• Dear User,

    We had issues in getting your old password work with the new version of the software, henceforth kindly Reset Your Password here

    You won't be able to login with your old password

    If you do not receive the Password reset request within a few minutes, please check your Junk / Spam E-mail folder just in case the email got delivered there instead of your inbox. If so, select Not Junk, which will allow future messages to get through.

    If you still need assistance, email [email protected]

    We appreciate your patience and understanding on this matter.

Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Hunterra - Custom Hunting Property Maps

Your thoughts on Lakosky, Glesinger?

MarkF

Active Member
I see both sides and would not pay a dime for a $1,000,000 house next to a ritzy private golf club in the city! But to each their own! Not trying to change anyone’s mind and shouldn’t have even chimed into this thread but here is a spin on your analogy. That public course you LOVE to play with your kids next to your house just got bought out by Tiger Woods and now all the people that used to enjoy the reasonably priced public course have to drive across town to a run down course that was already packed! Quality of the golf experience for everyone except Tiger and his friends has gone down and people will quit golfing. I wonder if the city bond to improve that run down golf course gets as many votes after several of its patrons quit golfing. Same question goes for the hunters’ vote to stop a ban on ARs, semi autos, etc. But I bet Tiger sells some clubs for Callaway! :D
This doesn’t make any sense to me, your comparing a public golf course being sold to a individual and that individual shutting down access to the public, to someone selling their private property to somebody else and they shut down access to the people that use to recreate there. No matter if you like it or not private property is still private property, it’s not open to the public without permission. I understand loosing places to hunt sucks but Iowa has some of the best public land in the country and if your not willing to work, pay or buy your own ground,then that might be what your stuck with. Nobody deserves to get anything for free, if you use to then you should be thankful for the time you did.
 

Obsessed

Well-Known Member
For all who support this type of commercialized deer hunting and the result of it making it more difficult to obtain free permission to hunt private ground... I sure hope you don't ever complain about not having access to any non-crowded quality hunting ground, or that youth hunter numbers are in the toilet. Over the course of the next 20 years, with the natural progression of this, if you haven't already complained about either of these things, I'll bet you will.
 

SB3

Active Member
For all who support this type of commercialized deer hunting and the result of it making it more difficult to obtain free permission to hunt private ground... I sure hope you don't ever complain about not having access to any non-crowded quality hunting ground, or that youth hunter numbers are in the toilet. Over the course of the next 20 years, with the natural progression of this, if you haven't already complained about either of these things, I'll bet you will.


Yeah, you're not jealous at all. LOL :D:D That damn lee lakosky is to blame for global warming too
 

Hardwood11

It is going to be a good fall!
For all who support this type of commercialized deer hunting and the result of it making it more difficult to obtain free permission to hunt private ground... I sure hope you don't ever complain about not having access to any non-crowded quality hunting ground, or that youth hunter numbers are in the toilet. Over the course of the next 20 years, with the natural progression of this, if you haven't already complained about either of these things, I'll bet you will.

This pattern was in place many years ago. In my area, I could pheasant hunt on many properties when I was young. Easy to find permission. Today, nearly impossible. There is not big commercialization of pheasant hunting??

The land is spoken for, or it is leased. Landowners have figured out that the land has major value, and why give it away it's use for free. Land has been bought for recreational use, they make payments, pay taxes, insurance. That is not free! Deer hunting is worse yet, but it is not just because you see Lee Lakosky on TV. This pattern was in place well before him.

Most access is now for relatives, friends, etc... and luckily some still allow hunting. Which is great. The pattern will not change, it will only get worse. Buy land if you can to secure your access.
 

iowavf

Active Member
I see both sides and would not pay a dime for a $1,000,000 house next to a ritzy private golf club in the city! But to each their own! Not trying to change anyone’s mind and shouldn’t have even chimed into this thread but here is a spin on your analogy. That public course you LOVE to play with your kids next to your house just got bought out by Tiger Woods and now all the people that used to enjoy the reasonably priced public course have to drive across town to a run down course that was already packed! Quality of the golf experience for everyone except Tiger and his friends has gone down and people will quit golfing. I wonder if the city bond to improve that run down golf course gets as many votes after several of its patrons quit golfing. Same question goes for the hunters’ vote to stop a ban on ARs, semi autos, etc. But I bet Tiger sells some clubs for Callaway! :D
Well I'd complain because Tiger bought the course and he shouldn't be allowed to buy a course with his own money for his family and friends to enjoy that was for sale to the public. He spent time and his own money to improve his course because he has a passion for the game, but I don't like the way he plays golf and irritated because he chooses not to let the public use his course. I guess maybe myself and a few friends could've bought the course, but we liked it better when we could just play and not deal with the expense or work to maintain it. ;)
 

