Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
B4. Issue: Forests are in demand for a mix of uses.
Comment #: 1
Wilderness area are a waste we have more than enough for the people who want to use them.
Comment #: 2
I would tend to agree with Leopold here; if the use is good for the land fine, otherwise do not use the land for that purpose, whatever it is. As he said, we need to see land as something we belong to and are a part of, not commodity. There are some tough decisions to be made by people in leadership roles of our natural resource agencies. These decisions may ruffle some feathers, but leaders need to make unpopular decisions at times. At all times, resource professionals should have whats best for the land as their primary decision making criteria.
Comment #: 3
The people who are looking for wilderness have plenty in the Federal Forest.
Comment #: 4
Wild areas need to be left alone - meaning "wild"! Mangae your forests away from wetland, marshes, lakes, rivers, watershed areas, endangered, threatened, historic or protect sepcies. You DON'T need to log everywher and everything.
Comment #: 5
It should be studied, but all should be managed - no difference logging or windstorm - trees are down - use them!
Comment #: 6
I'm not sure if this is the state DNR's realm.
Comment #: 7
Providing the uses are COMPATIBLE with the sustainable continuation of the forest and its natural ecosystems. There is an increasing (and disturbing) trend in our country which tends to "parkify" our vulnerable forests.
Comment #: 8
I support logging forests. However the loggers should pay for building new roads, not taxpayers money.
Comment #: 9
"like wilderness - preclude other uses like timber harvest" - Of course! In wilderness areas, no coordination? Timber harvesting is out.
Comment #: 10
Why is it that current laws on vehicle usage in our forest lands are not enforced more regularly.
Comment #: 11
Disagree with statement that "forest areas can support both timber and recreation" There is more to recreation tha shooting deer and groose which logging supports
Comment #: 12
We do need more wilderness! We don't need more activities that have a negative impact on our environment.
Comment #: 13
Rec. and economic mix fine - less so for mixing conservation and rec.
Comment #: 14
Not everyone thinks, "it will become increasingly important to coordinate activities in a way that will allow many uses of the forest." That seems to be a "DNR" value to try to make everybody happy at the same time. It won't work. Stick to your mission "The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is Wisconsin's lead agency for protecting and improving natural resurces and the environment for enjoyment today and tomorrow." Please don't forget about protecting our resources for generations to come.
Comment #: 15
You should always encourage timber removal and recreation when ever possible.
Comment #: 16
Multiple use! What ever happen to this concept!
Comment #: 17
We don't need to be planning wilderness areas.
Comment #: 18
Focus on forest not side issues
Comment #: 19
If we want to preserve continuous succession stages, or consolidate harvets better wilderness is more readily retained.
Comment #: 20
Since most of WI's forests were subject to cutover 100 yrs ago, their should be minimal wilderness area in this state. WI forests can and should support multiple use.
Comment #: 21
Forests should be managed in ways to maintain their health - and this does include imber cuts! People must lern the ways of healthy forests, what healthy forests mean on a personal basis and how human activity can have a serious, harmful, longterm impact on forest health!
Comment #: 22
See B3
Comment #: 23
One might also say that timber harvest precludes wilderness and the values associated with wilderness. This might seem to be hair-splitting, but I believe wilderness and biodiversity should always be considered on an equal footing with resouce extractoin.
Comment #: 24
Get rid of the wilderness designation. We can use it and still have a relative wilderness. We may not be able to have wilderness as some see it at the expense of other more demanding uses.
Comment #: 25
needs to be addressed
Comment #: 26
but they allow for other uses not found in "managed" forests! Be objective on this issue!
Comment #: 27
I do not agree that "wilderness" precludes timber harvest. This sounds to me like what the Clinton Administration forced on the western states who saw their "wilderness" burn down last summer. I don't want us to repeat that grievous error in Wisconsin.
Comment #: 28
see B3
Comment #: 29
The values society places in forest have change greatly. They are not just free forms
Comment #: 30
Where does the power or capacity to "coordinate activities" lie? With the DNR? Who decides which "use" has priority when there are conflicts?
Comment #: 31
I believe a limited amount of forest land should be set aside as wilderness - the very name of wilderness limits the type of recration or human use - sometimes this discrimanatos(?) who can use this area (elderly and handicapped would be excluded).
