Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
A2. Trend: Forestland is increasing.
Comment #: 1
When you say "converting" back to forests you're implying naturally. I believe most of the increase is because people are converting (planting) former agricultural land.
Comment #: 2
Need to find ways to make increased forest acreage benefit a growing population. (Wood products and recreation)
Comment #: 3
A field is planted to red pine. This is not forestland, it's a row crop. I see forestland decreasing when oak, pine, popple mix is converted to tree farm.
Comment #: 4
I would suggest the numbers of trees are increasing but the integrity of the forests are decreasing do to fragmentation and rural home development.
Comment #: 5
A lot of the land never should have been cleared in the first place.
Comment #: 6
Forests need to be managed, even emerging forests!
Comment #: 7
In many cases farm land may have been productive but smaller scale and increased taxation plus aging producers gave out and land was taken from production, especially true in urban developing areas.
Comment #: 8
More people are managing their forests tracts and more planting than ever before - I think that adds to Wis. forestland more than ag land reverting.
Comment #: 9
I believe the reduction in pasture and small field areas will continue to have a negative impact on the biodiversity and enjoyment people receive from open-land use. There will be negative aesthetic aspects also. DNR easement along streams that remove cattle grazing often result in tall weeds and brush that impedes fisherman extremely negative management!
Comment #: 10
Managed forest land may be increasing but natural forest land is decreasing.
Comment #: 11
This is a good thing.
Comment #: 12
No. of acres may not reflect quality of forest to maintain biodiversity of ecosystems.
Comment #: 13
Federal-State-County and Town's have enough land now.
Comment #: 14
Let the trend continue
Comment #: 15
Let's keep this trend going in the same direction
Comment #: 16
Compare with D-1 page 14?
Comment #: 17
Need for more natural sanctuaries - free from motorized use and noise. Less uses as working forest (logging)
Comment #: 18
Good!
Comment #: 19
This is good for wildlife.
Comment #: 20
If this marginal agland was planted into trees the last13 years it contributed to what is now forestland also
Comment #: 21
Some open areas should be maintained for certain species of wildlife
Comment #: 22
This was an obvious issue in the NHAL Master Planning process. I don't think it will become easier in a larger statewide master plan. In other words, why not finish the NHAL Master Plan befoe beginning an even larger project.
Comment #: 23
This trend should be addressed in terms of proper management as forests are replacing dairy farms.
Comment #: 24
This should be viewed as a good thing.
Comment #: 25
It should be encouraged by programs; such as CRP & Forest Management Tax break programs.
Comment #: 26
Please include comments concerning fragmentation of our forest and ethe effects it has on how we manage this expanding acreage
Comment #: 27
This is good-better than urban sprawl.
Comment #: 28
This should be strongly expressed.
Comment #: 29
This is good, encourage it!
Comment #: 30
In a plan there a need to know how much you have
Comment #: 31
Good trend.
Comment #: 32
The key is the definition of a "forest." I don't agree we are increasing forest land with the huge trend in forest fragmentation.
Comment #: 33
I believe much of this land is being put into trees by people buying acres and putting land in CRP etc.
Comment #: 34
the northern 1/2 should never have been opened for agriculture the land and weather is not fit for agriculture
Comment #: 35
It is also a result of a conscious effort on the part of forest products industry to reforest after harvest, and groups like trees for Tomorrow encouraging indivudals to plant trees.
Comment #: 36
but what is the quality of the increased acreage of forest?
Comment #: 37
Private
Comment #: 38
Again most of this increased growth is thrashy type wood
Comment #: 39
Consideration should be given to funding the management of additional acreage
Comment #: 40
I think it is a good trend
Comment #: 41
Imp because planted areas or areas where forests are naturally coming back do need management and the time to get at it is while they are just a few decades old.
Comment #: 42
To help increase this trend
Comment #: 43
Urbanites purchasing farms that first have been subdivided giving us homesite forests. Subdividing farms into 10-20-30 acre parcels are going to be and are now a serious problem for product and timber production.
Comment #: 44
More tree farms and management plans need to be increased.
Comment #: 45
I think this is a good trend and would favor a policy promoting it.
Comment #: 46
Forest land encouragement thru tax reduction important. Current F.G. laws are too much of an impediment.
Comment #: 47
(Last box should say - Strongly Disagree)
Comment #: 48
I have a tree farm and the land is very good for food crops.
Comment #: 49
This trend should continue.
Comment #: 50
Most marginal ag land is converting because of tree planting - not natural regeneration.
Comment #: 51
I wouldn't trust the forest inventory. I worked for the FS Inventory crfew.
Comment #: 52
Early education is necessary to ensure proper harvest methods are followed.
