Oklahoma land provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing. Whether you are a landowner or someone seeking permission to hunt or fish on another person's property, it is important to carefully consider several issues beforehand. In particular, the parties should clearly address the terms of their lease agreement and any potential liability concerns.
The Lease
Any agreement between parties should be in writing, and a hunting lease is no exception. Many people rely on “handshake deals” in lieu of a written lease, but agreements in writing are ultimately beneficial for both the landowner, the lessor, and the hunter, the tenant. A written agreement not only provides a clear record of the lessor and tenant rights and obligations in the event of a future dispute, but the process of negotiating and documenting the terms also helps establish mutual expectations from the beginning. A lease agreement can range from very simple to complex, but it should contain some minimum terms.
Party Names. The lease should identify both the landowner and the tenant. In addition, the lease should state whether the tenant is allowed to bring any guests with them onto the property. If guests are allowed, the lease should establish any restrictions, including the number of hunting or non-hunting guests permitted and advance notice or identification of those guests prior to entering the property. Special consideration should be given if any guests are minors. The lease may need to incorporate additional language limiting minors access on the property without an adult chaperone.
Property Description. The lease should identify the property or specific areas of a property that the lease covers. In some cases, the tenant may be authorized to use the entire property; however, a landowner may prefer to restrict access to designated portions of the land. Inserting a map for reference can be a great visual tool to specify the exact lease area. The map could indicate the perimeter and mark any structures or areas that are off limits.
Duration. The lease should state the duration of the lease, including start and end dates. Hunting lease duration can vary depending on each party’s intended use. It is common to see hunting leases that range from just the day to over multiple years. A one-year lease is among the most common. The legal doctrine Statute of Frauds states that agreements of at least one year must be in writing to be enforceable. Oklahoma law specifically states a that a written agreement for “leasing for a longer period than one year” is required.[1]
Use. Because hunting property often serves multiple purposes, the lease should clearly define the tenants’ rights as well as those retained by the landowner. While a landowner may grant hunting privileges, the property may continue to be used for agricultural operations, recreational activities, or other purposes by the landowner or third parties. Additionally, the lease should address matters such as the species that may be hunted, permitted hunting methods, and any restrictions on the tenant's use of the property. It should also specify any activities the landowner intends to continue conducting on the premises.
Payment Rates. The lease should also state the rate charged. This rate and its structure will depend on a multitude of factors including the duration of the lease, type and amount of wildlife, and location of the property.
In addition to these essential terms, the parties may wish to include a variety of other provisions tailored to their specific needs and circumstances. The complexity and scope of a hunting lease will depend on the nature of the property, the intended use, and the parties' objectives. For a more comprehensive discussion of hunting lease provisions, as well as a sample hunting lease agreement, consult the Rancher's Agricultural Leasing Handbook. The handbook includes a detailed checklist of lease terms and a sample hunting lease on pages 73 through 84 and is available at: https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/files/2016/08/Ranchers-Agricultural-Leasing-Handbook.pdf.
Landowner Liability
Landowners should consider whether they may become liable for any injuries that occur on their property during the lease. In Oklahoma, the law provides certain protection under both case law and in the form of various statutes. Still, a landowner may still consider having a liability waiver signed for additional protection.
State Case Law. Oklahoma courts have determined that provided that a property is not leased for residential use [2], the landlord does not know of any unsafe condition, and that the landlord has not made faulty repairs or improvements[3], a landlord generally has no duty to another party on the land.[4]
Public Recreational Use Statute[5]. Importantly, this statute does not apply to land that is used primarily for farming or ranching purposes. It provides that owners who allow recreational use of their property owe no duty to keep the land safe for visitors or to warn of hazardous conditions, and they are not deemed to guarantee the property's safety. These protections are subject to important exceptions, including circumstances involving certain fees, commercial activities, or willful or malicious conduct.
Limitation of Liability for Farming and Ranching Land Act[6]. Unlike the Public Recreation Statute, this Act applies to land that is primarily used for farming and ranching and covers recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, camping, hiking, boating, and other outdoor pursuits. In general, a landowner who allows recreational access does not owe a duty to keep the property safe for recreational users, inspect the premises for hazards, or warn visitors of dangerous conditions. The Act further provides that permitting recreational use does not constitute a warranty that the property is safe and does not make the owner responsible for injuries to recreational users or for damages caused by those users. However, the statute does not protect landowners from liability arising from willful or malicious conduct.
Agritourism Activities Liability Limitations Act[7]. This Act protects registered agritourism professionals who provide activities such as farm tours, harvest-your-own operations, educational programs, hayrides, and other rural recreational or educational experiences. Per the statute, participants assume inherent risks associated with agricultural settings, including natural land conditions, animals, equipment, and participant conduct. The liability protection is not absolute and does not apply in cases involving willful or wanton misconduct, known dangerous conditions that are not disclosed, or other statutory exceptions. To qualify for immunity, agritourism operators must prominently post and include in contracts the warning language prescribed by the Act.
Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act[8]. This act protects livestock activity sponsors, livestock professionals, and participants for injuries arising from the inherent risks of livestock activities. The Act applies to a broad range of activities involving cattle, horses, bison, sheep, goats, and other livestock, including riding, training, showing, racing, handling, and certain agritourism activities involving livestock. In general, sponsors and professionals acting in good faith and in accordance with industry standards, are not liable for injuries resulting from risks that are an inherent part of working with or around livestock, such as unpredictable animal behavior or other ordinary hazards of livestock activities. The law does not protect against liability for willful or wanton misconduct, intentional injuries, certain known dangerous conditions, or other specified exceptions.
Liability Waivers. Liability waivers are another tool that may be used to protect landowners. Courts generally narrowly enforce the validity of these waivers. In Oklahoma, the waiver must have clear and unambiguous intent, the parties may not have unbalanced bargaining power, and enforcement may not be against public policy[9]. Further, a liability waiver in Oklahoma does not release claims of gross negligence[10] and a parent may not release liability claims of a minor.[11]
More detailed information regarding landowner liability can again be found in Rancher's Agricultural Leasing Handbook available at: https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/files/2016/08/Ranchers-Agricultural-Leasing-Handbook.pdf.
In conclusion, a successful hunting or fishing lease requires more than simply obtaining permission to access another person's property. Both landowners and hunters benefit from clearly defining their rights, responsibilities, and expectations in a written agreement before any activity begins. While Oklahoma law provides landowners with significant liability protections through common law principles and various statutory liability-limitation acts, those protections are not absolute and often depend on compliance with specific statutory requirements. Careful lease drafting, a clear understanding of applicable liability protections, and the use of additional risk-management tools such as liability waivers can help reduce disputes and legal exposure while allowing both parties to enjoy the recreational and economic benefits that Oklahoma's outdoor resources have to offer.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. The information contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments and may not apply to your specific situation. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and any reader. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding any legal issue or factual circumstance.
[1] 15 O.S. § 136(4).
[2] See Miller v. David Grace, Inc., 212 P.3d 1223 (Okla. 2009).
[3] See Continental Oil Co. v. Ryan, 392 P.2d 492 (Okla. 1963), Buck v. Miller, 198 Okla. 617 (Okla. 1947).
[4] See Strader-Faiazi v. Edmond Fourth of July Festivals, 28 P.3d 1161 (Okla. 2001).
[5] 76 O.S. § 10.1
[6] 2 O.S. §§ 16-71.1 through 16-71.7
[7] 2 O.S. §§ 5-14 through 5-17
[8] 76 O.S. §§ 50.1 – 50.4
[9] Schmidt v. United States, 912 P.2d 871
[10] Schmidt, 912 P.2d at 874.
[11] Wethington v. Swainson, No. 5:2014cv00899 (W.D. Okla. 2015).