Comment #: 32
Trust the judgement of the experts in their fields to determine what can and cannot be allowed and compatible.
Comment #: 33
In Wisconsin true wilderness does not exist. There is not the vast areas required like out west or the boundary waters. So lets not pretend to make the experience. The forest should be managed as multiple use NOT single use.
Comment #: 34
I strongly opposed wilderness managed areas. They seem to serve no purpose other than to satisfy the "greenies(?)"
Comment #: 35
Multiple use needs to ? but also needs a well thought out and monitered plan.
Comment #: 36
Isn't this being donw ? I think some effort is needed to illustrate, further, how forests can be used for recreation without setting aside huge tracts. Nature study, trails etc can utilize all sorts of classes of woods we do not use what we have (ignorance, fear, etc)
Comment #: 37
Multiple use has become a term for mismanagement. Manage for multiple uses, yes - yet don't cover up logging by call it "wildlife mgmt" etc.
Comment #: 38
It is important to recognize that multiple use need not occur at the stand level. Some uses require large tracts. Consideration ought to be given to whether each state forest can realistically accommodate all uses. Perhaps some forests should be devoted to only one or two uses. Recognize that multiple use has a SCALe component.
Comment #: 39
I don't believe you can put together a program that will satisfy the desires of everyone and still have a forst!
Comment #: 40
Some uses should be restricted. How many snowmobile trails through the forests are enough? When do we stop at a certain number of miles? The same for ATVs. Tourist dollars are not always a measure of success!
Comment #: 41
Some forest areas should be set aside to provide for future 400 year old pine. We need more old growth, virgin timberstands for future generations. Some forest areas should be protected from timber removal.
Comment #: 42
Use specific forests for specific uses, not multiple uses.
Comment #: 43
Need to develop policy that segregates human interests to the ageless interst of forest
Comment #: 44
Wilderness needs to be addressed for future generations.
Comment #: 45
There needs to be a sensible trade-off
Comment #: 46
Most people don't realize that the forest in most case's was managed and the recreational value is a direct result. What is the meaning of wilderness to most people? Being north of Hwy 64 or miles in the midle of now where in a jungle of downed and rotting trees with very little wildlife activity?
Comment #: 47
Too much involvement with tree huggers and preservationists
Comment #: 48
Will someone in the DNR please have the courage to publicly affirm that our resource base is finite while human demand for its use does nothing but increase, and that, therefore, it is quite likely, if not certain, it will become increasingly important to coordinate activities in a way that will CURTAIL some use of the forest
Comment #: 49
I'm a strong believer in multiple use, but calling a forest black "wilderness" is not one of them. Forest trails and roads for access are essential but forest management for timber production has to be the No 1 use along with timber industry jobs.
Comment #: 50
Timber harvesting, wildlife habitat and recreation are ALL COMPATIBLE!!
Comment #: 51
WALK!! The forest should not be the trade-off!! Our foresters should teach the public to walk!
Comment #: 52
There is no "wilderness" in Wisconsin. Quit trying to pretend there is. Really, where can you go in our National Forests (WI) where there is not a road within 1/4-1/2 mi. Maintain current forest use mix.
Comment #: 53
I would like to see a coordinated effort between National, State and County forest agencies to create some significant wilderness areas within our state, especially along rivers in the Northern Counties.
Comment #: 54
The state needs to better educate the landowners through mailings, etc.
Comment #: 55
A very tough issue.
Comment #: 56
(See above).
Comment #: 57
I feel it is time to determine the number of people in each user group and then we may determine the amount of acres for each group. (ex) We don't need a 50,000 acre wilderness for 10 people of a special interest group.
Comment #: 58
In order to continue to have healthy forests for people to enjoy, timber removal needs to go on so that diversity is maintained. Educating the public will be key.
Comment #: 59
And most people only want their forest used one way -
Comment #: 60
By all indicates, recreation wilt eclipse logging as the primary use. It will happen. Might as well start managing the forests now.
Comment #: 61
Multiople us is a great concept, but requires cooperation and careful mgmt. Some wilderness is needed for many reasons. Any remaining high quality roadless "wilderness" areas should be protected.
