Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
A1. Trend: Wisconsin's forests are aging and forest succession is occurring.
Comment #: 1
While this statement may be true up north, it does not apply in the south central sand counties.
Comment #: 2
Forests are a crop - it needs to be managed.
Comment #: 3
It's a good trend.
Comment #: 4
No specific examples of how this trend impacts the economic and rec opportunities
Comment #: 5
What aging forest mean to wildlife and hunting should be included in the discussion
Comment #: 6
What's the problem? Let nature take its course!
Comment #: 7
Biodiversity must be a strong consideration.
Comment #: 8
My reaction to this survey is one of concern. How could the DNR be looking at information for a staewide foret plan when it hasn't finished the NHAL State Forest Master Plan it began in 1997? The guidance team and staff team for this survey has several people on it from the NHAL Master Plan team. Is the work done on the NHAL going to be disregarded or discredited? The last public meeting on the NHAL was in December of 1999, with promises for more meetings beginning in the spring of 2000. No meetings have occurred in over a year. I don not feel very positive about the abilities of the Wisconsin DNR to protect and imporve the natural resources of our state due to the poor management of the NHAL Master Plan.
Comment #: 9
seems "natural"
Comment #: 10
I feel we whould continue to manage for evenaged timber types.
Comment #: 11
This succession process is a natural progression
Comment #: 12
Forest should represent what was virgin to area before man's interaction
Comment #: 13
This is a natural happening but still should be addressed in a plan.
Comment #: 14
State-wide plan for State, Federal and County land only not private parcels.
Comment #: 15
This is a good trend.
Comment #: 16
Was this intended to say "Strongly disagree"?
Comment #: 17
This could be given attention in prcing trees and making forestry plans for each farm
Comment #: 18
long over due - the popple take over was the result of forest fires in the 30's. There should have been a program of reforestation of pine and spruce to assist in planting
Comment #: 19
Red oak generation should be given particular emphasis!
Comment #: 20
Change is part of life - understanding and planning for changes is essential!
Comment #: 21
A plan for all woodland both private and public? Or a state plan for publicly held forests? Private lands should be given advice/guidance but not regulated!
Comment #: 22
Specially for wildlife support - also value of harvested products are reduced
Comment #: 23
Early forests (1940-70's) were the result of man (old growth carnage and man-made fires)
Comment #: 24
plant "oak"
Comment #: 25
I encourage more and older forests
Comment #: 26
Looks like a Democratic ballot! (From Florida!!) Should be Strongly Disagree on all responses.
Comment #: 27
I spent the last hour reading and trying to answer your survey but I am getting more disgruntled as I go on.
Comment #: 28
Too much loggine done.
Comment #: 29
And it is just by being in the survey.
Comment #: 30
A way must be found to maintain the oak-hickory
Comment #: 31
I assume you erred in having "Strongly agree" twice in all your questions.
Comment #: 32
Disagree for all.
Comment #: 33
I agree with The Natural Succession but don't agree on "Aging" We have a lot of immature forests
Comment #: 34
Birch and aspen should be maintained on habitat sites that promote good growth and quality timber. Instead, or pushing northern hardwood regeneration on marginal sites!
Comment #: 35
Great survey - how come each answer has 2 "Strongly agree"
Comment #: 36
I strongly agree that our now maturing forests now need protecting not harvesting again (as in early 1900's) so this should be an important part of plan
Comment #: 37
Won't this error negate your survey?
Comment #: 38
Why is "strongly agree" on both ends of the spectrum - misprint?
Comment #: 39
Strongly disagree?
Comment #: 40
Who wrote this sentence? Syntax??
Comment #: 41
4
Comment #: 42
While biodiversity w/ mixed aged classes of forests are healthy - do not overlook managing for healthy old growth forests.
Comment #: 43
Encourage the egrwoth of older forests. Use pre-European settlement times as your reference point - it's the best benchmark we have.
Comment #: 44
I think we would have a lot more birch-aspen forests if the birch wouldn't get diseased. So let find some way to fight some of these tree diseases and I know for birch we would have a lot new growth.
Comment #: 45
Basswood had some limited economic value in the past. Does anyone but a few wood carvers use it now?
Comment #: 46
Maybe it's a longterm natural phenomon?
Comment #: 47
Virgin timber was older when cut than what we are cutting now. Plantings in the 1900's doesn't make an old forest in all cases.
