Owning shares of a timber company versus owning a small tract

Trying to get the two paths straight in my head before I spend money on either.

Path one is public shares in a timber company or a fund that holds forestland. You can buy a hundred dollars of it today, sell it Tuesday, and you own a slice of millions of acres across several regions instead of one parcel with one fire risk and one nearby mill. Somebody else hires the foresters. The price moves with the stock market, which cuts against the whole low-correlation argument that makes the asset interesting.

Path two is a tract. Fifty or eighty acres, deed in your name, and you decide when to thin. You get the actual biological growth, the actual recreational use, and the return isn't marked by a market every morning. You also get property taxes, a management plan, boundary and access questions, and an exit that takes months and a broker who knows timber.

What I can't resolve is which one actually delivers the thing the asset class is sold for. If the reason to own trees is low correlation and inflation protection, does a listed vehicle give you that, or does it give you an equity that happens to own trees?

I have no deals and I'm not pretending otherwise. Curious where people who own one or the other come down.