But - yes - our area of the state has a higher percentage of big timberland owners with more acres of plantations.

However - back to my point about Choctaw County. A lot of counties in parts of the state would love to have what Choctaw has in terms of quality and quantity. And those counties probably have a landscape that would be perceived as more ideal wildlife habitat - especially concerning turkey habitat. But they don't have a fraction of the turkey population - why? I'm not saying I know those complicated answers. I'm just willing to bring some truth and logic to all the false statements made on this site about "who's to blame for declining populations".

You want your landowner, whoever it is, that you're leasing from to improve the "wildlife habitat" on your lease just for you because you lease the property? Buck up and pay for it. And don't tell me you already are because if that's the case either you're being screwed every year and just taking it, or you don't have a clue what it really costs (psst, 9 times out of 10 it's the latter). I'm a hunter just as big as the next guy, but just because you lease a piece of land doesn't give you the right to dictate the management on it. Your lease may be big money to you but by the time the landowner pays all the bills at the end of the year you're just a deckhand, not the captain of the ship.

As for the statistics, they're pretty solid. They're talking about the state as a whole, all 67 counties. You can't pick 1 of 67 and apply the statewide ratios. The butthurt from some of y'all over industrial land is pretty ridiculous. Keep raising cane over it. You'll find out just how quick those guys will pull their leases when they find a better alternative. I hope that doesn't happen. I want as much hunting opportunity as possible but there's ever increasing pressure on some of these guys not to lease land. Don't give them a reason to cave in. Bring solutions, not just problems. As somebody that's managed leases before, that goes a long way.

So somehow timber prices, controlled primarily by supply and demand pressures, are dictating management practices? That is simply a landowner making management decisions based on the current prices. Are food companies "dictating" management practices of farmers by paying high or low prices based on supply and demand? or are farmers simply responding to pricing by planting what they feel will generate the most profit? There are a million examples like this. Mills dictate nothing but what they will pay for wood.

My personal experience is that large timber producers manage their property in a more beneficial manner for wildlife than the average mom & pop landowner. They thin on a regular schedule vs waiting on the market to reach a certain price. They site prep chemically, burn & replant. They spray & fertilize the understory. The biggest disatvantage for the wildlife is that large tracts will be at the same age structure.

There are 2 types of timber tracts that almost always belong to an individual. Hill hardwoods and sweetgum thickets. The hill hardwoods are pretty but provide little food once acorns are gone. The sweetgum thickets are a result of not spraying & replanting.

When I see a tract managed for wildlife, the owner is also a hunter.

HaHa!
Like I said, some of them act like they own it!

BTW, you have never seem me say that timber companies should pay for anything. I did not start the thread, just posted in it. Keep planting those pines and telling them to plant the roads, log landings, etc to get your stem counts up. I am way more familiar with the logging aspect. They will come in on the 1st thinning and push all that trash out of the way to get in and open the roads and ramps out. But, pat yourself on the back for your good work.

But I would guess most all of that 31% of pine plantation is all leased out to hunters. Where not much of the other is so that 31% influences a lot of hunters. Also depends on the region of the state. In Fayette and Lamar counties it is prob 75% but at least you can lease it and hunt it. Some of the northern counties have much prettier woods but is privately owned so you can't hunt it and the pine plantation provides better habitat anyway.

I hunt Lamar & in my area more property is owned by individuals or family trusts. I lease from individuals & hunt family land. All the neighboring clubs are leasing from family trusts. All of the leased area are planted in pine. The rest is hunted by family or is an inpenatrable sweetgum thicket.

Is this the main criteria for habitat management or hunt-ability? I thought we were talking about habitat management.

x2

Just remember that foresters manage to the landowners objectives. And while some people say wildlife management is a core objective, they really mean is I want deer and turkey without cutting in on my ROI.

One thing is for certain. A good consultant would fix these problems.

I think you know my point already.....

BUT, let's just say you lease a 250 acre tract that is a 6-8 yr old plantation. It has one narrow access road that leads into the center and it is a 1/4 acre opening on the end of a ridge that is bare lime rock and clay......just like a good many places here in Clarke County.

What are the Habitat Management options for someone who leases the property. Not hunt.....what can they do to enhance that property for wildlife without impacting the landowner's percieved perception of pine production?

"Of the entire timberland acreage of the state, only 31% is managed as pine plantation"

So - this is the real concrete number we have - no confusion about private vs mill vs industrial timberland owner.

Breaking it down - Entire landbase of the state is roughly 33.5M. Timberland is roughly 23M of that area (or 70%). Plantations are 31% of that 23M - which would be roughly 7M acres statewide. This means that managed pine plantations account for roughly 20% of the states entire landbase.