Comment #: 53
I don't believe forestland is increasing (does this include private industrial forests on only state public land?)
Comment #: 54
How about converting some land back through a homestead act where zoning and building codes would be abolished for alternative sustainable plots of perhaps 10 acres for the poor?
Comment #: 55
Converting agricultural land to forest takes many years and even generation a few trees on abundant farmland is not a forest in my view.
Comment #: 56
5
Comment #: 57
5
Comment #: 58
But for how long. This is a gov push that may not last.
Comment #: 59
Wetlands and forest recovery from agriculture is positive
Comment #: 60
Increasing forstland on private land may help meet the demand for timber, lessening the burden on state lands.
Comment #: 61
There is going to be more land available from agriculture due to farmers quitting. More programs and trees should be made available.
Comment #: 62
Is it converting naturally or being put into plantations? The latter are a poor excuse for a forest.
Comment #: 63
Also: converting farm land into hunting land.
Comment #: 64
Many people who use to farm and have stopped want to keep their open fields. I see many open fields in Price County that could be converted to reforestation.
Comment #: 65
This is misleading because the size of parcels are decreasing
Comment #: 66
In Waupaca County, fragmentation of land for building site have decreased forestland (woods) long driveways, lawns etc. Just my opinion.
Comment #: 67
we should keep trying to grow more forested areas
Comment #: 68
Good trend - more should be encouraged. (Along with paying farmers better for their products!)
Comment #: 69
I know this to be trues on our 1400+ acres
Comment #: 70
Do not believe this trend will continue
Comment #: 71
Creating a potential large scale fire hazard
Comment #: 72
All the small farms are gone or going ours is growing back in trees.
Comment #: 73
I've seen large areas formerly farmed going back to trees.
Comment #: 74
We also need to look at restoration of oak savannahs, praires, and pine barrens!! See A9
Comment #: 75
This is good!
Comment #: 76
A much larger time scale is needed for this issue
Comment #: 77
Good!
Comment #: 78
Many landowners are now planting trees in old farm fields, pastures, creating wind breaks and wildlife plots for their personal enjoyment.
Comment #: 79
This trend should be incouraged, but prairie and savana should also be incouraged.
Comment #: 80
Town of Wesscott was all forrest years ago. Now it's a city (all houses).
Comment #: 81
Make mention also that many other aeras of forest are more productive and healthy as the result of proper forestry practices.
Comment #: 82
This should neither be seen as a positive or negative.
Comment #: 83
This is the "good" news and should be considered, but at some point it will stabilize as population grows and farmland will be valued for food production again (50 yrs? 100 yrs?). Most increase is private owenrship - what will these owners want to do with their "new forests" - ? I assume that all of these should read "strongly disagree" -
Comment #: 84
The prairies and savanahs are important. There should be a balance.
Comment #: 85
We should be encouraging this trend. This marginal land is converting back to its "best" use: Forests. We should be providing incentives for private landowners to convert marginal ag. land to forests (free management plans, tax breaks, cost sharing, etc.)
Comment #: 86
Good news!
Comment #: 87
More forests are probably a good thing, provided that public forests are managed for biodiversity, water quality, air quality, and other broad-scope public values. Move away from timber industry production as highest value.
Comment #: 88
I would like to see forest land continue to increase. It depends entirely on what is meant by the very ambiguous term "addressed."
Comment #: 89
Most of this land is still in a brush stage. It has a long way to go to be classified as "forest land."
Comment #: 90
In this area that statement is true, I don't know if its true in the rest of the State.
Comment #: 91
2 Pasture land etc. not being used
Comment #: 92
I don't feel this is necessarily a "problem."
Comment #: 93
Seems like a good trend.
Comment #: 94
Residential and recreational use will reverse this trend in 20-30 years as marginal agricultural land is used up.
Comment #: 95
I'm not sure if you consider this as a negative condition. The wording is not clear in that it can be interpreted either way.
Comment #: 96
The Conservation Program through Federal government programs has a lot to do with this fact.
Comment #: 97
Housing and highway construction is also decreasing forest land and agricultural land, which is permanently reducing managed forest lands.
Comment #: 98
Also people are buy ag land for recreation and therefore plant trees.
Comment #: 99
What % increase? What % is this? 640,000 acres.
Comment #: 100
Marginal ag. land should be aggressively converted to forests with incentives to landowners.
Comment #: 101
Taxes too high. Going to take mine out of forest.
Comment #: 102
Are these forest quality timber or brush?
Comment #: 103
I think this trend is a good thing.
Comment #: 104
Good
Comment #: 105
The quality of the regenerated forest land must be considered in terms of composition, structure, and function.
