You ain’t right man. Funny!…but you ain’t right. Bwahahaaha!!!!

1) what is “paper company” land?
2) why would any landowner of any kind have different restrictions when it comes to T&E species?
3) there’s restrictions for sure, and it has been a complicated road to get where it is today, but it’s manageable.

They can cut the trees provided the paper company is not receiving any federal or state money to assist with the management of the trees/property. A lot of companies though, took the fast federal easy money 15 years before the trees reached maturity now they cannot cut those trees if the cutting activities could harm the endangered specie. In most cases, all they have to do is submit a cutting plan that shows the activities will not harm the specie which is usually drawn up by an approved environmental scientist. It cost the company about $500 to $1000 and 30 days of approval time. This has been done a lot with other endangered critters.

Im not really a fan of public land that is not actually open to the public. The SOAs are nice but we need to focus on opening up more more open permit public land.

Everything in green is already a WMA. My old lease began at that eastern edge of the green area. My personal property is right there where that new addition(eastmost of the green in the center) is.
It’ll be all public just like the rest. They don’t open gates or allow anything motorized behind them. Since everything is downhill behind most of those gates most folks don’t venture too far from the roads.

As much as I hate to say it, that property needs about 3000% more enforcement that it got last year. I saw several guys with rifles(it’s shotgun or ML only), folks opening gates and driving on in, etc.
the only time I did see a game warden was when I rode my SxS up to the kiosk to grab some paper maps. I’d just replaced the belt and needed to miles on it. He crawled my a$$ about having it on the public dirt road because “they aren’t allowed”. I told him “Dude, that’s how half the folks in the surrounding communities visit each other since the roads can’t be trusted to be passable by car.”
With the new acquisition on our east, we’ll be breaking the rules just to drive out to visit friends a couple miles away or going for a leisurely evening ride.

Also paper companies have to abide by the SFI/ substainable forest initiative which says you have manage your forest in a certain way an abide by guidelines or you cannot sell your trees. This pertains to what skinny’s says above . Every piece wood you buy at Lowe’s Home Depot etc. has a sticker on end of it saying that piece of wood came from a SFI certified forest or they couldn t sell it . The company i work for has auditors come inspect logging jobs every year an get their stamp of approval to keep the land in the SFI .

Gotcha, thanks for the info

Old IP Land

Abolt- BS....Public land should be public.

One could actually make the argument that private land in the area would get better as deer concentrate on private land that is less pressured. Either way. Public land should be public

I really hate it for these guys losing their land,I know a lot of the guys in these two clubs and they have put a lot of money and work into their places for many years,it’s probably gonna kill a couple of the older guys in one club,they go meet up there at the camp every single day and hang out and have probably had the place for 30-40 years.The only positive is I can be hunting in 5 minutes when I leave work if they open it to public hunting.

You ever owned private land around public land? The hunting never improves when private land becomes public. Why, because if it is fully open to the public, it gets over hunted, over harvested and under enforced, which effects all the surrounding properties. It just dont work the way youre describing above, mostly because "the public", who is hunting for free, has no vested interest in the wildlife and they take take take without any restraint or management, if not heavily regulated. "The Public" also always seems to have a real hard time seeing the purple or yellow paint on the trees and with reading maps and those signs on the trees on the privately owned land that say Posted No Tresspassing. Mdees, sorry youre in that situation bud. Sucks for you and the other clubs and landowners around yall.

More public is always good for carbon..more spikes makes me happy…i got no monies for vestments and intrests..im po..but ill whoop a spike down in a minute on some public land..yall lookout

Don't say that too loud. Ole chucky will slap some antler strikshins on there.

[/quote]

You ever owned private land around public land? The hunting never improves when private land becomes public. Why, because if it is fully open to the public, it gets over hunted, over harvested and under enforced, which effects all the surrounding properties. It just dont work the way youre describing above, mostly because "the public", who is hunting for free, has no vested interest in the wildlife and they take take take without any restraint or management, if not heavily regulated. "The Public" also always seems to have a real hard time seeing the purple or yellow paint on the trees and with reading maps and those signs on the trees on the privately owned land that say Posted No Tresspassing. Mdees, sorry youre in that situation bud. Sucks for you and the other clubs and landowners around yall.
[/quote]

I support more public hunting opportunities for all....I do not know what to say to someone who had a bunch of land around them all of a sudden become public....The positive is that the new public property would be open to them as well. Depends on if you view it as a glass half full or glass half empty.

Public land should be public. SOA's are not public land

I do not support trespassing. Anyone who trespasses should be prosecuted. Not sure what to say about that facet of the situation. That does lend itself to more trespassers. But no reason to withhold public access to other responsible hunters because others might trespass.

You ever owned private land around public land? The hunting never improves when private land becomes public. Why, because if it is fully open to the public, it gets over hunted, over harvested and under enforced, which effects all the surrounding properties. It just dont work the way youre describing above, mostly because "the public", who is hunting for free, has no vested interest in the wildlife and they take take take without any restraint or management, if not heavily regulated. "The Public" also always seems to have a real hard time seeing the purple or yellow paint on the trees and with reading maps and those signs on the trees on the privately owned land that say Posted No Tresspassing. Mdees, sorry youre in that situation bud. Sucks for you and the other clubs and landowners around yall.
[/quote]

I support more public hunting opportunities for all....I do not know what to say to someone who had a bunch of land around them all of a sudden become public....The positive is that the new public property would be open to them as well. Depends on if you view it as a glass half full or glass half empty.