Ok - we can do math. What was the point? I just wanted to get folks to think about how they answer certain questions concerning wildlife populations. Not to mention - we know that managed pine timberland can support the wildlife populations we care about. We hunt them and we harvest animals there on a regular basis. Also, a majority of this 20% was already managed as pine stands when deer and turkey populations were actually increasing. Some pine plantations are on there 2nd and 3rd generations (30-50 years) being managed the same way.

So how in 2015, when some wildlife populations are possibly in decline, can hunters make some of the statements they make. For example - "timber companies and pine plantations are the biggest reason the _______ population is declining"!! My all time favorite was earlier this year in the turkey forum, when the statement was made that "timber companies are the biggest turkey killers", and others agreed. We can see by logic, that statement and similar ones are simply flawed and not true.

The issue here lies within we are narrowing deer habitat down to 250 acres. Why should we do that? A deer's habitat extends well beyond 250 acres.

But, I'll play along...

If you lease from us, you can create food plots in those young pine plantations. You have to pay and offset the loss of timber production, but that option is readily available to our customers. That is more than I can say about most of our competitors.

There's not much. Because the leasee is leasing the rights to hunt. They aren't leasing any other rights or ability to dictate management decisions.

Also, there is a tipping point of return. Offer enough money to offset reduction in timber yield and Mangement costs and they may work something out with you. Everybody's got a price.

I think I am caught in the middle af some Foresters/Biologists that work with different companies that have opposing viewpoints.

I do not lease from Industrial Owners. So, it does not affect me eeither way. I believe in Capitalism and Landowner Rights. So, I will not argue their Right to Manage any way they want and charge as much as they want for their leases. I just will not lease from anyone/any company whose SOLE focus in stem count per acre. That is just me. I do not 'blame' them for anything. It is theirs.....do what they want!

I have leased from Soterra and been in a Club that had Soterra land leased. They were good to deal with and allowed Habitat Improvements within reason.

Others I personally know......not so good to deal with OR any leeway with roads, patches and openings.

Serious question......

Have you guys not seen the situations that I describe; narrow, over-grown roads that have pines planted right up to the edge of the tire ruts, small clearings/food plots that are actually old log landings and have all the topsoil pushed off of them, no firebreaks along property lines, narrow SMZ's that were picked through for all marketable timber, etc.

These type leases are usually a part of a game of 'Musical Leases' for hunters who are desparate for somewhere to hunt. But, they quickly realize that the lease is just not worth the price it costs. But, the owner/agent CAN get a premium price based solely on demand.....with no regards to Wildlife OR future logging operations. I can assure you, I am VERY familiar with logging. And, both of my stepsons work in the woods. The trees along the roadbeds and stunted pines in landings WILL be pushed down and wasted at the 1st timber harvest.

Yeah. I've seen piles of these. Are they best hunting tract? Absolutely not. But lease managers are paid to have somebody on leasing it whether it's a 5 year old pine plantation or a manicured preserve. I don't make claims on wildlife potential and anybody is free to judge that foe themselves prior to signing papers.

As for the logging, if it's merchantable is going on a truck.

Please don't think I'm being adversarial cause I see what your saying and don't disagree with you on all counts. But hunting leases/clubs can eat up an inordinate amount of time with sometimes minimal returns, and that's why sometimes customer service is not so great from lessors. It's not right but that's how it is sometimes.

I have seen them, sure. But if you want me to be very honest with you the lessee who had the land at age 0-5 years old is the one who did the harm. Either 1) the lessee dropped the lease when the timber was cut (because everyone knows deer can't survive in a clear cut) and never did any site maintenance or 2) the lessee assumed the timber would never grow back and as long as he could see over the pines or get his $10,000 atv down a road, he wasn't going to do any site maintenance.

I always encourage our lessee's to participate in our food plot program and establish additional food plots. (And it isn't because we are making any additional money. They only pay to offset timber revenue.)

There is an economy of scale here. Landowners can only do so much, the lessee has to take some initiative too if that is what he desires. You are never going to see many landowners on a tractor mowing foodplots or the sides of roads...not until the lessee is willing to pay a premium.

I think that education, planning and teamwork would go a LONG ways towards the betterment of the situation for all parties involved, including the Wildlife!

Not griping or whining! Just conversation and sharing ideas and perspectives.

And, you are right about some of the leaseholders. The lease jumpers don't help a thing! That is why I have never understood the leases going up incrementally per year for leases. I understand Market fluctuations. But, the fixed increases baffle me? I would think that it would be a benefit to the landowner/agent to have longterm relationships with leaseholders.

Most leases don't increase more than inflation unless they were under priced from the beginning. There is no getting around lease rate increases due to inflation.