Comment #: 106
A lot of it was cost sharing.
Comment #: 107
I see farmers and new landowners planting marginal lands into forest lands. I'd rather see marginal lands go back to grasslands, prairies, savannahs, sand blow-outs, wetlands, etc. for that biodiversity.
Comment #: 108
Distracts from the primary issues; old field succession does not balance out the losses.
Comment #: 109
I hope trend continues.
Comment #: 110
Retirement of ag. lands through plans such as C.Y.P. agricultural programs.
Comment #: 111
I have no problem with increasing forest land.
Comment #: 112
Marginal agricultural land was forests at one time
Comment #: 113
This is trend which should be encouraged. We need more forests
Comment #: 114
I changed my farm land to forest, as a result of discontinuation of dairying and couldn't find anyone to rent ift for ag., and no neighbors could buy it for the price I felt it was worth.
Comment #: 115
Farmers are finding it more difficult to make a living. The family farm is fast becoming a thing of the past
Comment #: 116
With the loss of farmland throughout the USA thus farmland will be need in the future
Comment #: 117
How much of the increase is attributable to large monoculture "tree farms" that are called forests? I am unsure if this increas is real
Comment #: 118
Lower priority than many other issues.
Comment #: 119
Allow forests to increase.
Comment #: 120
The majority of this is on private lands and should be considered differently than the publicly owned forest.
Comment #: 121
This is greatly showing what happens when the privatization of WI forests occurs. People want forests and will support interest by themselves, without govt. asst. or with govt. asst.
Comment #: 122
Is this mostly plantation? Are plantations really forests?
Comment #: 123
Natural? Being converted back via landowner.
Comment #: 124
Improved forestry practices and replanting and or regeneration have converted much more land back to forests than ag land I think
Comment #: 125
I think the state should lead, but not demand - agree but not sure it will be workable.
Comment #: 126
Future trend will be more impacted by smaller landowners not knowing how to manage forests
Comment #: 127
This trend will be bad for Wisconsin if agrciulture prices continue to stop farmers from farming. The land was cleared at great expense years ago and now is reverting back to forest primarily due to low dairy prices.
Comment #: 128
I feel this is a positive trend.
Comment #: 129
Do we have enough - what is the proper amount and not just for wood supplies - Wildlife animals and such. Are we headed to a generation that animals in the wild will become extinct?
Comment #: 130
I believe urban sprawl is taking up more forest land than is being converting back.
Comment #: 131
Just mention it and incorporate these new forests. Increase in forest land is a good thing.
Comment #: 132
Forest openings as a result of early logging and fires are converting to forest.
Comment #: 133
Should these all be strongly dis-agree?
Comment #: 134
This is good.
Comment #: 135
Returning marginal farmland to foresstland is healthy and environmentaly sound. There is no reason to discourage this trend.
Comment #: 136
I did a lot of custom tree planting on marginal farm land. 1960-78 = mostly red pine - very versatile specie for pulp and by now much is being used for saw logs - problem - not much cost sharing available at this time. Tat is not good.
Comment #: 137
This trend is "temporary" urban development due to increasing population of people will ultimately halt and possibly revers this trend.
Comment #: 138
This trend is desireable.
Comment #: 139
The state should spare no costs in replanting and creating more forests.
Comment #: 140
It must be north because I don't see it here only where the state buys the farm.
Comment #: 141
Large agricultural corporations are stripping the small forrests for larger agricultural fields
Comment #: 142
"Forestland" may be increasing but much of it is monoculture or unmanged idle land.
Comment #: 143
We should assure that these lands convert back to productive species
Comment #: 144
The management of the acreage is more important thant the ? In acreage
Comment #: 145
Also VERY GOOD ag land is being converted back to forests.
Comment #: 146
"Strongly agree" I will interpret this as strongly disagree for the entire survey
Comment #: 147
progress
Comment #: 148
Don't know how this would be "addressed". It's a fact nothing more.
Comment #: 149
Farm practice and urban development is decreasing forest in our area.
Comment #: 150
At some point with the ebb and flour of the agriculture business. We may reach a balance or slowdown of farmland reverting to forest. I would expect this to occur in 10-20 yrs.
Comment #: 151
This is an important fact that needs to be stressed to the public.
Comment #: 152
Forestland may be increasing, but you need to look at the fragmentation and development occuring in that forestland.
Comment #: 153
Not an issue of concern
Comment #: 154
Much of it is also planted fields, which may have rich soils, and they are usually planted with "desirable" species.
Comment #: 155
However I wonder if "urbanized" or developed forestland is included in the definition of forestland.
