Slightly, though he is not as far as the Georgists on this point. Nonetheless one can easily dissolve this by making a proper separation of libertarian morality and legal theory. For what counts as ‘absentee’? I am sure Tucker would agree that simply walking out of your house does not make it grounds for squatters, or putting down your cup transforms it into an unowned good. I am also certain that Tucker would agree that if you own a hotel and rent a room out that it does not suddenly become the property of the renter just because you are not in the room with him. Very well, any capitalist would agree with this. Likewise, any capitalist will agree that such a thing as property abandonment does exist.
Where do we draw the line? The line comes from substantive law, which is a customary, consuetudinary and case law framed by specific arbitration norms. As any kind of extremely short or narrow terms of ownership, such as some leftist anarchists advocate, would simply fail to be recognized and accepted under any realistic customary legal system; which easily puts the Tuckerite back into the AnCap fold. And if some small group only recognize very short and narrow terms of ownership then that is their affair and need not concern outsiders. See my posts on this thread.