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.