HLRBO Debuts Mobile App to Give Hunters Nationwide Access to Hunting Land at Their Fingertips
With thousands of properties across the U.S. and Canada, the app connects hunters directly with landowners-cutting out the middleman and keeping costs low.
Minneapolis and Brainerd, Minnesota--(Newsfile Corp. - June 14, 2025) - HLRBO (Hunting Land Rentals By Owner), the platform for seamless land leasing and a fast-growing leader in providing hunting land leases nationwide, has announced the availability of a new mobile app in both iOS and Android versions, Both can be downloaded starting today in the respective mobile app stores. The app is also available in the Mac App store, for Macs with an M1 chip or later running macOS 12.0 or later.
HLRBO Debuts Mobile App to Give Hunters Nationwide Access to Hunting Land at Their Fingertips
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/8814/255599_a273f077c48bbb3c_002full.jpg
The app, named simply HLRBO (https://www.hlrbo.com/app), allows hunters to lease private land after connecting with trusted landowners, and to get exclusive alerts for their next hunt. For landowners looking to lease to verified hunters, HLRBO provides a seamless and secure experience.
Benefits for Landowners and Hunters
It's never been easier for landowners to lease their property to responsible hunters. Listings are free, and there are no fees or commissions. Hunters contact landowners directly.
The app offers many benefits for hunters, letting them:
Explore thousands of private hunting properties nationwide
Get real-time land availability alerts
Contact verified landowners and secure leases with confidence
Manage their leased properties all in one place
Hunters can access HLRBO subscriptions within the app, just as they can on the HLRBO website (https://www.hlrbo.com/subscriptions/create).
Key features provided within the app include:
Terrain Maps - to help hunters get the lay of the land.
In-App Messaging - to quickly access messages between hunters and landowners.
Saved Searches - so hunters can be the first to know when new leases get listed.
HLRBO Verifies Hunters on Its Platform
HLRBO offers a background check as part of its "Hunter Verification Process." Landowners can now have the peace of mind of knowing they are leasing their properties to responsible hunters. Verification is quick and easy, requiring just a few simple steps. HLRBO'S streamlined system ensures that access to premium hunting grounds is both swift and secure.
"Hunting leases through HLRBO offer unmatched access, flexibility, and convenience," said Heath Schubert, CEO. "The platform makes it easy to browse, compare, and secure leases entirely online, with detailed maps, property features, and hunting availability at your fingertips. Whether you're searching for a weekend turkey spot or a full-season deer lease, we provide a streamlined, hassle-free experience tailored to every hunter's needs."
About HLRBO
HLRBO (Hunting Land Rentals By Owner) has rapidly grown into one of the largest online platforms for hunting leases, offering hunters access to millions of acres of private and public land across North America. With an easy-to-use interface, hunters can browse, contact landowners, and secure leases all from one place. Features such as "E-Scouting" and "Hunting History" reaffirm HLRBO's commitment to helping hunters find the perfect property, plan their hunt, and share their experiences with the broader hunting community. Now, with its mobile apps, technology meets tradition with data, digital contracts, and more to help hunters lease smarter. For further information, please visit: https://HLRBO.com/.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
25 minutes ago
- National Post
TomaGold Set to Launch Strategic Drilling Campaign on its Chibougamau Projects
Article content Planned 53-hole exploration drilling campaign targeting mainly the Berrigan, Radar, David, Dufault and Obalski properties Article content MONTREAL — TOMAGOLD CORPORATION (TSXV: LOT) (' TomaGold ' or the ' Company ') is pleased to announce the upcoming launch of its 2025 drilling campaign, which will focus primarily on the properties currently under option from SOQUEM and Chibougamau Independent Mines in the Chibougamau Mining Camp, as well as its wholly-owned Obalski Project (the ' Chibougamau Projects '). Article content David Grondin, CEO of TomaGold stated: Article content 'The Chibougamau Mining Camp has recently attracted significant exploration activity, underscoring the region's increasing potential for gold and copper discoveries. Since the beginning of the year, we have compiled project data, advanced preliminary work, identified high-priority targets, and prepared our properties to be drill-ready. Our 53-hole exploration program will focus on our key projects—Berrigan, Radar, David, Dufault, and Obalski—with the objective of uncovering new gold-copper mineralization on well-defined, strategically selected targets. We are eager to commence drilling and build on the momentum in this highly prospective region.' Article content Drill and Work Permits Secured Article content TomaGold has obtained all the necessary drilling and work permits, including the ATI ('Autorisation de Travaux à Impact') and forestry permits, to begin exploration activities across its Chibougamau Projects. Article content Drill Pad Setup and Mobilization Status