Comment #: 156
I feel this is a good trend. Marginal farmland will always be marginal farmland, but many of these sites could be excellent forests.
Comment #: 157
I think that there are other reasons as well, people are still planting trees and living an a "woods" is now the in thing. Additionally people are realizing more and more that forestland is valuable in many ways to them
Comment #: 158
I work in the SER.Its questionable because of rapid urbanization.
Comment #: 159
Helped greatly by a strong State nursery system.
Comment #: 160
Tax policy favors this. WM needs to get its act together and lose the obsession with pheasants and get on with establishing R grouse in new sections of the state.
Comment #: 161
As more land is bought up and not necessarily properly managed,it is increasingly important to keep those lands in productive sustainable forests.
Comment #: 162
This not only limited to marginal forest land. Part or all of many farms are being sold to people that do not farm the land. So prime forest land is being converted as well.
Comment #: 163
How much is attributed to the loss of the family farm, and the resultant regeneration of former pasture/cropland? It is getting to the point that when driving around, dairy farms are few and far between.
Comment #: 164
Addressing it as a positive development offering greater opportunity and needs for forest management. Drive this point home to those who like to suggest that we are losing forestland.
Comment #: 165
Loss of grass lands habitats. Increase in low or poorly stocked forest stands.
Comment #: 166
This conversion of pastureland, etc., back to forest may be masking the acreage losses due to residential and other development.
Comment #: 167
The conversion of marginal farmlands back to forested land has been a trend from the east coast spreading west, and is most often the most appropriate use of the land.
Comment #: 168
How long can this trend continue with urban sprawl and retirement/vacation home development?
Comment #: 169
Recreational land purchases is also playing a role especially in southern Wisconsin
Comment #: 170
Though from some agricultural interests this may be seen as a bad trend, it can also be seen as a good trend if managed properly. The problem with management is that most of this land is privately owned, which emphasizes the need to expand outreach to private landowners.
Comment #: 171
Some marginal lands are converting and adding to the forested acreage in the state. However, a decline in forested acres that is not being recorded, and is difficult to assess, is the impact of rural development and effectively how many acres are taken out of production for each house that goes up. I would suggest that between 1 and 5 acres are removed from production for each house that is constructed in the rural forested areas of the state.
Comment #: 172
What are some important issues related to this trend?
Comment #: 173
This trend may be short-lived and offset by development and fragmentation.
Comment #: 174
This trend may be short-lived and offset by development and fragmentation.
Comment #: 175
Marginal is correct. Mostly these are plantations of marginal densities and boxelder, elm stands. Not real good quality stands.
Comment #: 176
If the trend towards agricultural fibers to replace forest products (industrial hemp, hybrid aspen etc.) continues, we could see a rapid reversal of increasing forest land
Comment #: 177
The plan should encourage appropriate land use. Sometimes history, economics, and ownership lead to using land for inappropriate purposes, causing degradation of the land, loss of valuable habitat, and economic instability.
Comment #: 178
I'm only concerned about this trend if opportunities to accomplish OTHER equally appropriate natural resource objectives, such as prairie or savanna restoration (if that's ecologically appropriate) are displaced as a result of a policy to ENCOURAGE forestation of these lands.
Comment #: 179
another component to to this increase is woody encroachment on prairies and savannas (including barrens.) Even in the sixties there were areas that were wide open and are now well closed in.
Comment #: 180
Should be alowed to continue
Comment #: 181
Forestland increasing in regions of the state dedignated as grassland initiative areas or areas with rare resources incompatible with forestry should not be considered or portrayed as a positive accomplishment. DNR foresters should not be promoting forestry in these areas.
Comment #: 182
Same as above---forests need to be managed. Forest fires help no one
Comment #: 183
I would be concerned if forests were replacing traditional prarie areas.
Comment #: 184
We need to look at other habitat types and the associated faunal assemblage. For example, let's increase grassland songbirds and reduce whitetails.
Comment #: 185
utilization based on the soil for example, if soil types are more suited for ag, leave them.
Comment #: 186
I believe marginal farmland should be returned to forest.
Comment #: 187
What does the DNR plan to do with this increased forestland?
Comment #: 188
Nationally, forestland is decreasing. let's take pride in Wisconsin's beautiful forestry resources and allow forestlands to increase and thrive.
Comment #: 189
The more forestland the better
Comment #: 190
The more forestland the better
Comment #: 191
Although I believe forests are good, and we should promote them to maintain "natural" processes, I also believe we need the farmland. But where it is good for the soils, if it is not good farmland then it should be used for something else. But it seems like a lot of farmland is being lost which is frightening.
