Open minded discussion: paid access the pros and cons

[NCC]

I'm a landowner. I ranched in the Peace Country for 15 years and recently returned to the family farm in central AB. Having land to hunt is one of the motivating factors for me to own land. I don't let anyone I don't know hunt our place. I've had far more negative experiences with hunters I don't know than positive. Poaching, ruts, garbage, gates left open, etc.

I have friends in TX where paid hunting is allowed. They can charge for access but the state still owns the wildlife. The one guy who was leasing out his place was charging $4500 for access to 5000 acres that was not managed for trophy quality. . Another guy I know manages the deer, and charges a bundle to shoot deer on his place.

From being exposed to both systems, here are my observations:

Trespassing is reduced where paid hunting is allowed, as the guys who have paid for a hunting lease will fiercely protect what they have paid for. Poachers may also have more respect for a "fellow hunter" than what they perceive as a greedy landowner.

For people who have some disposable income and want to start hunting, paying a landowner for a private hunting spot is a nice option with a high rate of success.

Paid access certainly will limit access to private land.

If you really want to manage the wildlife, you need a high fence.

The hunting experience for those who can afford to pay for access will be improved. The idea of heading to a private hunting preserve for a weekend is appealing to many.

Wildlife will benefit in many cases as the farmers will have an incentive to grow mature animals and increased numbers.

That said, I'm opposed to paid hunting as although it would benefit me, it would work against many outdoorsmen. I am very much against high fences as they disrupt travel patterns of wildlife.

I have also made a couple other general observations regarding land access:

Large corporations are not going to let hunters on as the corporations will not be willing to assume the risks involved for no reward. Sooner or later, a hunter is going to sue a landowner over something silly (like the gunsel on the trail ride who rode his horse over a wire gate, got piled, and sued the Hutterite Colony where the incident occurred) and that will be the beginning of the end.

Many landowners (like myself) hunt, have kids that hunt, and have friends that hunt. That doesn't leave a lot of time or space for strangers to hunt their property.

Hunters would be way better off figuring out how to increase the game numbers on the 70% of the Alberta landscape that is crown land than worrying about access to private land.

Lastly, stop with the cowboy welfare comments. We operate the same as any other business. If my 70 year old dad wants to drive a new truck and go to Mexico for a winter vacation after busting his ass for 55 years, what does that have to do with hunting access?

[Bub]

Originally Posted by Tech

Funny how paid access is taboo, but giving gifts, doing free labor, and maintaining a slew of "friends" with land benefits is fine.

Paid access is already here. You just aren't paying with money.

Lol. I didn't even use the land I have permission to this year.

Also, today was the last day the ferry was operating, so I went for the last walk of the season to my favorite place. I also gave the same chocolate boxes to the ferry operators. Does that fit into this whole picture too? Lol.

P.S. The box of chocolate is just under $5.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

Wouldn't you think that landowners charging extreme rates won't have any takers?

The experience in every other country where paying for access to hunt is the norm would say different.
Sweden - $2000/yr to hunt rabbits and grouse on 80 acres.

[Don_Parsons]

Not to take away from this thread, but the next harvest season is just around the corner, so why not another option of crown lands vers private lands.

I guess it depends on where a person lives in our Province when looking for crown lands.

The southern part of the Province looks limited to crown lands,,, but there is some opertunities if a person gets at it.

The further North one goes the more access to crown lands, of course the old saying of bottle-necked is those that "Purhaps" don't get back there. Then again, I don't know what people do to work around this. Guess I got lucky over the years of going to places that people don't go to.
Another post popped up on this thread that mentioned that there is less productive quality critters on the crown lands,,, I suppose this might be true. Don't know since we did ok with this year's harvest but nothing out of the ordinary with a few tags that got used up.

Hunting the big one comes mind, some are after that, others just harvest.
Once in a Blue Moon the big one shows up, sometimes it dosen't. Oh well.

One thing is lost into today's world, heading into the thick of the thickest, dam rights it's tuff going, walking around in the forest looking for "well used" current game trails.

Some crown lands offer trails, some don't. Some look easier to see and move around, other spots are challenging the whole way.