Public land should be public. SOA's are not public land

I do not support trespassing. Anyone who trespasses should be prosecuted. Not sure what to say about that facet of the situation. That does lend itself to more trespassers. But no reason to withhold public access to other responsible hunters because others might trespass.[/quote]

Sounds great unless youre the guys or one of the groups that had been leasing, improving, managing and hunting that 23,000 acres for the past 30-40 yrs. It sounds great in theory but if the public hunting was that good, they wouldnt have been spending the money and time to lease the land and manage their wildlife. Why did they do it, instead of just hunting the already existing WMA just down the road, which is already over hunted and under enforced? They spent the money and time to have better, safer hunting opportunities, with controlled pressure and access, and a managed herd. How would you feel if you were that guy? I agree we need more public land for hunting, but at the same time, most of the public land hunting in alabama, that is not highly regulated from a number of hunters, number of hunt days, and harvest methods and size restrictions, is over-hunted, over-shot, and detrimental to the recreational value of all the adjoining properties around it. I dont know what the answer is but "public" cannot be completely public use and open all season or there wont be any game left to hunt on the public land or the surrounding privately owned properties. As far as trespassing goes, there are not enough game wardens in the state to enforce anything with regard to regulations or laws. Mdees said they were hunting the existing WMA with rifles last year and it's supposed to be shotgun only. Once again, no enforcement. Unless you fully control access, it just turns into a free for all. Portland Landing is a prime example. The hunting is still really good there because of the limited number of hunts and harvest restrictions on it. If it was open to the general public, all season long, with just basic alabama harvest regs, you probably wouldnt be able to find a deer on it in 3 yrs.

Shotgun with slug or muzzleloader actually. I hunt that WMA. I don't know about yall but I saw plenty of law enforcement out there last year. I did see a few unscrupulous folks out there. More than any other year, but that was expected since there were more eyes on it as it was it's first year being a WMA.
I also had a few folks that tried to come in and hunt an SOA that didn't know you had to draw for a hunt to actually be able to hunt. I've been shot at on a WMA, I've been cursed at for being in someone's "spot" on a WMA. I've had people walk in on me hunting. When I hunt a WMA, I more often than not, actually see deer. I usually tag out on public land in this state every year. Everyone cries when new land is picked up by the state to hunt, but I personally have benefitted from it. I'll never get in another hunting club again.

I support more public hunting opportunities for all....I do not know what to say to someone who had a bunch of land around them all of a sudden become public....The positive is that the new public property would be open to them as well. Depends on if you view it as a glass half full or glass half empty.

Public land should be public. SOA's are not public land

I do not support trespassing. Anyone who trespasses should be prosecuted. Not sure what to say about that facet of the situation. That does lend itself to more trespassers. But no reason to withhold public access to other responsible hunters because others might trespass.[/quote]

Sounds great unless youre the guys or one of the groups that had been leasing, improving, managing and hunting that 23,000 acres for the past 30-40 yrs. It sounds great in theory but if the public hunting was that good, they wouldnt have been spending the money and time to lease the land and manage their wildlife. Why did they do it, instead of just hunting the already existing WMA just down the road, which is already over hunted and under enforced? They spent the money and time to have better, safer hunting opportunities, with controlled pressure and access, and a managed herd. How would you feel if you were that guy? I agree we need more public land for hunting, but at the same time, most of the public land hunting in alabama, that is not highly regulated from a number of hunters, number of hunt days, and harvest methods and size restrictions, is over-hunted, over-shot, and detrimental to the recreational value of all the adjoining properties around it. I dont know what the answer is but "public" cannot be completely public use and open all season or there wont be any game left to hunt on the public land or the surrounding privately owned properties. As far as trespassing goes, there are not enough game wardens in the state to enforce anything with regard to regulations or laws. Mdees said they were hunting the existing WMA with rifles last year and it's supposed to be shotgun only. Once again, no enforcement. Unless you fully control access, it just turns into a free for all. Portland Landing is a prime example. The hunting is still really good there because of the limited number of hunts and harvest restrictions on it. If it was open to the general public, all season long, with just basic alabama harvest regs, you probably wouldnt be able to find a deer on it in 3 yrs.
[/quote]

You are not "wrong"....but we continue down the SOA road we are going to start looking alot like midwestern states. More and more public land will turn into SOA and you can draw a tag for it every 10 years. People think they want that until they look around and have nowhere to hunt on a year when they do not get drawn.

More public hunting opportunities are a good thing.

I do feel for the folks that put the time and resources into it, and I really don't know what to say about that. It is a bum deal, and there isn't really much that can be done. There's not a scenario where someone doesn't get screwed.

Maybe more enforcement on this new public land?

I keep rolling the scenario around in my head and I continue to fall back to "more hunting opportunities for more people" being the headliner that drives the best possible outcome. I guess I always lean toward favoring more aggregate hunting opportunities.

There will be a lot of game killed in some of those areas.

So will it be open this season or will it have to sit out for a while so all the wardens and biologists can have it to themselves for a few years?