Comment #: 48
4
Comment #: 49
You need to realize that prior to 1900, the state was essentially cutover. Thus, of course the forsts are "re-developing".
Comment #: 50
This issue should consider the statement on page 6 of the assessment (summary version Nov 2000) "Aspen-birch forest area. . .is still much more common than at the beginning of the cutovers"
Comment #: 51
Not that familiar with northern hardwood type, but my experience indicates much aspen birch statewide which along with box Elder is predominant on CRP acres.
Comment #: 52
I am more concerned about wildlife impacts than economic and recreational opps.
Comment #: 53
I feel that small parcel owners particularly in southern WI should be incouraged to plant hardwood species rather than pines (softwoods), as these small parcels are rarely harvested for pulp wood. The oak, walnut, hickory, etc., woods are also more valuable economically and environmentally (food source).
Comment #: 54
All the Maple and Basswood died in my wood land, just as did the abundance of Elm.
Comment #: 55
We need to ensure that oak forests are allowed to regenerate. (This is more difficult because of urban sprawl.)
Comment #: 56
Acknowledge such a trend - even continue to monitor - but I see no point in attempting to change or reverse. This trend is closely tied to ownership - not easy to influence.
Comment #: 57
A significant portion, especially in areas condusive to recreation, should be preserved as "old growth."
Comment #: 58
I think this trend is good. We need more balance. There are too many acres in aspen. We need to start thinking about (+ doing) more un-even age management. Tourism and biodiversity will benifet.
Comment #: 59
These questions are poorly worded. You have shown they are trends/issues, therefore they should be addressed. The question should be "How important is this trend/issue to you?" Very important, Important, Not sure, Not important) OR this could have been a Yes/No question followed by the top 10 yes's at the back.
Comment #: 60
Good work. Is it post-consumer? We should let most forests develop naturally. Some can be managed for timber harvest.
Comment #: 61
This trend is a good one and should be allowed to continue, especially when combined with methods that encourage return of maximum natural or historic biodiversity.
Comment #: 62
What do you mean by "addressed"?
Comment #: 63
Bayfield Co. . . . ?
Comment #: 64
The trend has been identified - but what can be done about it if anything should?
Comment #: 65
Must increase the use of proactive forest management to stem the declines of aspen-birch and other early-successional forest communities.
Comment #: 66
Old trees (mature) need to be harvested before they are of no value.
Comment #: 67
Particularly as it relates to the Northern mixed forest.
Comment #: 68
I agree this impacts biodiversity and economic opportunities but not recreational. I would prefer that these three not be included in the same sentence.
Comment #: 69
Should read strongly disagree - error repeats
Comment #: 70
Succession is good, but our lack of management skills in the 1800's has left us with lack of diversity. Addressing this issue must include an acknowledgement of landscape restoration on appropriate soil types vs. forcing percentages of soil types.
Comment #: 71
Aspen still seems to come back best after logging in most areas.
Comment #: 72
Strongly agree - Recognized that this item should read "strongly disagree" throughout
Comment #: 73
I believe our large deer herd is eating our undergrowth (aspen-birch included) impacting the biodiversity of the floral and fauna. Oak wild blight taking them out. This all allows the proliferation of maple-basswood.
Comment #: 74
I notice when a hardwood stand is cut (usually too heavy) aspen seems to choke out everything else. Lots of aspen stands up here in the north.
Comment #: 75
The use of forest management techniques can be used to harvest the "aging" forest and balance the species composition. Ie MORE CLEARCUTTING
Comment #: 76
Nature is doing the changing, maybe this change is good
Comment #: 77
Nothing wrong with having more hard maple and basswood with the prices and demand for them now!
Comment #: 78
State could/should plan plantings on state owned/controlled propertys only. Let the market place determine private plantings.
Comment #: 79
This staement should qualify the impact on projected harvests - the economics of it all!
Comment #: 80
An attempt should be made to keep forest in equal stages of succesion. This will benefit wildlife, biodiversity as well as economic benefits of the forest.
Comment #: 81
Your survey is flawed!
Comment #: 82
What do you mean by addressed? In my opinion, aging forests is positive and should be encouraged.
Comment #: 83
We need to convert more mid-late succession forest into early stage forests but also preserve the few old growth forests which remain.
Comment #: 84
Focus on the maple and basswood. The aspen and birch can take care of themselves.
