# would you pay a premium for bow only acreage?



## nxfedlt1 (Aug 24, 2009)

Long story short we lost our major leasee and now are looking at different options. 

For you bow hunters, would you pay extra to hunt on acreage that is bow only, no rifles? We have kicked around the idea of setting asside 5 or 6 sections for bow only and wonder what the demand might be.

thanks


----------



## A Draper (Aug 14, 2007)

My guess is you will have some people interested in this. I don't know if they will pay a premium for it though. I personally would not, but I'm not as diehard a bowhunter as I used to be. I voluntarily got off my primary lease this year. One consideration was that bow hunting was discouraged. I would pay extra for a family atmosphere and just change in scenery from what I've hunted for the last five years.


----------



## LRM (Sep 1, 2004)

if it's my only option, maybe?
A family lease would be preferred along with an atmosphere of hunt any style you like as long as it legal.


----------



## Dead Wait (Mar 8, 2005)

I would definately pay for bow only spot if I knew for sure that there would'nt be a bunch of gun blasting going on while I was'nt there. I would not want to be surrounded by gun hunters either. Price has got to be right also.


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

The costs of leases are way too high if you ask me. Paying more for bow only, nope not interested!


----------



## Chunky (Oct 15, 2006)

I might, I have been on bow only leases in the past. It would just depend on all the details.


----------



## Texhntr1022 (Jul 27, 2009)

I would if there were sufficient acreage. I would not pay xtra for 500-600 acres surrounded by 1000+ acres of rifles. Although I would prefer bow only you could charge more for true low pressure hunting even with rifles.


----------



## sqiggy (Aug 30, 2007)

What would you consider "premium"??


----------



## nxfedlt1 (Aug 24, 2009)

Thats the thing, I havent even really worked on any numbers or compared to what else is out here. 

We're in west texas, just off of I-10. 23,000 acres that we had leaded to a corp from the north east for years and recently with the economic mix up, the deer lease got nixed, so we are contemplating possible uses and future structure. All low fenced, been under management for about 12 years now. I believe the last count had us at 40 deer/sq mi. 

I've been a bow hunter ever since I first tried it, but I was never sure how receptive paying hunters would be and what they would like tailored for their needs.


----------



## TXPalerider (May 21, 2004)

I'm just curious, why would bow hunters have to pay a premium??


----------



## jesley22 (May 17, 2009)

I looked at a lease this year were they wanted a price for the bow season, a price for the gun season and another for spring turkey. Land owners are getting creative about more money for the same amout of land.


----------



## Texhntr1022 (Jul 27, 2009)

TXPalerider said:


> I'm just curious, why would bow hunters have to pay a premium??


because typically the hardcore bowhunter wants fewer hunters in an area and lower impact hunters than just your average deer lease. The theory is that if the members are paying more, then they are less likely to negatively impact the lease. All in an attempt to keep the deer as "normal" as possible since Bowhunting requires you to get so much closer than rifle hunting.


----------



## 01 Aggie (Mar 13, 2006)

*Bow Only*

I am on 12K+ bow only lease...we do not pay more...We pay a good, fair price per person. Paying more does not seem feasible...the acreage is what it is...now if you want to provide feeders, keep them full, etc...then there may be some demand.


----------



## TXPalerider (May 21, 2004)

Texhntr1022 said:


> because typically the hardcore bowhunter wants fewer hunters in an area and lower impact hunters than just your average deer lease. The theory is that if the members are paying more, then they are less likely to negatively impact the lease. All in an attempt to keep the deer as "normal" as possible since Bowhunting requires you to get so much closer than rifle hunting.


I guess we just don't agree.

As a bow hunter, I would prefer to not be hunting in close proximity to a bunch of rifle hunters that are feeding hundreds of yards of roads while I'm hunting only a feeder. But, I don't necessarily want less hunters in an area.

In fact, I think the case could be made that you can hunt more bow hunters on a piece of property than you can gun hunters. Not only do bow hunters require less room for the reasons stated above, their success rate is typically going to be much lower than that of rifle hunters. Thus, fewer deer (trophy bucks) per hunter are killed.


----------



## jesley22 (May 17, 2009)

Problem solved.......Charge more then you would usally charge so the hunters either who bow or gun hunt feel they have more invested and they will less likely to have a negative impact on the land. Be sure to tell them up front that they are paying more and why, I'm sure they will undersatnd.


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

TXPalerider said:


> In fact, I think the case could be made that you can hunt more bow hunters on a piece of property than you can gun hunters. Not only do bow hunters require less room for the reasons stated above, their success rate is typically going to be much lower than that of rifle hunters. Thus, fewer deer (trophy bucks) per hunter are killed.


That is what I would think as well, which would lend one to believe that bowhunters would pay less per hunter than gun hunters. To pay more is just not acceptable in my thinking.


----------



## Dead Wait (Mar 8, 2005)

What are the accomidation's on the lease. Camp house or primitive camping. Family style lease or paying hunter type lease. Any pond's. Store near by. I get thirsty often. Electricity an running water. Too many question's. I'm just curious. What's a bow only lease go for anyway?


