For the rich, gradually being turned that way, yes, I think so.
As Art pointed out, they had a lease for some time before some well-to-doers from Houston pooled their money and drove out the previous hunter(s).
I have seen it go that way from fishing private ponds as well, 30 years ago, all I had to do was, knock on a door and get to hunt or fish. Now some of those same ponds are secured by fishing clubs. Part of it does have to do with the decline in sheer respect that others have for someone's land. I've read the quads tearing up land, beer bottles and refuse in general. I too have witnessed the same type of behavior. Now I'm sure these same people like/love to hunt or fish, but their disregard for another person's property leaves that bitter taste in the mouth of the landowner. So, that landowner decides he would rather lease his property for an income and know who to "boot" from the land if the land is abused.
As for the extra income to repair fences and the like. I don't know if I can buy into that reasoning, because as a private landowner, I do not depend on others to help me with the cost of my own land. I feel that it is done as income in general, not maintenance income. But with it being their land, they are free to do with it as they see fit. Do I let other hunters hunt on our land? You dang right. But, there are requirements of mine that must be met. I want it to be a young hunter who has not gotten to hunt, or the adult that is just getting started. I think it is a wonderful thing for the fellowship and camaraderie to get to hunt together and see someone harvest their first turkey or deer. Now, with that said, I generally don't let these same individuals hunt after they have taken game because I want to extend that opportunity to another person such as them next year. Have I ever charged for a hunter? Nope.
It has become more and more everyday, a market that is driven by the "hunting" channels and the marketing wiles of the add-ons from the scent killers to the newest camo pattern, to the newest camera, so on and so forth. And with this marketing, it has made it more difficult to obtain good hunting land for many people. The good/bad of this is, it helps bring more people to the sport, but, it helps bring more people to the sport.
Some of it is the "trophy" idea. I know of some guys that go hunt fenced game to get 160" or better white tail, or 340" or better elk. They want those "horns" on the wall. This is not hunting. Then you have the "guided" hunts that cost from $1,800 to $2,500 fair chase, but beware, that if you happen to get lucky while hunting and get that big bruiser, some of these, (most), charge a trophy fee of so much an inch above 140-150. Now, we are really getting geared towards the rich in that aspect!! Come hunt, and if you happen to see ole' big boy, you can take him, for a "nominal" fee. This fee can extend up to an extra $8,000 on top of the initial fees!!! I don't think there are too many average income people that can afford to pay that.
I think it is a great thing when someone such as KraigWy helps out others. That is the sportsman. Cleaned, loaded their deer and gave away his own deer. And I assume, so forgive me, but I feel pretty good assuming so, he did that out of kindness, not looking for accolades.
And I do understand the legal concerns for landowners. Hate to say it, but, it has become a "sue happy" society and there are a great many people out there that look for a free dollar.
Just my thoughts...