I'm going to throw a rock at my self at this point.
If anyone in Alberta is the laziest person, your hearing from him right now.
Middle age worn out body,,, afternoon naps,,, a fellow who stumbles around the forests like a lost foul
LOL,,, Yuppers,,, that's me.

What dose this post I'm sharing have to do with this thread some might ask. This post is "Options."

My options are access private lands or crown lands. I have access to private lands across Western and Eastern Canada,,, but it ain't going to happen.

I started Harvesting on Crown lands back in 2005, and I'm not going to change.
I don't need farm, pasture, private lands to harvest,,, I just don't.

Lazy azz hat me needs to keep up the pace because of the rewards of bitter sweet.
Bitter in hard ships, sweet in rewards "if" it pans out.
There are no phone calls, people to meet and ask for permission to hunt. To many roads, to many people, to much of everything,,, but not in the thick of things there isn't.

My long time hunting partner is in the same boat,,, we harvest game on crown lands only,,, we could care less what others are doing "if" we run across them,,, we are out there doing what we do.

The bitter sweet,,, its a struggle alright,,, we hear the traffic up the valley and gun shoots day in and day out as we push more game to the road and easy access folks then we realize,,, fustration to the max my friends.
I dam near / we dam near threw in the towel a few times I'll tell yha.

We went off our game plan and drove 800 kms for 7 days,,, then we regain our train of thought and went back to square 1. The next morning we snagged 1 of the few bull Elk back there,,, we struggle with the limited chances of the other Bulls,,, dam what a nightmare that was. LOL.

Yes, a couple of little WT's and the season was over.
Seeing some nice Bull Moose, a few cows, lynx and surround by Wolves,,, all part of the sweet.

I (We) know one thing, crown lands till the day we are gone, or the day they are closed. Neither one of us will ever harvest on owner ship lands even though we have some.

I share this as an option,,, bitter sweet of this, or bitter sweet of that.
The funny thing is, we are not the only people out there on the crown lands.
I only hope I force my self out there next summer for archery then rifle.

Crown lands offer freedom and so much more, get off the roads, find those game trails, stick with it, yes,,, it sucks goats milk at times,,, but that's the way it is.
Of course this is for those that chose.

We all have options, what's in your plans for 2018 that just around the corner, are you and your Harvesting pal ready to take on the challange,,, the Pros & Cons.

Sorry for the long post, but why not allow for a back up plan in the mix.

Don

[slickwilly]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

The experience in every other country where paying for access to hunt is the norm would say different.
Sweden - $2000/yr to hunt rabbits and grouse on 80 acres.

And $150 for a pair of grouse in England.

[Bub]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I am pleasantly surprised that many people are thinking of the poverty people and those with little financial means and protecting their opportunities to hunt. This is very admirable in my opinion.

How do you define poverty people? And where do you draw the line to distinguish those with little financial means?

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I am unsure exactly how many that posted here are landowners. I can only guess that there might be 6 the rest are probable urbanites ( nothing wrong with that so hopefully no offense is taken). In all truthfulness I respect the opinions of the landowner/hunter the most because I feel they've got a pretty good grasp on things with regards to being on both sides of the fence. Personally I would of liked to see more landowner/hunter input on this.

And what if the landowner is not a hunter? Are their opinions weigh less? Why? I know a few who are not hunters, but have more sense than many hunters I met.

Can someone explain to me why does it take a landowner to have/learn respect for the land and, which it comes to at the end of the day, for others? It's an honest question. People here, on this forum, in this thread and others, keep saying that one needs to be a landowner to learn the respect and whatnot. What are you talking about, seriously? I really do not understand. All it takes is to have common sense and normal upbringing, nothing less, nothing more.

[Bub]

Originally Posted by NCC

Lastly, stop with the cowboy welfare comments. We operate the same as any other business. If my 70 year old dad wants to drive a new truck and go to Mexico for a winter vacation after busting his ass for 55 years, what does that have to do with hunting access?

I don't call it "cowboy welfare" and I generally agree with your post overall, but not any other business receives subsidies like farms do. And I am not trying to downplay your father's hard work either, just stating the fact.

[Kurt505]

Paid for access hunting will lead to non resident aliens having the best opportunity in our province, no if ands or buts. Anyone pro paid hunts had better watch what they wish for.