Article content All access trails to the drill sites have been cleared and secured, and the drill setups are ready for immediate mobilization. A total of 53 drill targets have been identified and are fully permitted. While preparing the sites during the winter, the team also conducted limited and selective surface sampling in select areas. Analytical results from this sampling are currently pending. Article content Geophysical Survey Work on Obalski Article content A downhole resistivity/induced polarization (IP) logging survey was conducted in hole OBS-17-002, which intersected the newly interpreted NE-SW Zone on the Obalski Project. The objective was to determine the in-situ physical properties of this high-grade copper-gold zone to define the most effective geophysical method for the upcoming drilling campaign. The resistivity and chargeability contrasts measured between the host rocks and the NE-SW Zone are up to 10,000 times more conductive and 10 times more chargeable, respectively. To confirm these results, the geophysical properties of hole OBS-23-032 were also measured. This hole was interpreted to have intersected the same NE-SW Zone some 65 m further south. The results again confirmed similar conductive and chargeable contrasts of 25,000x and 10x, respectively. These very high contrasts suggest that electromagnetic (EM) and induced polarization (IP) methods could be successfully applied in this geological context of the Obalski project and possibly the Chibougamau Camp. Article content 3D Modelling and Structural Reinterpretation Article content TomaGold has completed approximately 95% of the geological reinterpretation and 3D modeling of the Obalski project. The updated model incorporates historical and recent data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of structural controls and mineralization trends. Final conclusions and visuals from the model will be presented shortly. Article content The Company has initiated a similar modelling and reinterpretation process across its other projects, leveraging the structural insights gained from the Obalski project reinterpretation. Article content TomaGold has outlined a series of geophysical surveys to be conducted across its Chibougamau Projects in 2025, pending crew availability and seasonal access. These surveys are designed to refine drill targeting and enhance geological modelling across key assets. Article content Summary of Planned Geophysical Work by Project: Article content Project Planned Geophysical Survey Obalski (100% TomaGold) IP survey along the D vein, covering the Wilson and South zones Radar (Under option from SOQUEM) Airborne magnetic survey (50 m line spacing), ground IP surveys on new targets, possible 3D ambient tomography David (Under option from SOQUEM) Downhole IP in historical and recent drill holes, pending casing verification Dufault (Under option from SOQUEM) NW–SE IP survey over the 055° vein corridor; NE–SW IP over the Bourbeau Sill outlet zone Berrigan (Under option from Chibougamau Independent Mines) 2D and 3D modelling under way; geophysical surveys anticipated in subsequent phases Article content These surveys will complement the current structural reinterpretation work and support future drilling campaigns across the portfolio. Article content The technical content of this press release has been reviewed and approved by Jean Lafleur, the Company's Vice President of Exploration and a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101. Article content About TomaGold Article content TomaGold Corporation (TSXV: LOT) is a Canadian mineral exploration company engaged in the acquisition, assessment, exploration and development of gold, copper, rare earth elements and lithium projects. Its primary goal is to consolidate the Chibougamau Mining Camp in northern Quebec. In addition to the agreements to acquire 13 properties in the camp, the Company holds interests in two gold properties in the vicinity of the camp: Obalski and Doda Lake. TomaGold also owns a 100% interest in a lithium property and in the Star Lake rare earth elements property, located in the James Bay region of Quebec, as well as a 24.5% interest in the Baird property, located near the Red Lake mining camp in Ontario through a joint venture with Evolution Mining Ltd. and New Gold Inc. Article content Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information Article content This news release includes certain statements that may be deemed 'forward-looking statements'. All statements in this news release, other than statements of historical facts, that address events or developments that the Company expects to occur, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words 'expects', 'plans', 'anticipates', 'believes', 'intends', 'estimates', 'projects', 'potential' and similar expressions, or that events or conditions 'will', 'would', 'may', 'could' or 'should' occur. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include the potential results of exploration and drilling activities, market prices, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company's management on the date the statements are made. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management's beliefs, estimates, opinions, or other factors should change. Article content Article content Article content Article content Article content Contacts
Globe and Mail