Comment #: 192
Having more revert back means that we should discuss what this means to the public around. With the small farmers having to stop farming because they can't feed their families we need to look at what will help the local economies out.
Comment #: 193
A more comprehensive plan is needed to manage the growing acreage of our states' forestland.
Comment #: 194
A more comprehensive plan is needed to manage the growing acreage of our states' forestland.
Comment #: 195
I think land that is not appropriate for agriculture should not be used for such; let it return to forests. But, if areas were more traditionally oak savanna or prairie, that should also be taken into account; they need to be preserved too.
Comment #: 196
I think that it is great that we are finally starting to get back some of what we had years ago. If it isn't hurting anything, why disrupt it?
Comment #: 197
Fact. Not needed for planning purposes.
Comment #: 198
This is a positive trend, as long as it is not pushing out other important land types, such as prairie.
Comment #: 199
is biodiversity present in these areas?
Comment #: 200
is biodiversity present in these areas?
Comment #: 201
Yes. I would imagin much of this is private lands. It is probably true that much of this would be considered fragmented. Thus, we probably need to address these trends relative to all the resources etc. our forests provide
Comment #: 202
I feel this is occuring for a reason. Most of Wisconsin is better for timber production than it is for agricultural purposes, so therefor this trend doesn't concern me.
Comment #: 203
We need to look hard at our edge management and the amount there of.
Comment #: 204
Maybe we should consider more what marginal agricultural land is and require that it revert back to what it was pre-settlment.
Comment #: 205
My perception is that wetlands are making a comeback, but I do not see the increase in forests.
Comment #: 206
Yes, planting vs natural succession can play a big role in future forests.
Comment #: 207
The issue should also be addressed that most of this land is going into private ownership and is not being managed for timber.
Comment #: 208
Forests can not possibly increase forever. Most of the "marginal agricultural land" that has converted back to forests once was land that was never reforested by logging companies in the 1800's. I think the natural reforestation of these lands should be heralded as a major success story and encouraged
Comment #: 209
Again, your survey question is unclear.
However, if you mean, "should we plant forest
instead of pouring more chemicals into
marginal farmland - yes!
Comment #: 210
This is a mixed bag. It is good in restoring connectivity in some fragmented forest stands. It is bad when it converts historic barrens or savannah habitats to dense forest.
Comment #: 211
This is a mixed bag. It is good in restoring connectivity in some fragmented forest stands. It is bad when it converts historic barrens or savannah habitats to dense forest.
Comment #: 212
Private ownership of this acreage is especially interesting.
Comment #: 213
Most marginal ag land is being planted to pine trees. Are there other tree species that could or should be planted on these acreages?
Comment #: 214
To address this trend/issue, increased landowner assistance must be considered.
Comment #: 215
I am concerned about forestland "quality" decreasing, while acreage increases (i.e. forest fragmentation, decreased specie diversity, etc.).
Comment #: 216
Percentage of quality/aged forest vs. old field "pioneer" succession - important difference in value and hopefully greatly impacts recreational use and other decisions/laws/management.
Comment #: 217
Although how much more marginal land is left to convert? We may have neared a peak, especially with increasing sprawl.
Comment #: 218
This is a good trend because forests cleared for agriculture are returning to forest. The bad exception is where dense forests are replacing historic barrens due to fire suppression.
Comment #: 219
The pressure to develop this land will increase steadily over time. How can we assure perpetuation of it's forested condition?
Comment #: 220
Too many stands of trees are being clear-cut of selectively harvested
Comment #: 221
This should be promoted as a positive event in Wisconsin.
Comment #: 222
AGain, your use of 'addressed' is ambiguous. Why don't you ask
how the DNR might respond to this issue instead?
Comment #: 223
I think we should develop a plan that
allows us to harvest some of these
trees so we can make room for the
Aspen,Birch, and Oak forests.
Comment #: 224
#8
Comment #: 225
Same reasons as A1.
Comment #: 226
Keep increasing the amount of forestland until we reach the % of Wisconsin that was forested prior to the cutover.
Comment #: 227
I think it's a good thing that the state forest is regaining some of its former extent. Why farm marginal land?
Comment #: 228
Support for maintaining this forest land as a natural resource should be supplied by the DNR.
Comment #: 229
Large amounts of these lands are owned by individual, this needs to be their decision, we live i a democracy that already has to many rules, certain individuals are trying to turn this into a dictatorship
Comment #: 230
Large amounts of these lands are owned by individual, this needs to be their decision, we live i a democracy that already has to many rules, certain individuals are trying to turn this into a dictatorship
Comment #: 231
This sounds like a good thing. My only concern would be what kind of forests are growing up on marginal ag land?
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS