Our English ancestors lived under a concept called "Royal Forest" law. In England almost all of the land with wild game habitat was reserved for the king to hunt. He would license the right to hunt his lands to the wealthy aristocracy as a source of tax revenue. But the average English citizen had little to no ability to hunt for hundreds of years. It was illegal to kill deer in these forests or do anything that would harm the habitat the deer lived in.

LINK

Never take your right or ability to hunt for granted. We as Americans and Alabamians have access to hundreds of thousands of acres to freely hunt, no matter our income or status. It hasn't always been this way and there are millions of people within our own country who would love to take that right away from us. Vote and be politically active on this issue. Also be aware of how the casual non-hunter views us. They vote too. Be an ethical hunter and don't unnecessarily provoke them.

Have a great opening day!!

Probably 50% of people in hunting clubs experience the royal forest law.
Good post and good luck this weekend bud.

even though I enjoy hunting public land, I realize that if skylines 60,000 acres and other places were privatly owned hunting clubs would be alot cheaper and easier to find. In fact there would be more people letting you hunt for free. the deer density on public land don't seem that great anyways, compared to private. I guess you could replace the term "Royal Forest" with us gov. or state gov. land.

And England did away with most gun right. Enough said

I�m not 100% sure what you�re trying to say here. Right now you can hunt Skyline or any other public land for the cost of a WMA license which is $17. But you think if these lands were privately owned, hunting clubs would be cheaper and easier to find? Making these lands private does not increase the supply of hunting land. They can be hunted now. The two greatest economic factors that influence price are supply and demand. Public versus private ownership wouldn�t seem to change the demand. Since making them private wouldn�t change the supply or demand, it would seem to have a negligible effect on the price. However, you�re probably not going to find many clubs to join for the low price of $17 so public land seems like a pretty good deal.

I've got to disagree with you here. If all the public land became private leases, lease prices would go up IMO. Public land is helping to keep lease prices from getting even more outrageous. Imagine trying to sell peaches at a farmers market while the guy in the booth next to you is giving all his peaches away for free. Your peaches taste better, but his are at least decent tasting (and free). You will still be able to sell yours since they are the highest quality peaches, but having that guy next to you giving away free peaches is definitely limiting how much you can charge. Without public land, owners could double their lease prices because they would be the only option for hunting.

thats a good post. but what if I told you that you can only eat that peach on one day of the week of my choosing.

There's always piddling