Rebelman, I am very understanding that timber or timber investment companies are "for profit" and I don't mind the timber harvest. I'm am of the belief that with ownership of timberland, there stands an environmental responsibilty to take wildlife into consideration.

I believe that for X number of acres of timberland, there should be (allowed) X number of acres of open land for planting. I'm not saying this ratio should be way out of balance.

Promoting conservation and the hunting sports is a good thing. Westervelt, it seems, promotes conservation. IP did. I mean they're all for profit and NOTHING is wrong with that.

I know when I bushhog between rows of pines killing the gum trees that the timber company tried to kill in the first place or keeping roadsides from growing up in gum trees and planting these areas, I am helping the pines by eliminating competition and helping the sunlight and wind hit the ground which makes the roads dry out faster, etc...

I know I am a good steward of the timberland and the wildlife and I am an asset to the timber company!!!! Just don't take advantage of me or the wildlife.

As I said, you will see their attitude change in the future. It is the only way companies can justify rate increases.

Rebelman, I hear and like what you're saying. I hope you support mandatory QDM. Not "trophy" deer mgmt but QDM. Make the hunting clubs do the right thing for the deer herd.

Anyway, if the economy gets any worse, the food plot add-on charge may become negotiable or of course, just not lease the property.

OK... off my soap box!!

[quote=abolt300]One of my leases is with them. They do not charge for planting landing areas, powerlines, roadsides, skidder trails, abandoned roads etc. Only area that could be used for merchantable timber production.

They are charging us this year for all plots planted. We had 3 log landings we cleaned up and have planted for 3 years now that we were not paying for but this year the food plot agreement said all planted plots you pay $85/acre. It is not much more but we have 5 more plots we pay for and it adds up. At least they did not go up on the lease this year like last year but we are paying more to make it better but like someone said (and they say) they are in the timber business not recreational (hunting) business. What do we do but pay up and hunt until it gets too high to afford. We have too much invested in what we have to just let it go after 25+ years.

If you have leased from them for 25+ years along with everyone else, then they are in the recreational business. You are their customer. Hopefully they and other timber companies start thinking about their customers and wildlife, not only their pine trees. If the money they make off of leases doesnt matter, then why go up 10 cents an acre here, and a quarter an acre there? and if the thousands they make don't matter, what is $85 per acre to plant a food plot gonna do for them? Nobody can convince me they aren't making good money off hunting leases, just treat people FAIR. Most people in their right mind are not gonna ask for 15 or 20 percent to plant plots on, but 5 would be nice. Even 1 percent is a start with most leases I've seen from westervelt.

I leased from Rayonier for 15 years, the first 10 was fine, but when they started changing managment, it went to he^^ fast. They treated us like dirt and everyone else I know that leased from them. I gave up the lease and walked away. It actually started out as container corp, then to jefferson smurfit and then Rayonier. I could give you a list of stunts them clowns pulled on us. The absolute worst company out there to lease from! Rebelman, if your affiliated with them now, i wish you luck! You have your work cut out for you to win back peoples trust.

Rayonier is the WORST in the industry at managing hunting leases, in my opinion. They would do well to hire a wildlife biologist and authorize him/her to overhaul Rayonier's hunting lease program. The company earned its bad reputation through poor customer service, overinflated one-price-fits-all lease rates, junk fees and a toll free number to nowhere.

I've handled leases for several private landowners and have leased or been in clubs that lease for a long time. Rayonier had about 300 acres I leased for several years till they sold the property and I never had a bit of negative dealings with them. I think I was probably lucky that the forester our of Andalusia in charge of the leases in that area had plenty of common sense, liked to hunt and was a dang good guy. They had the charge per acre for plots at that time and he was VERY lenient on the estimate. It relates to the amount of value an acre of land could produce in timber growth per year for the company.
The economy is bad and most of the clubs I know are having a hard time getting enough members to pay their lease without pouring too many hunters per acre on the tracts. A LOT of property will not be leased this year. I have always changed $6.00 per acre plus the insurance. When the owners would say something about going up on the price, I would tell them that they need to handle the leases. I didn't have any of them that wanted to mess with them and I don't have any problem leasing the properties.

Nighthunter, so you just admitted in your post that your company allows "up to 1% of the total lease acreage" to be in foodplots. First of all 1% ain't squat if your trying to seriously improve habitat and the nutritional plane on a given piece of property. 1% of a 1500 acre lease is only 15 acres. Secondly, you can say what you want but I run with a bunch of wildlife biologists for a well respected timber company with a dedicated wildlife division and while they can recommend adding additional plots to a given lease, they have to get approval from the timber division and corporate to put them in. Sometimes the answer is yes, a lot of times it is no. These big companies arent stupid. They've got a great thing going, people like us are paying them good money to simply have access to their land. We help patrol it and keep the riff raff off thus lowering the chances of someone starting a fire, living on it, growing drugs, meth labs and a host of other things that would create a liability to the land owner. It gives them a solid revenue stream with virtually no cost associated with it that is outside their core business which is growing timber/mostly pine trees. Its not so much that they want the plots there to help the wildlife, they realize that in order to keep the hunters happy and keep increasing lease prices, they have to allow some plots. In most cases, it is pretty much kept to a minimum (1% as a general rule and very few even have a full 1% in plots). Make no mistake, in the corporate hierarchy, timber rules the roost and while they love the "free" money coming in from the leases, all decisions at the corporate level are made with the core business/timber production in mind. At least Rayonier will allow you to install plots as needed to be able to obtain your management goals. You have to pay for them but then again, plots take land out of timber production. I dont fully agree with Rayonier's charging for plots. In my opinion, Rayonier should allow 1% of the acreage to be in foodplots without charging. Then if you want to add more as a part of your management program then you can pay to do so. Note sure if they still do but Rayonier used allow open bidding on available leases rather than just setting a price/acre and sticking with it. If you knew how to play poker, you could get some pretty good deals on their property. Their lease rates in the areas I hunt have always been in line with the others or just a little lower. Not slamming Soterra, Westervelt or Rayonier. Just stating my experiences and personal opinion.

It may not be squat but you can ride with me any day you'd like and look at all the plots we have paid to clear that do not get planted. Just an expense we fronted and is not in production.

We are allowed 1% from RMS as well. 1% isn't much on a small piece of property, but it gets big in a hurry on larger tracts.

The 1% we are allowed does not include existing roads,powerline or gasline right of ways.

We have 4500 acres, and even with the large powerline and gasline right of ways going through our property, I can assure you that we don't plant anywhere near 45 acres of food plots.

I agree completely and it's a fact. Problem is the economy and lease turnover. One group wants big plots and have them planted year round, 5 years in, they drop the lease and the next group doesnt plant anything due to lack of funds, dont own a tractor or whatever. You're 100% correct, that land is growing weeds and sweetgums and out of timber production. Puts the company in a bad position from an asset utilization standpoint. Probably why Rayonier and some others have started charging. At some point, others will follow suit. Unfortunately, the decisions to do so will be made at corporate offices rather than by the biologists such as you and my buddies that know wildlife management and the leasing business inside and out. It's a tough problem to have and probably why most companies limit it to a max of 1%. That's all they are willing to take the risk on. Main point I was making was at the end of the day, it's not really about wildlife, "it's a corporate business decision based on shareholder return on investment." If they can help the wildlife as a side benefit to growing their timber, without too much cost or lost timber revenue, then great. Most of these big corporations will be responsible 98% of the time. They will advertise that they are responsible stewards of the land and giving back to the community by providing access. I applaude all these companies for leasing to people like you and me. They dont have to do it. I view the ability to lease property as a privilege and ideally it would be structured as a mutually beneficial longterm partnership between the landowner and the leaseholder. Thats the way I've always tried to operate. Because of that, I didnt want everyone jumping on the bandwagon of slamming Rayonier, Westervelt or your company. Companies have to make money to stay in business. The more they make the more successful they are. The more successful, the longer they stay in business. Longer they are in business, the longer we will all be able to lease their property for recreational use.

You got it

And we do allow clubs to have more than 1% as long as they do the clearing and keep it planted. Do they have 5%, no.... 3% yeah...

The timber company (C. A. Barge), that runs the new lease I'm in, appears to be a great organization. Here is a link to the Christian retreat they run.

Lake Forest Ranch

In my opinion, 1% isn't much because I try to do the most I can for the wildlife on my properties, native vegetation in addition to plots. 3% is a pretty darn good chunk on a decent acreage lease and probably more than most clubs can afford to properly plant. 10% is ideal and what everyone strives for but unless you have help from row croppers/big ag or unlimited funds and private land, it rarely happens. By the way, I have heard nothing but decent things about your company.

I just joined a club this year that is leased from Rayonier and yes they charge as well I'm told but being a new member I'm just glad that I'm getting to hunt and that it's an awesome place that isn't but just right up the road from my home. Maybe next year I'll complain, lol! just joking....

The 10 percent don't have to be food plots! 9% could be pines that are thinned and burned in rotation. Really and truly, just taking care of them way that's best for habitat and the trees themselves. The burning, "most" clubs or members would do that. They could get even more free things done by the paying customers that benefits them!

All I know is, you guys better not wear your Bama stuff around any of those leases. I hear the new guy is a real Aubryn horses arse.

I agree a good burn and fertilizing natural veg is great. Westervelt is one of the few companies that does burn on a regular basis. Rayonier does not that I am aware of. Good idea but unfortunately, timber companies arent about to let any of us start doing control burns for them. That's why fires are specifically prohibited in every lease document. You wanna talk about liability?????? Not ever gonna happen.

Just an idea. It's obvious we will have to do it without harming the endangered pine tree.