Comment #: 62
Everything is a tradeoff. There are many places to use ATVs/motorized recreation, but very few to enjoy wilderness. The two do not go well together. We need more places for non-motorized travel.
Comment #: 63
But don't set public lands aside solely for timber production - in fact timber production in itself should not be the goal for managing state-owned forests. See my comment B1 above.
Comment #: 64
Wilderness areas should be given high priority in overall forest protection planning.
Comment #: 65
We do not have enough wilderness areas. I have hiked into one area in Northern WI and find it so refreshing not to hear vehicles and see the area left w/o anyone cutting timber. The great majority of our forests are multiple use and more demand for vehicular use in winter and summer and its trash and destruction.
Comment #: 66
But watch out for free loaders - no harvesting or hunting; people ??; the free loaders just demand free use!
Comment #: 67
B3 & B4 - This has been an increasing problem in the Southern Kettle Moraine.
Comment #: 68
With careful attention to what multiple uses are compatible in any given place and without burdening private landowners with use restrictions.
Comment #: 69
Private landowners will be hard to get large areas to move towards the same goal.
Comment #: 70
Educate others that a harvest of timber can improve the forest, and make it better for recreation.
Comment #: 71
At present too many forests are not managed at all, be it for timber or wildlife.
Comment #: 72
Feel primary use ought to remain 1-landowner driven (private lands); 2-sustainable forestry (public forests); 3-whatever use that can compete economically with uses that subdivide and fragment and develop forests.
Comment #: 73
A wilderness forest situation is not a healthy forest situation.
Comment #: 74
Wilderness use is highly overrated for an elitist few who don't go off the trail anyhow. Tourism is important to our economy. Half of the state is covered in forest. I'd like to see more bike, horse, snowmobile and hiking trails. Also motorcycle.
Comment #: 75
I like the idea of wilderness areas, but think logging could be an allowed activity. It seems terribly wasteful to let the forest products go to waste. I think this would make the wilderness areas much less controversial.
Comment #: 76
I feel we need continued logging for future growth; but keep 100' from roadways with clear cuts; let common sense dictate; so you can't see clear cut from the road.
Comment #: 77
This concept needs to be incorporated more fully in the county forest plans.
Comment #: 78
OK as long as development is not part of the mix. Pedestrian uses should have highest priority even though this may not square with the popular trend or perspective.
Comment #: 79
Access for all. It can and should be done. It's not that hard to do!
Comment #: 80
I'm OK with logging, but it should be done carefully and upon completion, roads should be ripped and seaded. They should also be blocked off.
Comment #: 81
We should continue with the concepts of multiple use management on all of our forest lands. The GREATEST threat to our forests and their wise use are the special interest groups who want ALL of the forests managed managed THEIR way for their interests only! (I.e. Sierra Club)
Comment #: 82
There is less and less true wilderness. When it's gone, it's gone! Every use cannot be in every area - restricted areas - from logging and motors - light impact only - are a must.
Comment #: 83
There should be more wilderness areas. I feel that timber harvesting should be stopped on all public land. When forests are logged it destroys or greatly diminishes recreation in the forest. People do not enjoy logged forests for recreation. Public lands should be for the public not the timber industry.
Comment #: 84
Why does wilderness have to preclude timber harvest? Why let trees in wilderness areas grow old and die, and waste the resouce? Manage the wilderness areas so as to select cut certain mature trees and make use of the total resource! I'll be that there are not a 100th of 1 percent of the people in the country ever set foot into a wilderness area!
Comment #: 85
I would say "timber harvest" precludes wilderness!! Tourism is the #1 industry in WI and that shows no signs of changing. Toursim is ill-served by unsightly timber cuts and the economic benefits of these are very questionable
Comment #: 86
Control recreation use or limit it to the current acreage and develop plans to where(?) the open/forest areas.
Comment #: 87
I don't believe the setting aside of wilderness areas will do anything more than concentrate more activity on areas that are not designated as wilderness. This will further degrade these areas.
Comment #: 88
Set use sites for each use and rotate site usage to allow for changes
Comment #: 89
Need to perserve wildn
Comment #: 90
Need to perserve wilderness!
