring away other potential land buyers that want good deer hunting.
Does this supply and demand factor drive up the cost of central Wisconsin land since more people are looking to buy in that area? And also decreasing the hunting land values in the north? Typically if something is more desirable it costs more. If something is less desirable it costs less.
Thoughts?
 
Ok, so the theory is there. But how much of this is having real world effects? I guess that is more my question.
 
I think quality is the key. Does the parcel offer good habitat and decent to good deer numbers? Tillable or CRP. It all factors in. Region to region helps determine price, but one parcel might sell for twice the other simply because of location and all the habitat factors.
 
Yep lot of nice hunting land in Bayfield County is selling for under 1000 an acre. The problem that will happen is that the Northern 1/3 of Wisconsin has most of Wisconsin's public hunting land. With the deer numbers being so bad up there hunters are not going to be headed up north for gun season. This will put even more pressure on the limited amount of public land in the southern 2/3 of
Wisconsin. In my experiences once a hunter leaves the Northwoods for a different area they do not return. This could and more than likely will cause a problem for the DNR.
 
Yep lot of nice hunting land in Bayfield County is selling for under 1000 an acre. The problem that will happen is that the Northern 1/3 of Wisconsin has most of Wisconsin's public hunting land. With the deer numbers being so bad up there hunters are not going to be headed up north for gun season. This will put even more pressure on the limited amount of public land in the southern 2/3 of
Wisconsin. In my experiences once a hunter leaves the Northwoods for a different area they do not return. This could and more than likely will cause a problem for the DNR.
I agree Tt. The fact is, it isn't like this is a new thing. Land has always been cheap up in that area and a lot of it had to do with the lack of deer, even 10-15 years ago when the state was at much higher deer numbers. I know what your saying about that area up there, but when "Joe Deer Hunter" looks at that land but knows there is no deer around, would he consider it to be "nice hunting land" or just cheap land that is 5+ hours from home. One thing about the hunters not going back up north is that after they find a place in Central WI to hunt, they can choose to drive 2-4 hours and see very few deer, or drive 5-7 hours and see the same few deer. That part is a no-brainer. They will always keep going back to the closer spot. I have lived this scenario for most of my hunting life, more and more guys piling into the larger state owned properties like Meadow Valley State Wildlife Area, the Black River State Forest and even the Necedah NWR and all the smaller county lands like the Wood, Juneau, and Adams County Forests and smaller MFL Open lands. Why drive the extra 3-4 hours to make it up to the Chequamagon-Nicolet National Forest or Northern Highland State Forest and see as few or fewer deer for your efforts. This dynamic has and will definitely continue the trend in driving recreational land values. It already has created an issue for the DNR, that is why they are pushing for the separate private vs public land antlerless tags and why they created the Central Forest Deer Management Zone, as that is where most of these larger, more southern, public properties are located.
 
I was thinking about that very thing just the other day stu, I was going to ask if you had moved the place or were still sitting on it. If you still have it come deer season, put up a big sign out front of the gate that says "100 acres of great private hunting land for sale", one of the Fudd's will see it and bite for sure. Pretty sure you get about a bazillion "road hunters" driving by there during rifle season.
 
Yep, very slow in the sand counties of WI right now. One "sold" in a large area for the last few months. Hoping some nice weather will get folks out looking


So it is a good time to be a buyer? Sucks because I would also need to be a seller to be a buyer.
 
How many of us would bail on our properties? How many years of "bad" would it take to get u to take down stands and bail?

I bet you'll see prices at least be sticky before they come down.

We're in it now in Cass County MN. Every scoop of dirt and gallon of saw fuel has been about long term. When I get down about it, I remind myself I'm working to have the "best 40" for whatever deer are around.

It'll come around or it will completely collapse. Either way, this won't last long. If the deer and hunters disappear, those cuddly wolves are gonna head to town and start eating things people don't want to see eaten.
 
I just have attachments to the land that I own. I have worked so hard on it and put in so many hours that I do not want to give up or give it up.

I also want to hold onto my hunting land for future generations as I doubt they will ever afford to buy land back.
 
Doubtful I would sell as I purchased the land for more than just deer hunting but I would never say never. If I had new neighbors who trespassed all the time I might have a change of mind.