Comment #: 85
I see a trend where Hemlock is starting to come back. I also see where aspen and poplar were not to heavy coming back to Birch and Maple
Comment #: 86
Oak regeneration is our number one problem. Burning by the Indians and early settlers promoted oak forest in West Central Wisconsin.
Comment #: 87
We need to clearcut aspen stands to regenerate aspen. Boxelder is also a problem when trying to regenerate a production species. I leave established a lot of tree farms and the invasion of boxelder can be a very expensive problem to control
Comment #: 88
Let's get back to more aspen/birch forests.
Comment #: 89
Depends on which area of the state you are refering too.
Comment #: 90
Note: Your survey forms are flawed. Each question has 2 "Strongly agree" answers. Good editing and use of my tax payer money! "Measure twice, cut once!" Re-print a correct version and mail.
Comment #: 91
To keep them!
Comment #: 92
Cutting requirements of MFL sometimes a problem. If you have 80 acres of tops down at the same time it's hard to thin ghe resulting maple saplings to give oak seedlings light.
Comment #: 93
Important implications for forest products industries
Comment #: 94
Do you have a strong prefernce for 1 type of prevailng forest?
Comment #: 95
Important to maintain balance between early and late successional timber type! If nothing is done soon to maintain early successional types, this balance will be lost.
Comment #: 96
The impact may be favorable or unfavorable depending on individual curcumstances, and the resource being impacted
Comment #: 97
The real issue is acceptance of the tools needed to maintain any of the forest in early succesional types, i.e. clearcuts.
Comment #: 98
I don't agree that it impacts recreational opportunities.
Comment #: 99
Impact how? All forest stages have impacts
Comment #: 100
My response is not meant to imply that these impacts are either positive or negative.
Comment #: 101
I'd like to see this trend continue.
Comment #: 102
It will impact ecomonic opportunities dues to a changed market for timber products and it will impact recreational opportunities because some of the species which are hunted in the early successional forests just aren't present in the later successional stages
Comment #: 103
This trend is true but is neither good nor bad.
Comment #: 104
we need to maintain early successional stages of the forest
Comment #: 105
We need more aspen! Cut , Cut, Cut!
Comment #: 106
With changes in Federal policies regarding the National forests, private and public lands are going to provide the bulk of fiber production.
Comment #: 107
Obviously the impact on wildlife should be discussed, and the need to maintain early successional stands for their benefit, as well as the simple need to have those early successional species around.
Comment #: 108
The forests of WIsconsin should be viewed as an ever changing natural resource dynamic on the land as well as through time, not a static resource to be maintained to represent any single timeframe.
Comment #: 109
Succession from aspen to maple-basswood has important ramifications for the pulp and paper industries in Wisconsin which is the number 1 paper producer in the nation.
Comment #: 110
Natural succession is occurring, but I think we are also speeding that process up by some of the practices that are taking place in Wisconsin forests. Highgrading is converting many oak-hickory stands to maple basswood more quickly.
Comment #: 111
Should be addressed in more than the a forest products context. Should include a recreation/wildlife management context (eg. aspen benefit for grouse and elk restoration.
Comment #: 112
Don't fight mother nature.
Comment #: 113
Care must be given in describing the issue, because aging is not always bad.
Comment #: 114
There will always be an impact on economic and recreational opportunities with changes in forest compostition, however, not all impacts are detrimental to economics, recreation or both.
Comment #: 115
Aspen/birch and associated brushy habitats are among the globally significant types in sharp decline
Comment #: 116
This needs study. Contrary to popular ridicule, this may be good.
This succession may not be as bad as often touted
Comment #: 117
This needs study. Contrary to popular ridicule, this may be good.
This succession may not be as bad as often touted
Comment #: 118
I am concerned with the loss of white birch as a component in our northern forests. I don't hear much in the management realm that addresses this issue.
Comment #: 119
We should manage for forests with more old growth characteristics.
Comment #: 120
Why is the changing of species composition an impact to biodiversity? Isn't this just a change in biodiversity. Is that good or badand who's making that judgment call?
Comment #: 121
The issue of education needs to be addressed. The public's negative perception of the role of clearcuts hinders our ability to maintain early successional species. The USFS plays a major role in the loss of these timber types
Comment #: 122
What value judgement does a preference for aspen birch represent....?