Obsessed

Well-Known Member
Here's where I'm going with this... As outdoor sportsmen, we are all in this together, and we should all look out for the best interests of each other, not just ourselves. We already have to deal with losing access to land due to farmers destroying habitat to farm fence to fence, urban sprawl and development, losing permission for any other reason under the sun, etc. When a small few of our fellow outdoor sportsmen procure thousands of private acres, (by permission, lease, purchase, etc.), just so ONLY THEY can manage, hunt, harvest and profit off of huge deer, they're only looking out for themselves. Not their fellow outdoor sportsmen.

It befuddles me that my identifying a problem is misconstrued for jealousy. Although I have personally lost access to a good portion of private land over the years, I still have access to good private and public land, and probably will until I'm ready to hang it up. As a responsible outdoor sportsman, I am concerned with what access will be available for you, your and my children, grand children, etc.

Again, I'm a constitutionalist and a capitalist, so I get it. As an outdoor sportsman however, I recognize the negative impact that it has on all of us, alike.
 

Swampy_44

Member
If you guys listen to podcasts, check out Lees interview on bow junky media. Guy loves deer. He even goes as far as spraying his farms with a fogger for bugs. "Less stress the bigger they get". Also on that particular podcasts he made comments that he allows local law enforcement to come out and shoot does on his property. Which I thought was pretty cool. So yes he does allow people to come hunt. He maximizes the potential on his farms with an abundance of food, cover, etc. He is able to do things with land that most people cannot afford. I get it. But ya can't diss the guy on his dedication and hard work growing those deer.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

MarkF

Active Member
If you sell your house and you use to let your friend live in the basement would you be pissed at the new owner if they didn’t want them living there anymore?
For all who support this type of commercialized deer hunting and the result of it making it more difficult to obtain free permission to hunt private ground... I sure hope you don't ever complain about not having access to any non-crowded quality hunting ground, or that youth hunter numbers are in the toilet. Over the course of the next 20 years, with the natural progression of this, if you haven't already complained about either of these things, I'll bet you will.
Im curious why you think anybody should deserve to have access to private property for free? When someone buys a farm for hunting it doesnt automatically mean that less people will have access, it could just mean a different group of hunters now have access. Maybe the farm only use to have 4 guys hunting it and now itll have 10, that would be positive in your eyes right?
 

DE2IA

Active Member
If you sell your house and you use to let your friend live in the basement would you be pissed at the new owner if they didn’t want them living there anymore?

Im curious why you think anybody should deserve to have access to private property for free? When someone buys a farm for hunting it doesnt automatically mean that less people will have access, it could just mean a different group of hunters now have access. Maybe the farm only use to have 4 guys hunting it and now itll have 10, that would be positive in your eyes right?

‘Agree with above. From what I have seen the Lakosky’s invite quite a few friends to hunt their farms each year and allow them to shoot bucks and does.
I have lost hunting spots that our family hunted for years when farms were sold. Disappointing for sure but I was grateful for the time we got to hunt there.
We may all not want to spend the time and effort that Lee does but to each his own. He is definitely making his farms better habitat which is great for the wildlife. Would much rather see that happen then the farm be developed for houses or paved over for a parking lot.
Glad to see he is having the success he was trying to achieve.
 

iowavf

Active Member
I do miss the days when I was growing up, we could hunt any farm around us. With the new age of farming and even people buying recreation land for themselves and friends to use, going to be harder to find spots. I've even lost a few good fishing ponds but can't blame people who buy the land for their use and don't want others on it. Pretty easy to get sued now days if they fall or get hurt on your property also.
 

Obsessed

Well-Known Member
I don't think I or anybody else 'deserves' access to someone elses private property. My personal experience with the properties that I've lost have mostly been due to hunters leasing the timber ground, driven by the horn porn industry. It wasn't long ago, local famers asked us hunters to thin the deer out for them.

I, and many other hunters I shared the properties with do appreciate the free access to those pieces of private land over the past few decades. Few benefited from the leases, and many lost. All outdoor sportsmen. It's happening more and more. Many old timers are getting out of hunting because of it. Many gungho youngsters don't have the resources to 'Pay-To-Play', and public is overcrowded, so our youth numbers are being damaged by it too.
 
  • Deleted by Bowtech bandit
  • Reason: Put in wrong spot.
Show…
  • Deleted by Muskrat24
  • Reason: Giving up the debate
Show…
  • Deleted by stringleech
  • Reason: not wanting to cause argument apparenty
Show…

iowavf

Active Member
nailed it right there.. totally.
Please explain why you consider hunting an area that's not high fenced where the deer are free to range anywhere they want, not fair chase? With this logic anyone who hunts private ground shouldn't be considered fair chase.
 

Jbohn

Well-Known Member
I think we all need to do what makes us happy , if a guy pays for a high fenced hunt and that's all the hunting he has a chance to do or what not and hes happy well to each there own . If celebrity hunters are killing animals with no integrity and posting them up they have to live with that if they are doing it wrong. Everything comes back around. I'm sure Lee is putting in the works hes not just jumping in a stand . NO way that guy is doing it wrong.

Great for Lee and Tiffany , making the most of the opportunity they created , Mark and Terry Drury the same ..

TV shows , I do think Drury's 13 not sure if it's still out was very educational . I learned form it. Most people make there own mind up to what products they like , bows ,arrows , scents what not so I would'nt get caught up when most jump products every few years they are trying to pay the bills .

I can tell you if I had a chance to own 1000 acres I would and I would do the best I could with it , if that made people judge me because I killed a big deer and felt it was less worthy , to each there own . Most of us dream for that opportunity .

I'm a small land owner , most years I get a chance at a 140-150 inch deer , I'm the happiest guy on the planet . Most people in this country may never have that opportunity , we are so fortunate to be hunters , public , private , TV ,how ever you look a it. We all love them same thing ,just go at it a little different.

I don't get mixed up in social media or what not .. To much fun to be had.. Love Iowa whitetail .. Awesome folks , great learning , dlbtree corner read it 3 times going back for more..
 

Rous14

Active Member
All interesting conversation and I agree w pretty much all of your points here. It almost furthers my point and my fascination or intrigue though. When you talk about top notch hunters over 25-35 years with maybe a few 200 inchers and just how rare of an animal that is....I agree 100%!!! That’s why when someone like Glesinger who if I’m not mistaken has killed 3 over 200 in 3 straight years now or maybe it’s been 4 years that just defies all logic. Unless he owns or has access to A LOT more ground than is my perception (and even then 200” deer are unicorns even in a state like Iowa as you discussed in your post.) Can’t help but ask what the heck they’re doing to generate that level of success (not in an illegal or unethical matter at all, much respect for those guys). I mean look at Winke for example. He had 1000 acres that he clearly managed the heck out of and yeah, he had some quality years back in the late 2000s into 2011 but for probably the last 7 or 8 straight years it didn’t seem like he had anything over 160 maybe 170 and yet Glesinger/Lakosky are killing 200” plus seemingly every year or every other year? I have a 270 ac farm in IL and even if I owned all the ground in every direction of me totaling a few thousand acres I wouldn’t expect having a 200” on my farm maybe once every 10-15 years at best? And that’s just having him on camera or seeing him much less killing him. Just mind blowing what these guys are pulling off.
And right on que Mark Drury kills a 200” in Iowa in the last couple days just a few days after killing a 180” in Iowa. Two mega giants within a few days in middle of October. Again, what these guys are doing is mind blowing and defies logic. Congrats to mr Drury.
 

Obsessed

Well-Known Member
All interesting conversation and I agree w pretty much all of your points here. It almost furthers my point and my fascination or intrigue though. When you talk about top notch hunters over 25-35 years with maybe a few 200 inchers and just how rare of an animal that is....I agree 100%!!! That’s why when someone like Glesinger who if I’m not mistaken has killed 3 over 200 in 3 straight years now or maybe it’s been 4 years that just defies all logic. Unless he owns or has access to A LOT more ground than is my perception (and even then 200” deer are unicorns even in a state like Iowa as you discussed in your post.) Can’t help but ask what the heck they’re doing to generate that level of success (not in an illegal or unethical matter at all, much respect for those guys). I mean look at Winke for example. He had 1000 acres that he clearly managed the heck out of and yeah, he had some quality years back in the late 2000s into 2011 but for probably the last 7 or 8 straight years it didn’t seem like he had anything over 160 maybe 170 and yet Glesinger/Lakosky are killing 200” plus seemingly every year or every other year? I have a 270 ac farm in IL and even if I owned all the ground in every direction of me totaling a few thousand acres I wouldn’t expect having a 200” on my farm maybe once every 10-15 years at best? And that’s just having him on camera or seeing him much less killing him. Just mind blowing what these guys are pulling off.