----------



## dc1502 (May 25, 2006)

I'd pay more for acrchery only lease , depending on the harvest restrictions and location.


----------



## Titus Bass (Dec 26, 2008)

Wouldn't pay a premium......would expect to pay less......JMO....


----------



## Bucksnort (Jun 29, 2004)

Titus Bass said:


> Wouldn't pay a premium......would expect to pay less......JMO....


Agree, I always thought a bow only lease is a little cheaper. Bottom line is are you willing to pay to play.


----------



## TXwhtlHNTR (Nov 19, 2008)

:smile:

There are things for which I would be willing to part with more of what I don't have any of (money). In other words, "...pay a 'premium'...".

1. Inclusion of my family.
2. The ability to take friends.
3. Extra outdoor opportunity, (dove, ducks, spring turkey, exotics, a river to swim/play in on spring/summer trips, fishing).
4. Additional accommodations. (electric power, running water, food plots, meat cooler, flush toilets, showers, etc.)

hwell: Sound lease management is important, but should be a 'given'.

Extra restrictions on on how I safely enjoy my time in the field, or how I legally attempt to harvest game isn't on the list. JMO

I really like bowhunting, but I'm probably not part of the desired market anyway. I can barely pay for where I am (Read the first sentence).


----------



## Dead Wait (Mar 8, 2005)

Sound's like this lease will end up going to the highest bidder. That really bites a big one. There's alot of really great guy's on this site that probably could split something like this and keep it affordable, have a great time, and become better friend's. I unfortunately can't afford to run with the Big Dog's so to speak when it comes to big money. sad2sm


----------



## Texhntr1022 (Jul 27, 2009)

It all depends on what your focus is. If we're talking a trophy bow hunting lease, then personally I want as few hunters as possible, which means higher lease costs. It's not the success rate that bothers me, it's the number of people on a property. I have personally seen deer habits negatively change (going nocturnal, avoiding feed, etc.) just because of too many people in an area. Deer will react to hunting pressure, and if you have a bow in your hand then it's gonna be that much harder to take a mature trophy buck. If we're talkin just a good family lease where being in the woods and hanging out with friends and family are the focus then obviously things change. To some people the latter is the important thing and seeing a mature trophy is great if (however unlikely) it happens. I will probably start leaning towards the latter myself as my son gets older and is able to go hunting with me.


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

Dead Wait said:


> Sound's like this lease will end up going to the highest bidder. That really bites a big one. There's alot of really great guy's on this site that probably could split something like this and keep it affordable, have a great time, and become better friend's. I unfortunately can't afford to run with the Big Dog's so to speak when it comes to big money. sad2sm


The sad thing is hunting is not what it once was. Today it is all about Horns and Money.


----------



## TXPalerider (May 21, 2004)

I agree that more hunting pressure makes deer harder to hunt/kill. But, I also believe that bow hunters, by the nature of their style of hunting, apply less perceived pressure on deer than the same number of gun hunters would. Which is another reason I suggest that you can effectively hunt more bow hunters on a particular ranch than you can gun hunters.

Of course we would all prefer to have more acres/hunter. But, cost tends to be the determining factor. It all depends on how much you want to spend.

The original questions was "would you pay more for bow only acreage?" And my answer is NO. I just don't see how the method of hunting is the relevant to the price. I certainly don't see why a rancher would feel compelled to charge more for a bow hunter than a gun hunter. Especially, since bow hunting is a lower impact style of hunting.

But, that's just my nickel.


----------



## Dead Wait (Mar 8, 2005)

bountyhunter said:


> The sad thing is hunting is not what it once was. Today it is all about Horns and Money.


I strongly agree with you there. High fences must cost alot also.


----------



## Tombstone (May 19, 2009)

I would not pay a premium for bow only either. Why would you need to pay more for acreage that is bow hunting only with the same number of hunters as the same acreage with all rifle hunters? The cost per acre is still the same, no matter the style of hunting, with a bow hunter using less acreage per person. The factor of a "premium" would come down to, would you rather pay more per person to have fewer peoples on this block of acreage, thus less pressure, or not. I agree with Palerider in that in a bow only situation you could hunt more people on the same property with less impact than rifle hunting. Therefore, distributing the cost per person/per acre to more people, and make the lease cheaper. 
It all depends on the setup/rules of the lease. I have been on leases to where in times when hunters weren't on the stands then people were out riding 4-wheelers all day and night. Things such as that have more of an impact than anything in my opinion.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

I agree with the Pale Guy but I think too that from a management point of view on a ranch that size that it might be a tad bit hard to kill the required number of deer if it's bow only unless you had a whole lot of hunters. West Texas ain't the Hill Country where there are deer hiding behind and in front of every Live Oak and Cypress tree so that might increase the lease fee.

Lots we don't know though about the layout of the ranch but one thing is for sure and certain; that's a lot of land to hunt with a bow. My experiences in West Texas has been those 300 yard Weatherby shots.

TH


----------