Comment #: 123
The aspen-birch community before European settlement was likely much lower than it is now. Surveys do not exist from this time period, but community ecologists have a rough idea of how much aspen-birch was around. I'm a hunter of grouse and deer myself, and deer and grouse poulations will be negatively affected by reduced aspen-birch, but hunting in artificially maintained communities has always bothered me. It's sort of like shooting fish in a barrel.
Comment #: 124
Property re-assessments and rising property taxes are killing our forestland more than benign neglect
Comment #: 125
The foundation for this discussion should be the ecological implications, not the economic.
Comment #: 126
Forests should be logged as needed, replanted after and because of the economic impact of snowmobiling in Bayfield County this should continue, unimpeded
Comment #: 127
Aspen-birch would result in increased deer populations, an issue that another faction of DNR is struggling with.
Comment #: 128
This issue affects a wide variety of other issues, including hot topics such as wildlife (& game) management.
Comment #: 129
I'd like to see examples of both early and late succession forests-I think that it would be beneficial from both a historical and biodiversity standpoint.
Comment #: 130
Implies long-term management that must start today. The Great Lakes forestry management guidelines put out in the 50s? were darn good, but ignored by ploacing emphasis on single species management.
Comment #: 131
we need to start managing for aspen
Comment #: 132
Is there more information as to how you would approach this?
Comment #: 133
Is there more information as to how you would approach this?
Comment #: 134
I have difficulty with the selection of the question used with all these paragraghs. I believe a worthwhile plan will need to address ALL the issues. The plan, whatever form it takes, should not ignore the impact which it will have on the various aspects/issues. I believe that sucession is part of "Natures" way.
However if there is a clear value, whether it is economic, social, aesthetic or other, it should be given some credence. An example would be the vast prairies were disturbed for economic reasons, ie farming. This had great effects on species living there. But we valued wheat, corn and homesteads more than huge bison herds and migrating birds. If Maple-basswood dominates, let it be so unless a clear reason exists to fight Natures trend.
Comment #: 135
Needs to be addressed, but how? Data from this question needs qualitiative information to be useful. Forest products industry and environmental groups might answer the same way but totally disagree on the "how."
Comment #: 136
This trend should be maintained to provide a viable, stable habitat for wildlife species.
Comment #: 137
What is there really to address? Isn't this a natural process, why should we stop it? It was highly aspen-birch because of our actions of removing most of the forested areas in the 1800's. It's just nature going about her buisness.
Comment #: 138
Late successional hardwoods are more valuable to the landowner and can be managed on an ongoing basis with little damage to non-timber values. industrial land will continue to emphasize early successional species. New conversion of farmland also provides early successional acreage.
Comment #: 139
It should be noted and looked at because not everyone understands about aging in the forests and what it means. Most people just assume aging means the trees are getting older.
Comment #: 140
Old growth forests are a very important part of ecosystems and should be managed as such, to maintain a balanced biodiversity. It is comforting to know that we are have come to a point where we can manage our forests for diversity instead of even-age stand types of management. Dauerwald is the key.
Comment #: 141
Old growth forests are a very important part of ecosystems and should be managed as such, to maintain a balanced biodiversity. It is comforting to know that we are have come to a point where we can manage our forests for diversity instead of even-age stand types of management. Dauerwald is the key.
Comment #: 142
I think it is very important to let much of our forests return to oldgrowth as it supports some species of plants and animals better than younger trees or fragmented forests.
Comment #: 143
Both sides need to be discussed and looked at in great detail, however, to make any decisions.
Comment #: 144
Key point! This pits the aspen(rufffed grouse/deer) group against the rest. We need both, decision is how much maple vs. aspen.
Comment #: 145
Succession is a natural process. I guess a question is to what degree do we want it to occur. that is how much old growth do we want -need etc.
Comment #: 146
This is a good thing, we just don't want to loss all our aspen-birch and oak forests.
Comment #: 147
Returning an ecosystem to its original state is imposible. Leaving it go allows for the oldest management, natural selection to occur. Implementing our "management practices" only delays natural selection while infering a cost to do so.
Comment #: 148
I would be interested in exploring why there is such a noted change in forest composition and see if we might be able to reintroduce natural features (e. g. fire) to maintain early successional stages and preserve biodiversity.
Comment #: 149
State wide plan should provide more flexibility at the local level since the desired outcome would be averaged over a much larger number of forests.