28 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
2 Vanguard ETFs That Can Turn $300 per Month Into Over $1 Million
Investing a regular amount of money into the stock market each month can be an excellent way to grow your savings and build up a portfolio that's eventually worth $1 million or more. But it can be challenging to do, especially since you have to ensure you can continue to afford making monthly investments, and then picking which investments to make with that money. Amid volatile economic conditions, that's no easy task. You can, however, simplify the process by going with some solid exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that can diversify your portfolio and set you up for some great growth opportunities in the future. A couple of low-cost Vanguard ETFs to consider for this purpose include the Vanguard Growth Index Fund (NYSEMKT: VUG) and the Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund (NYSEMKT: VGT). Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Here's why investing $300 per month into either one of these ETFs could put you on track to generating a $1 million portfolio in the future. Vanguard Growth Index Fund The Vanguard Growth Index Fund is a great, growth-focused ETF you can add to your portfolio. It charges an expense ratio of only 0.04%, which means you don't have to worry about high fees chipping away at your gains. What's attractive about this fund is that it focuses on large-cap growth stocks. These are the types of investments that can drive long-run returns for your portfolio and make the most of your money. Stocks such as Tesla, Amazon, and Nvidia are all among its top-10 holdings. These are leaders within their respective industries, and their businesses are synonymous with growth. With more than 160 stocks in total, this is a well-diversified ETF to simply buy and hold. It also yields around 0.5%. Over the past decade, the ETF has achieved total returns (which include dividend payments) of approximately 327%. That averages out to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.6%. But for the sake of being conservative, let's assume that its returns will slow down given how hot the market has been in the past few years and how it's reaching record levels. If the ETF averages a return of about 10% for the very long haul (which is in line with the S&P 500 's long-term average), then a $300 per-month investment could grow to more than $1 million after a period of 34 years. This would require investing in the ETF every month during that time frame. But by doing so, you can put yourself on a path to producing some fantastic returns thanks to the effects of compounding. VUG Total Return Level data by YCharts. Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund As terrific of a growth investment as the Vanguard Growth Index Fund has been in recent years, it still falls well short of the gains the Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund has produced during that stretch. At 543%, its 10-year total returns average out to an annual gain of 20.5%. That's a mind-boggling return, and it highlights just how impressive the stocks within this ETF have been. There will be some overlap between this fund and the growth ETF, but the big difference is there is heavier exposure to big tech. Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple account for a combined 45% of the Vanguard Information Technology ETF's total holdings, but they make up just around 32% of the growth ETF. That difference can be substantial over time, especially given how well a massive stock like Nvidia has performed. In 10 years, its returns have been truly exceptional, totaling 28,000%. Given Nvidia's size today as one of the most valuable companies in the world, odds are its returns will be far more modest over the next decade. While they may still be great, it's probably a good idea to factor in a healthy dose of conservatism with this ETF as well given how much of a boost Nvidia has given it in the past. Even though the ETF is focused on tech and growth, averaging 20% annual returns likely isn't going to be sustainable over the very long haul. The expectation of a 10% return may also be prudent with this ETF to ensure your expectations aren't set too high for future gains. As with the growth ETF, if you invest $300 per month into this fund, you can also be on the path to a $1 million portfolio. If this ETF continues to outperform the market, however, then it may take less than 34 years to get to $1 million. But by staying the course and investing regularly into this or the growth ETF, you can be in a good position for building up a solid portfolio over the long haul. The Vanguard Information Technology ETF charges an expense ratio of 0.09%, and while that's a bit higher than the growth ETF's fees, they aren't going to drastically alter your prospects for generating potentially life-changing returns from regularly investing in this fund. Should you invest $1,000 in Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Growth ETF right now? Before you buy stock in Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Growth ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Growth ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. David Jagielski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla, and Vanguard Index Funds-Vanguard Growth ETF. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Globe and Mail