Where I am, I could care less because I'm set up with hunting opportunity but I can see that type of system making it really hard for the younger generation of hunters trying to get into our sport.

In southern and central Alberta there is very limited crown land that holds big game animals, the competition on these areas would be crazy.

Although bennificial to some, I think overall there are more cons than pro's.

[Rookie22]

I am a new hunter, live in Calgary, and do not own any land. This was my second year hunting, and I hunted both private and crown land. I harvested a mule deer (draw) from crown land, and was unsuccessful on private land (white-tail general). However, I still dropped off cookies and coffee to the private landowner because I was truly grateful that a landowner, who has never met me, granted and trusted me with access to his land.

Although I was born in a foreign country and grew up in a major city, I have always wanted to learn how to hunt, and it was through LOTS of research and reading on the internet that I figured out where someone "like me" could hunt, with no previous connections to landowners and/or heritage in terms of growing up hunting.

If landowners could charge for hunting access, I would respect that, but I think it wouldn't be long before I gave up hunting on private land. As it is, I have heard many stories about trespassers and poachers, who have not only violated landowners' private property, but in the process robbed law-abiding hunters of potential opportunities. If landowners start charging for access, it would likely be out of my budget, as I am not looking for a trophy, but simply to hone my hunting skills and potentially fill my freezer.

As many on this discussion have stated, crown land will become overcrowded. I do not own a quad, so I know I will need to walk further to find animals. Based on my limited experience, I understand this can be over 15 km/day at times, but well worth the effort IMO. However, overcrowding does worry me in terms of pushing animals out of habitats, or creating situations where populations decline. I am not a biologist though, so I don't fully understand the dynamics between hunting, land fragmentation, and other environmental factors (e.g. wildfires).

I know my limited experience cannot be compared to fellow AO members who have been hunting for decades, but I wanted to offer my 2 cents on this discussion, as I believe I am equally passionate about hunting, regardless of my inexperience.

To the landowners reading this - THANK YOU for your permission and trust. I know there have been times when you've been utterly disappointed, and if you've given up on allowing access, I understand. But as a new hunter, please know that any access or permission is greatly appreciated. There are many hurdles for new hunters, especially if they did not grow up with the tradition. Undeniably, there are bad apples, but there are good ones too. We DO exist, I swear!

[boah]

Originally Posted by chuck

Name whom you think is in which category.

Patiently waiting. Should be interesting.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by chuck

Name whom you think is in which category.

Categories? Please name what categories you are referring to.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Bub

How do you define poverty people? And where do you draw the line to distinguish those with little financial means?


And what if the landowner is not a hunter? Are their opinions weigh less? Why? I know a few who are not hunters, but have more sense than many hunters I met.

Can someone explain to me why does it take a landowner to have/learn respect for the land and, which it comes to at the end of the day, for others? It's an honest question. People here, on this forum, in this thread and others, keep saying that one needs to be a landowner to learn the respect and whatnot. What are you talking about, seriously? I really do not understand. All it takes is to have common sense and normal upbringing, nothing less, nothing more.

I don't define poverty people nor can I draw a line to distinguish ones financial means. I was referring to previous posts where it was stated that the hunters with limited financial means couldn't hunt. I find it admirable that they thought about it this. Something that I perhaps failed to take into account as I have no idea what access charges might be.

I believe a non hunting landowners opinion matters as much as anyone's. It doesn't take a landowner to respect property. I do think that a landowner is more capable of noticing the damages to his property more so than the condo dweller. Yes common sense and a normal upbringing sure helps to respect anything in this world.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Categories? Please name what categories you are referring to.

Read your post that I quoted. YOU laid it out there.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I am unsure exactly how many that posted here are landowners. I can only guess that there might be 6 the rest are probable urbanites ( nothing wrong with that so hopefully no offense is taken). .

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Categories? Please name what categories you are referring to.

C’mon man.....
It isn’t that tough. You’re credibility is waining. Quit playing games.

[Don_Parsons]

Originally Posted by Bub

I don't call it "cowboy welfare" and I generally agree with your post overall, but not any other business receives subsidies like farms do. And I am not trying to downplay your father's hard work either, just stating the fact.

Intersting indeed.

