If the hunting trip is in Texas, that's a pretty cheap figure. Unlike more normal parts of the United States, there is very little huntable land in TX. So the land owners can charge thousands to people even for hunting quail, turkeys, or deer. Then there are the big game ranches, where you pay sometimes in the tens of thousands to 'stalk' exotic African and Asian ungulates.
Texas is the 2nd biggest state with over a quarter million square miles. Does it really have very little huntable land? I find that mind boggling.
Yes, because it's full of people who loathe the idea of public/state/federal ownership of resources. I mean, it has a lot of park area in terms of raw hectares, but percentage wise, I think it's somewhere in the range of 5-10% of the land is accessible to the public, which puts it in the bottom 5 or 6 states in the country. Contrast that with Wisconsin (not exactly a beacon of socialism) where I grew up, which has I think has about 15-20% of its land in public ownership. Or Arizona, where I went to college, which I believe has about 40-50% public land. *Figures approximate because it's hard to find current data on it in a quick Google search.
The ironic thing is that a lot natural resource management money has traditionally come from hunting licenses and taxes, and with so little access to land to hunt, and SO MUCH MONEY required to do it consistently, numbers of next generation hunters have nose dived here, and the state is always wringing its hands over how to raise funds to manage all its parks, natural resources, etc.