Do y'all know what percentage of land in AL is owned by timber companies?

It makes more sense, but that's not going to happen. They aren't going to spend that money.

Yal are talking about and living in the lands of fairy tales, unicorns and pixie dust. This stuff aint happening on a state budget. Come back to earth.

Do y'all know what percentage of land in AL is owned by timber companies?

I've lived in south Alabama my whole life, and hunted the public land a good deal. I've traveled far and wide and hunted public lands (*state or federally owned).

I'm here to tell you that there is not a state out there that does LESS for the wildlife than Alabama. Our "public" lands are unimproved dumps in comparison to other states.
Just look over one state to our east if you are looking for an example of well managed state land. They manage FOR the wildlife.

You will never convince me that the state of Alabama is going to all of the sudden start putting money into places that have seen no improvement since they were purchased or established.

87% of Alabama is owned by non-industrial private landowners

I'll admit that that's higher than what I thought. I found that number but didn't see that it was labeled as "non-industrial".

I will agree with you on most of that, but maybe they should address that issue rather than levying restrictions hunter rights and access

Yea, I am sure some non-industrial is Trust properties and TIMO's

Certainly the state would not paint with a broad brush and reduce limit from 5 to 3 or whatever thinking it would be beneficial for the whole state. Seems like they painted with a broad brush with the doe harvest and you see what a cluster fXXX that turned into.

I hate not having good data - so I searched high and low for a better breakdown. Fortunately, the AFA provided just that.

Of the 23M acres of timberland
16% Forest Industry and Investment Firms
78% Private
3% National Forest
3% "other" public lands

These are better numbers, and defines that 16% much better. That would include the large owners like Weyerhaeuser and Westervelt, the small companies like Soterra, all Timos and REITS of any size. They are what most of the general public refers to as "timber companies", which is the term used on this site most frequently. It is still a much smaller percentage than what most assume.

Scotch would likely be the most abnormally large owner in the private sector, due to how the ownership is listed.

Farmers plowing wall to wall. Pffffft. SMDH.

"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.