Had a friend ask me a few questions about the lease language for a couple of the leasing companies. So today I spent a little time looking through the various companies leasing documents. I must say that the language was interesting and left much to be desired in my opinion. Its kind of sad that most of the leases leave the hunters little recourse if something is not lived up to after the lease has been paid for, in my opinion. One company has arbitration language but the state named as the location for the arbitration was not Indiana, which is not a wise choice if you are living and leasing in Indiana. Be careful what you sign and realize that you may not have much of a way to protect yourself if there is constant trespassing, or the landowner doesn't live up to their commitment because it seemed like a lot of the leases didn't enable any prosecution rights or legally recovery of lease costs for the hunters to protect their investment. I told the guy to consider anything he paid as sunk cost and to realize that he appeared to have a very, very one sided agreement that he was considering, in my opinion. This is not intended to say or suggest leasing companies are bad or evil, just suggesting everyone read carefully what the language is saying.

I've never leased but I've been told that the leasing company is working for/representing the landowner...not the hunter. I'm not implying that this is unethical, but as you said the hunter needs to understand what he's signing.
I've been told countless stories of showing up to hunt and people riding four-wheelers through the woods or even hunting often because they knew when the hunters were there. Then you gotta call the company, not the landowner, and that guy has your money. He doesn't care.
I'd be LIVID!

Leasing companies are getting out and doing what most hunters are unwilling to do. They are making direct contact with land owners and helping them earn a few more dollars per acre from their land. They advertise to hunters who don't have the time or interest in beating on doors to find these places, and make it pretty darned convenient if you don't mind paying a few bucks to hunt.

I've leased for (6) years now, two different farms from both Basecamp and HLN and have no negative comments on either situation. Have met the landowners and spoken to leasing agents and have never had any of the problems eluded to. We were concerned we might get some stands stolen, or might have local boys slipping in on our place, but have had no problems at all.

I'd agree, the contracts do favor the land owner over the hunter, but who can blame them? It's their ground, they write the rules. I really feel like if I had a drastic problem it could be worked out favorably. These leasing companies aren't going to screw over their paying customers, or they won't be in business for long.

I would simply suggest that the contracts should more specifically define recreation, prosecution rights and recourse if the lessor violates the agreement. Actually, in a true business world, it would seem that half, or a portion, of the lease payment would be held in escrow until the end of the season to assure compliance on the lessor. Also, if there are "reserve rights", I'd make sure there was a definition as to what those were, for either party to the lease. No doubt that most of these transactions won't have any issues, but if a guy happens to get in one of the situations where there are issues like the lessors dogs running every day and night, lessor family members horse riding the property constantly, the property being sold and so on, the lessee has significant issues in getting recourse in my opinion.

If you get to the point where you have to exercise your legal rights on a couple thousand dollar hunting lease, you're already screwed.

These companies aren't going to re-write their terms to suit one individual. If you don't like the deal or don't trust one of the parties, don't do it.

This is disposable income spent for recreation, much like any other vacation type activity. If something goes bad that the land owner or leasing agent could have controlled, bring it up to them and see if they will make it right. If not, chalk it up to experience, move on and find someplace else to hunt.

My experiences leasing have all been positive. Have had much more trouble in the past hunting places where access was free and granted to several hunters.

I agree with your comments. That said, the business model could sure could use more "balance" in my opinion. It won't though unless the demand falls off. Much of this leads to the suggestion that if your're young, with many years left to hunt, or have money laying around that is purely disposable, buying a property might be a better strategy, which in itself still has issues.

all the landowner property info is online now.

http://www.wthtechnology.com/index.php/customer-websites/list-of-customer-web-sites

https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com/

Why not find the place and approach the landowner on your own?

Get a lawyer to write up a contract for you.

Cut out the middle man. Who seriously pays $200 bucks for some "annual membership" just to see properties available for lease?

I work with contracts from several hundred thousand to into the millions of $ daily.

Most of the leasing contracts I have seen are a complete joke that serve to protect the company and landowner interests. In most no recourse is spelled out for the hunters should the terms of the agreement be broken. In other cases, the terms are inadequately defined.

I do like the escrow idea.

with all the information online, you don't even need to beat on doors now. Find some parcels which look good and contact the landowners directly with an offer. They get more money in their pocket and both hunters and landowners save money by cutting out the middle man.

all the property owner info is online now.

http://www.wthtechnology.com/index.php/customer-websites/list-of-customer-web-sites

https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com/