Comment #: 91
We need to encourage more land use planning by counties and towns.
Comment #: 92
Asa I get in on this trend issue questionaire for a statewide forestry plan - I have mixed emotions on what a plan should contain. What would the co-operation be on all of the diverse issues? I am a man 74 yrs. Old. I have 120 acres of forest land - have a management plan on my 120A & have entered it in managed forest laws. I have been on the county forest committee of our county forest for 16 yrs. Belong to the Wisc. Woodland Owners Assc., Tree Farmers of American Designations of may land have been hunter - trappers & fisherman all my life - worked in the woods industry part of my life or starting with the crosscut saw. Lived in Norther Wisc. All my life excepting 2 yrs. Of the Navy during World War II. I've always been interested in the forest and have seen many trends - Mother Nature has its was nad no matter what plans we have to change. So, I'm all in favor of having a plan & working that plan - to the benefit of the present and also the furture generations. And not to be trying to duplicate or undue what nature has done or will do. For 15 yrs. I made my living as a State Approved Assessor working the northern 1/3 of the state. I learned what it meant to be fair - not to the right or the left. When the wood environmentalist came up everyone cringed. I hope the State can come up with the help the forests of Wisconsin needs - and keep away from issues like the Federeal Gov't has come up with. With these comments I will discontinue this survey - I think I have explained my thoughts and that I am for a plan - to sustain Wisc forests for all. Sincerely. Lawrence G. Vardwooth(?) Iron County;;
Comment #: 93
Scale back motorized uses (ATV's snowmobiles) and focus the forests on silent sports, wildlife & sustainable timber harvesting.
Comment #: 94
continue sound forest management practices such as timber harvest as priority
Comment #: 95
Some areas should be preserved as wilderness but many are suited for mixed use. All forest land doesn't have to be managed in the same manner.
Comment #: 96
We must not ? Mine "wilderness" of state forests
Comment #: 97
To create total wilderness areas may seem reasonable - however to not utilize mature timber is an extravagance that we can ill afford. Lets not foreget that trees are a renewable resource.
Comment #: 98
We can maintain stands of virgin old growth forest and some blocks of wilderness areas. I believe that logging and early successional forests are vital to many important forest species (e.g. grouse, wooduck and deer) and forest diversity as a whole. Once an area is logged it can be maintain in a secluded wilderness state by gating logging roads and PROHIBITING all vehicular traffic especially ATV's. We need to maintain a diversity of forest types from early successional to old growth forests. As stated above it is possible and highly desreable to maintain the wilderness atmosphere of all forest types by prohibiting vehicular travel and the fragmentation, pollution and noise that comes with it.
Comment #: 99
It is impossible to serve all the potential demands. The demand for recreational use at the root of the problem with fragmentation, etc.
Comment #: 100
We need to have a balance that provides for the most benefit without sacrificing the forests or needs of society
Comment #: 101
If you want support for a/your program you need to solicit over a wide base.
Comment #: 102
The north wasn't wanted by anyone at one time - tax delinquency, etc. Now that the North has again a forest - everyone wants to "protect" it - they didn't care before, so the hell with them now - let the private sector meet the demand - not our tax $.
Comment #: 103
Tree farming can do both.
Comment #: 104
We should be very cautious about designating too much wilderness area. Only a very small percentage of our population gets to use these areas and the general population aare the big losers.
Comment #: 105
See B2 and B3 above
Comment #: 106
I'd like to see more low impact forest areas.
Comment #: 107
This multiple use - forest products, watershed & environmental protection, recreation etc - wildlife - must continue to be stressed and pointed out that our growing and expanding forest has for many years been doing just this - that excess removal for single use (wilderness preservation) will increase the pressures on a then declining base.
Comment #: 108
I guess that you are peaking of public land on this question.
Comment #: 109
The forest should be used to benefit the largest number of people. Many things like "wilderness" are a huge demand for a small proportion of the public. Care should be taken in the public perception of wilderness to determine their actual intent and what they would use the forest for.
Comment #: 110
Why two strongly agree?? (NOTE: #5 is checked but crossed off on this.)
Comment #: 111
the resource needs to be used in a manner that benefits more people and animals in more ways.