28 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
In the AI revolution, universities are up against the wall
Mark Kingwell is a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. His latest book is Question Authority: A Polemic About Trust in Five Meditations. It's convocation season. Bored graduates everywhere will be forced to listen to earnest speeches about how they should make their way in a world short on decent jobs. I've given a couple of those orations myself. Here's the one I won't be giving this year but would have if asked. Hey guys! You've probably heard that philosophers are in the habit of declaring their discipline dead. Thinkers are forever claiming that everyone before them had the wrong ideas about time, being, or knowledge. Great – it's a vibrant patricidal enterprise. But I'm here today to tell you that philosophy is dead for good this time. So is humanistic education in general, maybe academia itself. The murderous force isn't just anti-elitist, Trump-driven depredation. No, as Nietzsche said of the death of god, we have done the killing. Smartness destroys from the inside out: The AI revolution has signalled the demise of the university as we know it. After all, how do we teach undergraduates philosophy, history or anything else when it's now so easy to fake the whole process? Students still think it might be wrong, or maybe risky, to have an algorithm write their essays wholesale. But increasingly they don't see what's wrong with using programs to take notes, summarize readings and create or correct first drafts. Reading, meanwhile, is tedious and hard, and so the idea of assigning entire books – even novels – is sliding out of academic fashion. Average attentions spans have shrunk from several minutes to about 40 seconds. You won't counter that by putting Aquinas's Summa or Spinoza's Ethics on the syllabus. At the same time, these same students resent knowing that professors might use countervailing programs to grade their work. They also dislike the idea that somebody in authority might consider them cheaters. Indeed, some students now resort to surveillance-society mechanisms, once the bugbear of free citizens everywhere, to prove that they are not cheating, including YouTube videos of them composing their guaranteed-human-origin essays. So: programs for recording screen activity or documenting keystrokes are now being asked to view performative acts of being-watched. And programs for cheating on essays confront programs designed to catch cheaters but also programs designed to counter the need for human grading altogether. These countervailing programs produce and consume each other; they watch and are watched, cheat and are cheated, pursue grades and are duly graded. I'm not the first to notice that there is no further need for human middle men here. Students and professors alike are extraneous to the system. A techno-bureaucratic loop enfolds them, then snips them off as messy loose ends. We have created the ultimate state of frictionless exchange, a circulating economy of the already-thought, the banal, the pre-digested, where every Google search leads to a fabricated source that eventually bounces back to base. Peak efficiency, with net gains in eliminated boredom. Yay! So why resist assimilation? Recently I sat in a seminar organized by my colleagues to consider ways of testing students in class, as a foil to chatbot cheating. The proposed tests involved various small-scale fact-finding exercises, truncated arguments, and the logic-skills equivalent of a magazine puzzle page. One professor suggested that actual written essays should be reserved only for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students, if anyone. Fine, I suppose, but how would those upper-level students ever learn how to write in the first place, let alone write well? Forget AI essay cheating. Basic writing ability, always prone to deterioration, is now disappearing faster than map-reading skills and short-term memory. You can no longer assume that first-year students know how to compose even the most basic 'hamburger' essay (bun, lettuce, tomato, patty, bun). And still we believe – do we not? – that clear writing is the foundation of clear thought. Alas, that faith no longer seems so warranted. Writing seems more and more surplus to requirements. It can be off-loaded as a dreary chore, like so much dirty laundry sent out for cleaning. I recently wondered, not for the first time, if I had been labouring under a mistaken notion of philosophy, and teaching it, all along. If the subject can be distilled down to a roster of positions, specific argumentative moves and technical terms – which is how I believe some of my colleagues see it – then we can indeed dispense with sustained discursive engagement, and the clunky old-fashioned fraud-prone essay with it. But then, what would education be like? What would it be for? Good questions. Maybe the current proclaimed academic death-rattle is actually an opportunity to go back to first principles, inside the walls and out. In my discipline's case, the issue is not so much the end of philosophy, in other words, but the ends of philosophy. Like most teachers of the subject, I have long been conflicted about our mechanisms of assessment. Essays are a slog for everyone, even when they're legit products of individual minds. In-person final exams can control for essay cheating, most of the time, but they are a poor method of gauging the depth of philosophical insight. The old joke from Annie Hall makes the point: 'I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam,' it goes. 