I also enjoy hunting out of state and already have plans to add whitetail. Once I retire I plan on hunting every year out of state until they bury me.
 
I bail all the time. I make properties the best I can, have fun on them and sell if someone wants to give me too much money. Is it wrong, depends on how a person looks at it. I have as much fun finding properties, buying them and working at the properties, as I ever do killing something on it!
I got one in Wisconsin for you. ;)
 
I said the same thing when I bought this farm in Mora Jerry, it was paradise....at the Time. Now Hatfield Missouri is Paradise even though I have put a lot into this place here. I was hooked on Missouri, when 4 years ago My friend and I saw 28 different bucks in a 4 day span. Mn will never be to that standard.....Ever! No matter how much work I continue to put in up here!

I think you are right, John. My hunting will never be like what you have at present in Missouri. I can accept that and enjoy what I have, but would like to see just a few more deer. I realize my neighboring farmers will not tolerate that type of deer numbers where I live. I also realize our hunting traditions in both parts of Mn that I hunt will not allow that to happen with the small amount of acres that I own.


I'm happy to hunt 10-12 days of rifle season, 4-8 days of bow season, see a couple of deer per day, and finally shoot a yearling buck on the last day.

At present I hunt 3-4 days to see a deer.
 
Don't take this the wrong way Art...but that's a big part of what's wrong here. Guys who have come to willingly accept a subpar hunting experience because its MN.

Hunting pressure is intense in most every state with good numbers of deer. MI has far from pressure than does MN. So do PA and WI. There are plenty of farmers in all of those states too.

I owned 13 acres in WI...of that 7-8 were "huntable". DPSM's never exceeded 40-45 pre hunt and usually were around 30ish. Hunting that tiny little chunk of ground along an extremely busy State highway and within site of a convenience store from most of my stands was a better overall hunting experience than here where I own 87 acres in an extremely rural area surrounded by fantastic habitat.

I know that is part of the problem, stu. Got to admit you are right. I just don't think our present farmers in my area would accept that high of deer numbers. Remember we are talking deer per total acres and not just deer habitat acres.

I think the farmers and I would accept 50% more deer where I live.
 
I do think the agriculture industry is so strong that it affects the behavior of hunters in agriculture communities. Parker’s Prairie depends on Agriculture for its prosperity and is a good example where locals who directly or indirectly earn their living from Ag are afraid to openly lobby for higher deer numbers.

Quantification of the impact of DPSM of 25-30 should be made as it would clarify to hunters how little impact the deer herd has on yield.
 
Do you know how politicians give out pork to their special interests? It’s called the US tax code. You want to know why politicians don’t want to go to a flat tax or something similar, you can’t hand out special favors without the tax code. I believe the code is almost 11,000 pages now and requires a whole tax staff just to try and abide by the laws. Its ridiculous and just one more of the lies we have to live with because of our corrupt federal government.
 
Very true MO, the world is already starting to move away from the U.S. dollar as the standard currency because of our current administration's wanton printing of money with nothing to back it up. Once the dollar is truly removed as a standard currency from the world markets, we are in deep $h!t. How do you pay off debt when your money is worthless or worth only cents against your debt? Ask England about their economy when the pound sterling was removed by the dollar after WWII and how the wanton printing of money affected their economy in the 70's when they went nuts with their printing presses. Bad juju, bad juju.
 
I would be happy with 15 dpsm, pre fawn where I live. that is very close to the maximum that I think my environs can handle and still allow oak regeneration.
Up north, 20 dpsm pre fawn and in stu's country would be good.

I begin to won der if we will ever achieve it with our present managers.
 
I'd say that this is the case all over MN wherever agriculture exists. It is certainly true in the areas I've spent any time getting to know folks.

Yep, I have been a resident of MN for all my life. Watched agriculture drain all the prairie potholes of southern MN years ago......and along with it went all the small farmsteads and shelter belts / fence rows, etc. Gone are the ducks and pheasants of my youth. Those farmers would have tiled out the MN river valley if you let them! MN agriculture interests trumps wildlife every time.

Of course now, in later years, the public has bought-back lands or paid (thru some programs) to take some of that river bottom land out of production.
 
Top