I think genetics has the most to do with this. Look at how selective breeding is done in captivity. It's all about breeding animals that have characteristics of the specific genetic traits you're wanting to achieve. Obviously, you can get there much quicker in a captive environment and artificial insemination, etc. than you can in the wild, but it functions the same way.

Food, water, stress, space, terrain, etc. etc. have much less to do with it than the dominant genes being passed down from parent to child.

If you have one stud buck in the area, breeding a bunch of does, chances are, you're going to have more stud bucks in the general area over the next few years. If you have a doe with awesome genetics throwing stud bucks every year or every other year, you're going to have more stud bucks in the general area over the next few years.

Rarely will a scrub buck and inferior doe mate and throw out a stud buck. No matter if that buck lives to be 8.5 and lives a life of complete luxury.

Starting out with quality genetics in your properties gene pool is the quickest way to get there. Luring in and keeping deer with quality genetics is the second quickest way to get there.

If there are no quality genetics on or anywhere around your property, the chances of you getting a 200" deer on your property, no matter how well you manage it, is basically zero.

Many things can eliminate quality genetics out of a local gene pool, relatively quickly. Once they're gone, it's basically a waiting game again for quality genetics to wonder in, stay and breed again.

The caveat is: Long term poor conditions can also make quality genetics go dormant, relatively quickly.
 

SB3

Active Member
I think genetics has the most to do with this. Look at how selective breeding is done in captivity. It's all about breeding animals that have characteristics of the specific genetic traits you're wanting to achieve. Obviously, you can get there much quicker in a captive environment and artificial insemination, etc. than you can in the wild, but it functions the same way.

Food, water, stress, space, terrain, etc. etc. have much less to do with it than the dominant genes being passed down from parent to child.

If you have one stud buck in the area, breeding a bunch of does, chances are, you're going to have more stud bucks in the general area over the next few years. If you have a doe with awesome genetics throwing stud bucks every year or every other year, you're going to have more stud bucks in the general area over the next few years.

Rarely will a scrub buck and inferior doe mate and throw out a stud buck. No matter if that buck lives to be 8.5 and lives a life of complete luxury.

Starting out with quality genetics in your properties gene pool is the quickest way to get there. Luring in and keeping deer with quality genetics is the second quickest way to get there.

If there are no quality genetics on or anywhere around your property, the chances of you getting a 200" deer on your property, no matter how well you manage it, is basically zero.

Many things can eliminate quality genetics out of a local gene pool, relatively quickly. Once they're gone, it's basically a waiting game again for quality genetics to wonder in, stay and breed again.

The caveat is: Long term poor conditions can also make quality genetics go dormant, relatively quickly.


Agree with this statement but here's where you loose me. So the Lakoskys and Drurys perfect what you outline and more but they are to blame for doing it?
IMO there are a bunch of TV dirtbags out there, Lakosky and Drury's aren't in that category.

Jbohn's post #95 sums up my perspective as well
 

Obsessed

Well-Known Member
Agree with this statement but here's where you loose me. So the Lakoskys and Drurys perfect what you outline and more but they are to blame for doing it?
IMO there are a bunch of TV dirtbags out there, Lakosky and Drury's aren't in that category.

Jbohn's post #95 sums up my perspective as well

I'm weighing the pros and the cons.

Pros: Lakoskys and Drurys, etc. harvest BIG BUCKS on video, and profit off of it.

Cons: Lakoskys and Drurys, etc. lock down thousands of acres to harvest BIG BUCKS on video.
Others follow suit in an attempt to replicate.
Non-farmable land prices skyrocket.
Farmers no longer provide free land access to hunters.
Pay-to-Play is now the name of the game in Iowa deer hunting.
99.99% of hunters have much less free access land available to hunt.
Veteran, new and prospective hunnters lose interest and stop hunting in our state, as a result.
Deer hunting in Iowa becomes an elitest sport for the few.

Possible Cons:
Hunting license and tag purchases decrease.
DNR revenue decreases.
Deer numbers skyrocket.
Disease becomes more prevelant.
More crops are damaged.
Automobile accidents increase.

Want to grow freakishly BIG BUCKS? Fence in a few acres and start a selective breeding program.

Want to support your fellow hunter, don't do what the Lakoskys and Drurys do, and don't buy their products.
 
Top Bottom