Not to de-rail the thread, but it would be interesting to know how farm subsidies & access to private lands work hand in hand.

Just asking is all, purhaps something is missing in this statement, or many of us read into wrong.

I'm sure what ever this comment to subsidies is that it applies to "all" farming operations across Alberta and Western Canada.

Would be interesting to get up to speed on this and how it plays out in the big picture.

Don

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Categories? Please name what categories you are referring to.

I can promise you your assessment of ‘how many are landowners vs urbanites’ on this thread is incorrect. Either way i dont see how its relevant. Heck, if we are throwing opinions around losely, should i toss out that you arent really a landowner if you own less than two sections?. A hobbyist sure, but imho landowner is a term i use for guys with real land assets

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

I can promise you your assessment of ‘how many are landowners vs urbanites’ on this thread is incorrect. Either way i dont see how its relevant. Heck, if we are throwing opinions around losely, should i toss out that you arent really a landowner if you own less than two sections?. A hobbyist sure, but imho landowner is a term i use for guys with real land assets

You are more than likely right that I would be wrong.

[calvin]

Originally Posted by Bub

I don't call it "cowboy welfare" and I generally agree with your post overall, but not any other business receives subsidies like farms do. And I am not trying to downplay your father's hard work either, just stating the fact.

Hey Bub, could you help me out with these subsidies all us farmers are collecting? I don't seem to be on the right mailing list or something...

[calvin]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Intersting indeed.

Not to de-rail the thread, but it would be interesting to know how farm subsidies & access to private lands work hand in hand.

Just asking is all, purhaps something is missing in this statement, or many of us read into wrong.

I'm sure what ever this comment to subsidies is that it applies to "all" farming operations across Alberta and Western Canada.

Would be interesting to get up to speed on this and how it plays out in the big picture.

Don

One example of a subsidy that does lead to hunting access is there is something in regards to elk predation of haystacks and stockpiled forage. To qualify you need too allow hunting for ungualtes before payment is made. A good example is the Knight ranch in southern AB that allows elk hunting currently where they didn't before. They applied for funds and were told they need to allow hunting before payments could be made.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by chuck

Read your post that I quoted. YOU laid it out there.

I'm gonna guess that you are baiting me to comment on another's financial status as one of the supposed categories? Not gonna happen and none of my business but good effort though.

I'm am done commenting on this thread as I've seen that there is no clear answers to how paid access would provide more hunting opportunities or take them away imo. Much of it is speculation and opinions as it seems few of is have been in a paid access situation and have no facts to shore up the opinions stated.

Thanks everyone.

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I'm gonna guess that you are baiting me to comment on another's financial status as one of the supposed categories? Not gonna happen and none of my business but good effort though.

I'm am done commenting on this thread as I've seen that there is no clear answers to how paid access would provide more hunting opportunities or take them away imo. Much of it is speculation and opinions as it seems few of is have been in a paid access situation and have no facts to shore up the opinions stated.

Thanks everyone.

He was referring to you categorizing only 6 onthis thread as landowners. He wanted you to name
Who you think is a landowner vs a city person. I see you conveniently deleted that post once you were asked to walk the walk though. I also enjoy playing coy

Carry on

[Knotter]

Often enough, A financial exchange does not simplify the relationship, it obliterates the relationship. I'm restating quite a few points but there are a few that I have yet to see.

Pro

Income for landowner - (would this be subject to tax?)
Less trespassing/more private enforcement (Theoretical) My thought is that we become more acutely aware of it.
for those who can afford it - less hunting competition (simple economics - increase the price of something - less can afford it) isn't this is the definition of elite?
Longer horns in the hero shots.


Con
for those who can't afford it - limited to little hunting opportunity on private land. How would this impact pressure on public land?
Decreased revenue to the public management of the resource (wildlife) from fewer levies - As a result would we have to be offset by a higher levy to the paying hunter.
Re purposed agricultural land - Could this lead to less agricultural production on the land which leads to higher food price? (a more complex economic argument)
The eventual emergence of high fence for opportunity management as in Texas.
predators become the economic equivalent to competition for the income earners (landowners).