Comment #: 150
This will very likely continue anyway no matter what the plan says.
Comment #: 151
I hope this doesn't mean that the State will begin mandating species types. I am assuming that a plan would raise issues and opportunities for public as well as private land owners.
Comment #: 152
The lake states area is the only place in the u.s. where large blocks of aspen remain. This fact makes it a unique cover type and therefore it should be maintained.
Comment #: 153
What, exactly, are you addressing? Or
asking? Should we keep forests in an
early successional stage? Allow them
reach climax and maintain that? I understand
the context, I just don't understand what
I would be agreeing or disagreeing with!
Comment #: 154
We need to keep a balance between early succession and late succession to make up for the lack of wild fire in the state.
Comment #: 155
This succession is generally good and ecologically beneficial. It takes the forest back toward pre-settlement conditions. Natural disturbance processes, if allowed to occur, provide adequate early successional habitats.
Comment #: 156
This succession is generally good and ecologically beneficial. It takes the forest back toward pre-settlement conditions. Natural disturbance processes, if allowed to occur, provide adequate early successional habitats.
Comment #: 157
Species and successional diversity should be locally represented.
Comment #: 158
Trend should emphasize massive logging industry in
1900's ...These mature forests (if harvested) are not
destroying the forests from pre-colonial periods.
Comment #: 159
I agree, but it's very early in the aging process
Comment #: 160
I agree, but it's very early in the aging process
Comment #: 161
I agree, but it's very early in the aging process
Comment #: 162
Forest succession is greatly interrupted/arrested, especially in highly developing areas in southern Wisconsin. "Quality" sites (mature, native hardwood/local genetic material) will likely never naturally re-establish here.
Comment #: 163
Aging is not all bad either. Old forests are rare-we need some aging to have any Wisconsin "redwoods"
Comment #: 164
This is a good trend because our forests are "healing" after the massive cut-over and fires period.
Comment #: 165
This "aging" forest is still quite young from a biological standpoint. This is a keystone biological, social, and economic issue.
Comment #: 166
We all should take action
Comment #: 167
We must maintain a sound biodiversity within State Forests, not only for animals, but plants too.
Comment #: 168
Focus on the right of future visitors in decades and cenuries to come to see our forests and lakes in close to original state.
Comment #: 169
There is nothing "better," per se, about young, early successional aspen-birch forests compared to older, maple-basswood types, at least from an ecological perspective. The maple-basswood forests are not "old; certainly they are not "old-growth." Also, biodiversity is not necessarily greater in younger, successional forests (although it should be noted that certain plant species prefer successional habitats). What is important to maintain biodiversity is to maintain a diversity of habitats.
Comment #: 170
What do you mean by 'addressed'? Of course ecological trends should be noted, but there is clearly
no need to add further to our aspen-birch acerage in the state forests -
private industrial forest lands will always contain far more of this type
than the pre-settlement forests did.
Comment #: 171
I think we should harvest some of these
trees to get some clearcuts.
Comment #: 172
The forests have been around for a long while
Comment #: 173
For every tree taken out of the forest plant another one
Comment #: 174
There should be a comprehensive state plan to increase federal grant opportunities and provide voluntary useful information for local governments to adopt in their local plans.
Comment #: 175
I'm a little confused. How can you not consider the forest age and succession in your planning?
I'm a little confused. How can you not consider the forest age and succession in your planning?
I think it's a good thing that the state forest is regaining some of its pre-settlement composition and this should not be discouraged.
I'm a little confused. How can you not consider the forest age and succession in your planning?
I think it's a good thing that the state forest is regaining some of its pre-settlement composition and this should not be discouraged.
Comment #: 176
While the maple-basswood is normal it will be in our interest to limit the succession to an acceptable state wide percentage of woodlands.
Comment #: 177
The desission is a citizen decission not a government or DNR decission.
Comment #: 178
Each forest should be managed according to growth and matuity and harvested and replant if needed
Comment #: 179
Each forest should be managed according to growth and matuity and harvested and replant if needed
Comment #: 180
I have trouble thinking of natural succession as an "issue". If natural disturbances have been removed, then that's what the focus should be, but setting forests back in time, just for the sake of returning to "pre-cutover" or some other artificial point doesn't seem to make sense. I'd need more justification for returning to early successional stages than just "the forest is aging".
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS