Originally Posted By: CNC
Originally Posted By: 257wbymag
I'd say majority of our states hunters are on leased land where long term soil health and objectives are too far fetched. They need quicker results on an unknown time frame with limited time to get it accomplished.


I don’t really see anything farfetched about what I’m doing. I’ve fertilized/limed the natural vegetation in the spring…..broadcasted and mowed over a cereal grain mix in the fall. The farfetched approach to me is all the chit I was doing before. That was far more cumbersome of an approach to not accomplish anything more than what I am now. Actually I feel as though I'm accomplishing far more now because I have what is becoming extremely fertile soil....all with less effort than before.

It would be different if I was proposing something that would cost folks a much more significant investment than what they are already having to make….but for most folks it’s going to save them a significant amount…time especially. It just requires a different management approach and perspective on the situation.


I have no intention of getting in the middle of this schoolgirl squabble you and 257 have going, but my interpretation of his statement was that hunters on year to year leases may not reap the rewards of soil improvement. Having said this, I agree with 257 in this scenario. If you don't have several years of access guaranteed, traditional planting seems a better use of time. If you fully expect to renew your lease each year, throw and mow could yield good results, but the results will get better with time and there's no shortcut for that.

"When there was no fowl, we ate crawdad, when there was no crawdad, we ate sand."

"YOU ATE SAND!" - Raising Arizona