Unknown-
impact on subsistence hunters, impact on the public perceptions of hunting. Long term impact on non-target species. Long term impact on the value of public agricultural leases - does this lead to more conflict and resulting policy changes? Impact on the new hunter. With the emphasis eventually becoming horns, how does this change the new hunter's view?

As stated in my previous post - paid access incentivizes a contractual relationship between hunter and landowner. It also privatizes management of a public resource. In Canada we customarily demand a royalty in these cases (maybe this is where the revenue for wildlife management comes from). Do we really want to go there? Are these changes we are willing to accept for a limited upside?

[boah]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I'm gonna guess that you are baiting me to comment on another's financial status as one of the supposed categories? Not gonna happen and none of my business but good effort though.

I'm am done commenting on this thread as I've seen that there is no clear answers to how paid access would provide more hunting opportunities or take them away imo. Much of it is speculation and opinions as it seems few of is have been in a paid access situation and have no facts to shore up the opinions stated.

Thanks everyone.

I would guess this is similar to taking your ball and going home.

[Knotter]

Originally Posted by boah

I would guess this is similar to taking your ball and going home.

Was he looking for enlightenment on the issue or validation?

[JWCalgary]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I would like to keep this respectful. If that is not possible please keep your comments to yourself.

I'm a advocate of landowners rights and believe one of the rights a landowner should have is to do as he/she sees fit as long as it does not endanger the general public nor have adverse effects on the environment. In my mind paid access includes hunting, fishing, camping and just about anything some might want to do on private deeded land.

I'm gonna guess that many like myself have never paid nor received payment for access to private except if you're a camper who stays in campgrounds. If you've been involved in paying for access I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts.

These are some of the pros I can think of off hand.

Landowner can make additional income of the property
Open up more private land for recreational users
Average landowner might be more inclined to better manage the property in terms of wildlife

The cons
Not all could afford the access fee
Potentially could lead to more trespassing violations

Please fill free to add if you are a landowner or not.

I am not in favour.

The system is fine the way it is now in terms of private property access. A landowner either grants access or does not. Pretty easy and it ain't broke in my mind.

There should not be the option to pay to increase opportunity.

I believe that the true issue we have is the lack of respect for private property and the need for enforcement.

The argument that user fees would somehow alleviate damage to private property or repair costs from damage are spurious as the people that go through the effort to gain permission and work out hunting time with a landowner are probably not the ones causing damage. How us a fee going to make that any better.




Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

[DRhunter]

Originally Posted by Tech

Funny how paid access is taboo, but giving gifts, doing free labor, and maintaining a slew of "friends" with land benefits is fine.

Paid access is already here. You just aren't paying with money.

Earlier I had posted that I was 100% completely opposed to paid hunting. However if my $20 bottle of wine I enjoy giving a landowner after the season in thanks, will get me exclusive access to an absolute prime hunting ranch of 10,000 acres... I change my mind!

[Bub]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Intersting indeed.

Not to de-rail the thread, but it would be interesting to know how farm subsidies & access to private lands work hand in hand.

Just asking is all, purhaps something is missing in this statement, or many of us read into wrong.

I'm sure what ever this comment to subsidies is that it applies to "all" farming operations across Alberta and Western Canada.

Would be interesting to get up to speed on this and how it plays out in the big picture.

Don

I did not imply they work hand in hand. I was merely referring to "any other business" part of his statement.

However, we can draw a connection if we really want. Subsidies are money going right out of all taxpayers pockets and going to the farmers'. Take it for what you will, but that could be the money for access, with everyone chipping in and with the farmer still retaining his right to deny that access.

Originally Posted by calvin

Hey Bub, could you help me out with these subsidies all us farmers are collecting? I don't seem to be on the right mailing list or something...

AgriStability and AgriInvest would be prime examples.

[Don_Parsons]

There seems to be 3 sides in this debate, if not more that I'm blind to.

X side is yes, Y is no, W is half way on the fence,,, yet R, T,L and B are out there in-between the gaps of either side.

This thread has been mostly civil and I to would like to thank everyone as well. All most the best of human I've seen on this forum todate.

At least civilian population and rural have shared their ideas and input, this is a good thing, purhaps it leads to more information in years to come.

We all know one thing, over time change will "slowly" come, or it will fall on us in the "grand slam" of a hammer.