Comment #: 112
More acres will mean more for all.
Comment #: 113
More acres will mean more for all.
Comment #: 114
Additionally the continueing pressure from the public that they should have the right to use all the land will
Comment #: 115
See comments from B3.
Comment #: 116
We have run into this on several occasions, and it becomes an interesting balancing act, but often the problem comes in because each forest user feels their use is the most important, and they should not be disrupted. As always, education is important. ++Regarding wilderness, I totally disagree with the need for wilderness in Wisconsin. The vast, vast majority of people would not know a managed forest from a wilderness, and could get lost just as easily in either. A managed forest provides too many benefits to be set aside for the eliteist desire for wilderness. Only a small fraction of the population will ever take advantage of or gain benefit from a wilderness.
Comment #: 117
Coordination of activities and a balance of the multiuse of our forests is key to not losing the quality and diversity of the forests in our state. Once again, creative problem solving may be the key to finding new solutions to old problems.
Comment #: 118
This a key issue in the sustainable forestry message and links with the past multiple-use forestry concept. This needs to be well articulated in the plan. This issue has a strong relationship to B2 above.
Comment #: 119
Need to keep in mind economics - not just recreation
Comment #: 120
More of the same.
Comment #: 121
The resultant plan desparately need to integrate issues/trends B2, B3, B4 and A2, A7, A9.
Comment #: 122
I think it is important to understand that a forest cannot be all things to all people. Just because a new "recreational activity" is created or becomes popular doesn't mean the forests have to become the play ground for it. Some properties can handle increased use, some can't.
Comment #: 123
However, it must be recognized that not every acre on every property can satisfy every use. Timber production areas will be needed as will wildlife management areas, old growth areas and recreational use areas to name a few.
Comment #: 124
However, it must be recognized that not every acre on every property can satisfy every use. Timber production areas will be needed as will wildlife management areas, old growth areas and recreational use areas to name a few.
Comment #: 125
This all depends on who has the most power.
Comment #: 126
Wilderness areas should be given top priority. Wisconsin forests are small in size and what does exist is terribly fragmented. Remember timber harvest precludes a wilderness area also. It's all a matter of perspective.
Comment #: 127
Multipul use is important not just restricted wilderness.
Comment #: 128
More wilderness areas are needed.
Comment #: 129
there is enough wilderness
Comment #: 130
Statewide management of Wisconsin's forests should strive to accomodate multiple uses.
Comment #: 131
Coordination is critical. Long-term (100 year +) plans are needed.
Comment #: 132
supra
Comment #: 133
this issue inparticular is also one of the most important - multiple users whether its forests, lakes etc.
Comment #: 134
As stated above.
Comment #: 135
As stated above.
Comment #: 136
VERY DIM VIEW OF COOPERATION BETWEEN USER GROUPS HERE. THAT OR WE HAVE SOME VERY GREEDY USER GROUPS THAT WANT OR DEMAND THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THEIR WAY AT ANY COST.
Comment #: 137
We can't kiss everybodies ass!
Comment #: 138
The health and well-being of the forest and its ecosystem should come before the needs of humans.
Comment #: 139
It may end up that certain areas will need to be used at certain times and there may have to be a limit on what occurs at each different forest. Rotations of some uses may be needed.
Comment #: 140
Some of us need wilderness, like many native species and it is comforting to know it is there. There is only so much forestland; we cannot keep expanding our use of it forever. We should control ourselves now before it is too late.
Comment #: 141
Combine with B-2, B-3, C-7, and C-13. This is the nuts and bolts of the plan. What are the demands for the various outputs and what are our capabilities to meet these and if we do not who will? BIG JOB!!! We are probably at the point of knowing how many pieces of pie there will be, but the planning process determines the size of the pieces. This a critical question, especially when considering some of the uses are singular or almost so while others go well in combination.
Comment #: 142
Sustainable mix-use is fine.
Comment #: 143
See B3
Comment #: 144
Multiple-use is OK for much forest land. But large tracts need to be managed for old growth and to deal with the fragmentation issue.
Comment #: 145
Addressed above.