'I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.' Like many philosophy professors, I prefer discussion in seminars, close reading of textual passages, and face-to-face assessment over both essays and exams. I ask for short, ungraded weekly reflection papers that my students seem to enjoy writing and I certainly enjoy reading. But these small-bore tools are not scaleable for our vast budget-driven enrolments. And always, grades loom far larger than they should over the whole enterprise. Once you start questioning assessment, you slide very quickly into uncomfortable thoughts about the larger purpose of any teaching. The irony is doubled because asking 'What is the use of use?' is one of those typical philosophical moves. Updated version for the age of neo-liberal overproduction: What is the use of asking what is the use of use, when large language models can do it for you?' I admit I get impatient when, at this stage of things, people invoke some vague notion of distinctive humanness, a form of species-centric superiority. I mean those hand-wavy claims that there is something about what we humans do that is just, well, different from AI versions of things. Different and better. No AI could ever match the uniqueness of the human spirit! Well, maybe. But let's be serious: This line of argument is ideological special pleading. There are some 8.2 billion unique human souls on the planet. Yes, a minority break free of the sludge of mediocrity, and we celebrate them. We also cherish the experience of our own lives, however mundane. But we're now forced to realize that some, even many, sources of human pride can be practised as well, if not better, by non-human mechanisms. Art and poetry fall before the machines' totalizing recombinative invention. Even athletics, apparently deeply wedded to the human form, are being colonized by cyborg technology. You might think this is just griping from another worker whose sector is destined for obsolescence. True, neoliberal overproduction and dire job prospects have likely produced more philosophy teachers – and many more student essays – than the world needs. From this angle, AI's great academic replacement is just a market correction. It completes a decades-long self-inflicted irrelevance program, those thousands of punishing essays that nobody reads, the best ones published in journals that are, more and more, pay-as-you-go online boondoggles. I still think those abstruse debates are important, though, and you should too. We are at a transitional point that demands every tool of critical reflection, human or otherwise. Anxiety about the future of work and life is pitched high, for good reason. For now we are still mostly able to spot uncanny AI slop, bizarre search-engine confabulations, and bot-generated recommendations for books that have been invented by bots – presumably so that other bots can then not-read them, scrape the data for future reconstitution, and maybe submit unread book reports for academic credit somewhere. We can even, for the moment, recognize that non-bot government bans on actual books, and state-sponsored punishment of legacy liberal education, pose a threat to everyone's freedom. But I still think we are losing, in the current murk, something that only philosophy can provide. It's something that has always been posthuman in the dual sense of transcendent and transformative. I don't just mean a critical-thinking skill set, or body of facts, or even the basics of media literacy and fallacy-spotting – though these are essential tools for life. I mean, rather, the things that animate the hundreds of students who still come to our classes: the value of self-given meaning and purpose, the pleasure of being good at hard things for their sake alone, a consuming joy in the free play of imagination. A desire to flourish, and to bend the arc of history toward justice. I don't know if those things are exclusive to humans; I do know that they are threatened and in short supply among existing humans. The love of wisdom can't really be taught, for it is a turning of the soul toward the beautiful and good. You can't justify the value of that turning to someone who has not yet felt the necessary shift in value. That's the paradox of all philosophy, and of all philosophy teaching. There will be no exam after this lecture, graduates. The real test is no more, but also no less, than life itself. You are a speck of dust in an indifferent universe. Now make the most of it. Is AI dulling critical-thinking skills? As tech companies court students, educators weigh the risks Will AI go rogue? Noted researcher Yoshua Bengio launches venture to keep it safe Stopping the brain drain: U of T professor aims to launch 50 AI companies with new venture studio Axl AI adoption is upending the job market for entry-level workers In Imagination: A Manifesto, Ruha Benjamin argues that the Musks and Zuckerbergs of the world have usurped our ability to dream of better futures. But it doesn't have to be that way. She spoke with Machines Like Us about what could be done differently.