What was back then is most likely not going to happen, humans, game, Harvesting and how it's done will be part of the contributing factors in years to come.

I look at South Ontario,,, ok the whole Province let's say.
There is a line in the sand in that Province since the majority of population lives in the South, with less numbers in the Mid to North.

Not only do city folks "not all" would like to see hunting come to a end,,, there are some farm folks as well,,, again,,, "not all."

The other side "limited mind you" are game to keep this "activity" going,,, hunt to me is not a sport nor will it ever be.
It might be wize to call it what it is.
A means to put food on the table "period."

Some folks choose to go at it as a sport, and that my friends is totally ok. What ever floats your boat.

I'm gathering from this thread, there is change coming weather we like it or not, this "could happen" today or years from now.

If private land access issue keep coming up time and time again, we as a common minded community might choose to stand together over the long hual.

Yes each of us have our little differences, but we have more in common then opposite to one another.
Probably more wrong then right.

The key to private land access is one on one, take nothing for-granted since permission is done ever year weather the land owner says giver all you want.

Not only the land owner, his family in general along with his nabour folks.
Don't cross that line my friends,,, I've heard of things changing in a heart beet.

Full respect for the asker, if in dought, make the call, wizer to have a heads up then a heads down.

One person in all of this has the final say.

The owner of the land, wize communication skills, and thoughtfulness at what they are saying.

I've been lucky over the years on private land access harvests, it's alot of work getting started at it, but once we get it down pat your off to the races.

Never, I'll repeat, "Never" ask for permission to Hunt. The word is "Harvest".
To harvest 1 or more then 1.
My long time Harvesting partner will be with me "any time" I am here, this is his name on this card.

That's right, let's not mess around, each land owner gets my card and they most likely know of my Pops and relatives.
That way they can put 2 & 2 together.

This is called the up & up,,, or in todays world of young folks,,, "being solid." Ha

The 2018 is just around the corner, get at it, and thank each land owner for there time, do not phone them,,, meet them face to face, offer a hand shake and learn your skills.

Don't worry about what other Harvesters are doing, Focus on your own thing.

Thanks all for sharing the ideas and thoughts, this is what makes community.

Don

[Don_Parsons]

I hear yha Bud

We don't get crop subsidies for Provincial habitat, nor will we except it, we got turned down once years ago, and that's the way it is.

We lost alot crop that year, and many more after that.
I guess we class it as giving back.

I agree, there are some subsidies, but they are not the Golden egg, nor do they pay for new trucks and holidays to the USA in the winter.

If farming is seen as bells and whistles, then how come more people are not farming.

Does $4800 per acer Alberta sound like alot of money, Southern Ontario is $17.000 to $23.000 per acre,,, Yuppers, $2 million for 100 acers,,, this ain't no crap land either.

Yes, city and country go hand in hand.
Farmers say:
Farmers feed Cities.

City folks say:
With out cities, farmers have no market.

Both reality.

Farming is expensive, it is a tuff grind, one has to be able to juggle it all, and there is alot to juggle.
From book keeper to labour all day, and all night in the dreams.
Farmers don't get to turn if off, not if live stock are in the mix.

Farming is like a high stakes poker game, if you loose, you loose big time.
Last year was another reminder of what can happen.

Example might be:

Southern Alberta in 1927 & 1928,,, 2 good years of awesome crops,,, then 1929 to 1947 as the dust bowl wiped out all most all the kin folk down there on the prairies.
My gramps barely saved his shirt tails.
Took lots of back braking work to dig our selves out of that hole.
Just like last year almost.

Yuppers, either your all in, or your out. That's what farming is.

This is not saying that town and city folks don't take a licking to. Most business folks are in this same boat of ups and downs.

Subsidies in general are a tuff road to follow, I refer to them as tax brakes,,, who in Canada dosen't get these brakes.

Probably more wrong then right i guess.

All good Bud, thanks for sharing

Don

[Knotter]

Knowing a little about the business of farming can go a long way with landowners. It shows your respect and understanding of the issues. Also, acknowledge that the farm is a place of business. A hunter showing at the farm up to hunt is analogous to the farmer showing up in your board room to play table tennis. It's not impossible it just requires some tact and respect.