Comment #: 146
Don't forget about the Indiginous land formations as well. To some non-indiginous people they are more impotant than our own initives.
Comment #: 147
I enjoy wilerness, but there is only so much wilderness that I can explore. I believe that wilderness can co exist next to well managed areas. We use zoning in the city to keep industrial, light industrial, comercial, multifamily, and single family all co existing.
Comment #: 148
And it isn't going to get any better.
Comment #: 149
Logging and recreation can exist side by side. It will take proper timber sale design and timing along with educating the public as to what is being done.
Comment #: 150
I believe that there are enough ways to increase the revenue without timber harvest.
Comment #: 151
Same category as old growth issue, isn't it?
The timber barrons of the late 1800s and early
1900s saw not reason to spare even small sections
of forest for later generations. God forbid we
should be in that same category! If you folks
do not recognize the importance of ROADLESS and
SOUNDLESS wilderness, then you best give the job
to someone else who does!
Comment #: 152
Recreational uses that degrade the resource should not be considered.
Comment #: 153
Recreational uses that degrade the resource should not be considered.
Comment #: 154
Recreational uses that degrade the resource should not be considered.
Comment #: 155
I would be in favor of putting protection first in the list of priorities. Once a tract of forest is opened to "development" of any kind, there is usually no turning back and recovering what has been lost. Protection is almost always cheaper and more effective than restoration.
Comment #: 156
Not sure what the question is here.
Comment #: 157
But stay away from single use activities. We no longer have enough acres to promote single use activities.
Comment #: 158
The conservation biology trade-off, e.g., forest mgmt for late successional species with extended rotations, will need to be addressed. Some influential groups will push for this.
Comment #: 159
they should be kept this way recreation is fun
Comment #: 160
In is respect, I think it's important to understand that all forests can't be all things to all people.
Comment #: 161
Some forests simply should not be cut.
Comment #: 162
Dedicate substantial forest areas for wilderness activites such as hiking, and cross-country skiing since these experiences are deteriorated by timber harvesting and development. These areas for wilderness activities would also provide valuable habitat for diverse species of plants and animals as well as protection of water quality.
Comment #: 163
It is also increasingly important that the state of Wisconsin be proactive in purchasing and setting aside wilderness and lake shore areas for public use. I expecially believe that the state of Wisconsin should actively seek to purchase large tracts of Lake Superior frontage i.e. from Superior Falls, Montreal River to the Bad River Reservation and from the Apostle Island National Lake Shore to the Brule River State Forest, and establish them as wilderness/ semi wilderness areas. These places will be forever lost to public use given the current trend and lucrative realestate value of lake front properties in Wisconsin.
Comment #: 164
It is also increasingly important that the state of Wisconsin be proactive in purchasing and setting aside wilderness and lake shore areas for public use. I expecially believe that the state of Wisconsin should actively seek to purchase large tracts of Lake Superior frontage i.e. from Superior Falls, Montreal River to the Bad River Reservation and from the Apostle Island National Lake Shore to the Brule River State Forest, and establish them as wilderness/ semi wilderness areas. These places will be forever lost to public use given the current trend and lucrative realestate value of lake front properties in Wisconsin.
Comment #: 165
Wilderness does not preclude camping, hiking, canoeing, birding, photography, snowshoeing. We need more wilderness areas.
Comment #: 166
This particular item is one that the DNR will be strongly criticized for if not accomplished, yet, it will require a large administrative commitement to achieve. Further study of the logistics of multiple-use is important to try to satisfy the consumer base.
Comment #: 167
Harvest when mature and use logging roads for motorized trails
Comment #: 168
Harvest when mature and use logging roads for motorized trails
Comment #: 169
I'd argue too, that multiple-use management doesn't work successfully for many activities such as silent sports (mountain biking, xc skiing, hiking) and motorized sports. Many areas combine these without thinking about the experience that recreational users will have. Silent sports tend to lose out.
Comment #: 170
All types of recreation must be allowed, motorized and non-motorized.
Comment #: 171
What good is a wilderness area if nobody can go and see it?
Comment #: 172
With all the continued growth and devleopment it is important that we all are able to use the forest for mixed reasons. Don't keep the public lands from the public.
Comment #: 173
same as B3
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS