76, I believe you are generally correct unless the lease specifically and expressly gives certain rights to the lessee. Now, IF the lessee can document and prove to a court that the trespass have inflicted damages on them as the lessee, I believe they have some recourse in court for those damages. This is where I believe there is a big disconnect in the leasing situation. I know of a situation where a guy leased a small tract and the coon hunters ran the woods often and he felt that that created an issue. Landowner apparently won't do anything about the coon hunters and the only recourse was to try to pursue financial, or lease cost, recovery in court from the coon hunters. Eventually, as leasing continues to grow, the dog runners are going to be facing more and more difficulties and I believe eventually there will be legal changes to dog running rules. These are the intangibles that a guy leasing has no feel about until he gets on the lease. It can be a major unknown flaw in leasing that leasing companies don't adequately address at this point in the business model. There's been a pretty good discussion about this on another national hunting site and the emotions run pretty high.

Also, after driving a lot of the different areas of the state in the last couple of weeks, the guys in "farm" country are either going to have to give up deer hunting or drive pretty long distances because the continued assault on habitat, small woodlots and fence rows and such, is truly unbelievable. The corporation that bought our farm will immediately look to remove the 15 to 20 acres of woods on the south end of the place that has always been the protected habitat for the deer once gun season started and we didn't allow fall plowing, which will now be done yearly.