Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
B6. Issue: Sustainable management certification is emerging.
Comment #: 1
If the same standard apply global wide.
Comment #: 2
While the view from the top may look good to you, I would like to comment on the view from the forest floor. Our family was advised to plant row crop red pine in 1970, 71, 72 we entered American Tree Farm System in 1979 while procuring tax breraks for our so called managed forest. DNR and Consolodated Foresters assisted us. 30 years later: I do not consider even aged row crop red pine to be a forest. Labels are just labels, nothing more.
Comment #: 3
This issue can go both ways.
Comment #: 4
If you insist on logging you may as well justify it - I think it will assurage the gult that comes with logging off the land.
Comment #: 5
This should NOT be TIED to a program which is disfavorable to privately owned and managed woodlands!
Comment #: 6
Yes, responsible citizens should be able to choose.
Comment #: 7
Don't sell overseas. Not from here, nor from Tongass. Help, teach, encourage other nations, to grow and use their own wood.
Comment #: 8
Green certification is a marketing ploy; it had good intensions however the end result with be ecologically disatrious.
Comment #: 9
So far - this appears to be a smokescreen for the logging industry to hide behind
Comment #: 10
Seek input from March Pecove at MTE, Keshena
Comment #: 11
perhaps all lumber production should become certified
Comment #: 12
This is not a certification system. Present certification systems are sham, they don't address harvesting practices.
Comment #: 13
It seems that sustainable forest land would be very compatible with recreational uses; i.e., x country skiing, snowmobile (ugh), horse trails, hunting, hiking
Comment #: 14
I am in favor of sustainable (?) I don't know if we need a lot of effort in certification
Comment #: 15
wood is wood! This would be meaningless!
Comment #: 16
This should be supported. Incentives?
Comment #: 17
Of "green certification" from other nations is valid.
Comment #: 18
Best left to the industry?
Comment #: 19
I would hope that all our forests are managed sustainably, but for the sake of tropical forests, I hope the certification doesn't increase the value of our forests too much . . .
Comment #: 20
I am in favor of the industry policing itself and in favor of sustainably managing the forest. Am not sure that the DNR needs to get involved in this issue.
Comment #: 21
those of us enrolled in MFL must surely be participating in "green" forestry in the best sense! There must be a sensible - centsable rationale!
Comment #: 22
This is only a gimic to pacify the environmental preservationist adds cost and don't accomplish much. Just manage and the rest will all come. Don't coddle preservationist, help them get realistic.
Comment #: 23
People who make their livelihood from the forest are those most likely to sustainably manage forestland.
Comment #: 24
Certification should be encouraged!
Comment #: 25
Same as B2
Comment #: 26
As long as these systems are unbiased.
Comment #: 27
Some of these certificatins are excellent, such as smart wood and should be encouraged in a statewide forest plan. Don't know about others.
Comment #: 28
Deregulation, tax shift to depletion and pollution, and ending of subsidies will also entail "green certification."
Comment #: 29
See comments of E6
Comment #: 30
Who is certifing the certification. Are the retailers willing to stand behind green certification no matter what the cost.
Comment #: 31
I suppose this will effect forest management but seems to be somewhat a separate issue
Comment #: 32
Tell the Greene's to stick there head in the sand
Comment #: 33
Cooperate and educate only
Comment #: 34
The state should pursue certification.
Comment #: 35
I would like to believe that this could become the predominant practice in our logging industry.
Comment #: 36
How about one standard system?
Comment #: 37
I think someone dreamed this one up to captalize on a sensitive issue. While it sounds good, ti costs a considerable amount of money to be certified. Most tree farmer and forest products companies already practice this.
Comment #: 38
How do we become certified and of what value to producer is certification
Comment #: 39
we have been trying to do this for over 100 years
Comment #: 40
Lets keep the International out of our thinking, we are a Free Republic so far.
Comment #: 41
The economic importance of this issue is obvious
Comment #: 42
Good Idea!
Comment #: 43
Nobody should tell a private landowner how they should manage there land, unless he agrees to have someone manage it.
Comment #: 44
Some certification criteria are too weak to be useful. They give false credibility
Comment #: 45
Consumers love this certification.
Comment #: 46
A commendable goal, but is it workable?
Comment #: 47
The landowners who work so hard for their beloved forests should be recognized, it's a good step.
Comment #: 48
Good move!
Comment #: 49
All of these systems have merit. The question is how much "proof" and paper work is needed to show the special interest groups that we have been doing a good job in managing our forests overall. I feel these systems have most all of us more aware of sustainability, but will the special interest groups ever be satisifed?
Comment #: 50
Many small woodland owners would benefit greatly if they could market their trees as being certified. The use of COOPs has a lot of potential.
Comment #: 51
But will this movement survive a strong recession? It's still pretty trendy -
Comment #: 52
Degrading our public forests for private economic gain is wrong. A global forest products industry is a threat.
Comment #: 53
This would be one way of encouraging better forest stewardship.
Comment #: 54
Want to stay away from any government agency controlling management of private land.
Comment #: 55
State of WI should buy only green certified products (timber/lumber) and only recycled paper.
Comment #: 56
"Sustainable management" means the same thing as "conitued management." In other words, it lacks meaning. However use the veb "sustain" as a noun, adjective or adverb. If you would only use it as a verb, you would say what you are intending to sustain. And be specific. "Sustain forests" is too vague. What is it about the forest you want to sustain? Furthermore, I dislike cute, private-and-small-sector, politically-correct certification programs. Simply manage public forests for the public good - the whole, big, broad public good.
Comment #: 57
These are strong arm tactics to force landowners to comply.
Comment #: 58
Certain tree species - i.e. - white cedar is being overcut - the demand is tremendous - but cedar grows slowly and cedar swamps provide a haven and winter yard protection and feed for deer to survive.
Comment #: 59
Ban all hunting tree stands - the climbers and nails and screws in foot holds are not compatible with sawlog quality.
Comment #: 60
If I manage for sustainable growth what does this do to biodiversity?
Comment #: 61
What about smartwood; add smartwood to the list.
Comment #: 62
Certification is too politically influenced to an issue.
Comment #: 63
Why not get the groups to try and agree to one definition (standard).
Comment #: 64
How do you make sure green certification is reliable.
Comment #: 65
Be careful that "certification" does not take away mgmt. options. Consider SFI.
Comment #: 66
It sure has helped Pennsylvania's hardwood markets.
Comment #: 67
Marketing ploy!!
Comment #: 68
It is already . . . (to be shipped around the world)
Comment #: 69
The forest products should stay in this country.
Comment #: 70
Sustainable management occurs without having to pay a green entity for their ideological stamp of approval.
Comment #: 71
Set high local standards - but certification discriminate against small owners.
Comment #: 72
Sustainability will keep us alive.
Comment #: 73
Great idea!
Comment #: 74
This is good for private timber land. Public land should not be logged use very strict criteria
Comment #: 75
Of the above certification systems, the most viable one is AF & PA's Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
Comment #: 76
The buyers could care less.
Comment #: 77
An excellent answer to problem in B4.
Comment #: 78
Continue same - refining - not expanding.
Comment #: 79
Who will be selected as the certifier the Seirra Club or a more practical organization?
Comment #: 80
Like fish being raised in containments ponds (50% now), tree could also be certified as renewable products.
Comment #: 81
Lots of timber out there that should be harvested.
Comment #: 82
This practice should be encouraged.
Comment #: 83
Who pays for the green certification?
Comment #: 84
Some DNR foresters seem to have a problem with this concept and seem to insinuate that it involves a lot of unscientific hocus pocus, we need to encourage this as a method to increase value and improve forests.
Comment #: 85
This will put incentive in managing a forest the way it should be.
Comment #: 86
Education of landowners as to the benefits of management. Let's see more "mini" extension courses.
Comment #: 87
5
Comment #: 88
You are now opening a huge can of worms, with no control or policing possible!
Comment #: 89
Don't know if it can be avoided.
Comment #: 90
Such a plan would slow the timber industry down to extinction. It should be managed and given consideraton at the forester-timber sale level or it will get out of control and ruin industry!
Comment #: 91
Certification of sustainability is OK so long as the standards of sustainability allow mgmt practices such as clear-cutting and seed tree cutting.
Comment #: 92
This is important so the correct LONG TERM decisions are made.
Comment #: 93
Certification of the state forest would increase the marketability of its timber as well as offer assurance to the public that the forest is sustainably managed.
Comment #: 94
It's a idea that needs to be followed through with.
Comment #: 95
If we end up with too many different certification systems it will become confusing (to the public and even us foresters). It is likely that each has, or will have, their own criteria etc. I would like to see some concensus on formulating a common set of criteria for products to be considered "green".
Comment #: 96
It's important to me that i buy from a company who has thoughts for the future
Comment #: 97
This is extremely scary. Are we headed toward government rules in this area (socialism at its worst)?
Comment #: 98
Again, this is a bogus misunderstanding of forest management. We need to stress good forest management, not word games.
Comment #: 99
I lke the green certification and feel that many people will support it.
Comment #: 100
Planning for and supporting the certification movement can greatly increase the likelyhood of a forest owner having a forest management plan before he removes products from his forest.
Comment #: 101
+++
Comment #: 102
Though sustainability of forests have been a valued goal since the beginnings of forestry as a resource management discipline, it hasn't always been faithfully implemented-often the equation was manipulated to suit certain social goals. However, for both environmental and social benefits, suistainability is essential for the health of the forest economy and for the health of our planet.
Comment #: 103
We need to manage our forest lands with sustainability as a base line. Cutting trees is not a bad thing as some indicate. But, if we're harvesting trees, we need to insure that the acreage being cut is regenerated. Without this, the tree hugging element will surely cry foul and sway publics preception of forestry.
Comment #: 104
I guess it could be important if the certification really, really, honestly means something. Being ceritfied would mean that lumber producers would also need regular monitoring to make sure they continue to practice sustainable forestry and use best mgt practices.
Comment #: 105
When the mills do more than lip service this process has a chance. To this point, the mills don't care how the wood gets to them as long as it is there and their cheep prices because the consumers aren't or won't pay the extra cost for this forest cert. When a mill runs out of wood they are more concerned with getting wood than they are about the environment they have affected in getting that wood.
Comment #: 106
We should require logging companies to use sustainable management practices.
Comment #: 107
This is grossly overblown within this state. Let it develop and see what happens. Look at this again in 10 years.
Comment #: 108
Encourage this trend!
Comment #: 109
one of the better ideas I've heard.
Comment #: 110
This should be ISO 14000, not ISO 1400.
Comment #: 111
There is a serious lack of "green" certified timber in the lake states. So far the demand has been for the F.S.C. cert. wood, but there is a growing acceptance of the S.F.I. cert. system which is much more small land owner and industry friendly.
Comment #: 112
There is a serious lack of "green" certified timber in the lake states. So far the demand has been for the F.S.C. cert. wood, but there is a growing acceptance of the S.F.I. cert. system which is much more small land owner and industry friendly.
Comment #: 113
Should DNR stewardship plans be "green" plans?
Comment #: 114
It may be in the long-term, best interests of the state to take a leading role in promoting these types of certification to help in the development of a market for these types of products.
Comment #: 115
The long-term goal for WI should be that every forest product carries a "green certification."
Comment #: 116
Standards and audits can protect the consumer, producer and forests.
Comment #: 117
NEED MOE DATA.
Comment #: 118
Sounds like more Bull to me.
Comment #: 119
While harvesting is necessary, it should be strongly required that it is done so in a sustainable manner. For example, see Menominee Reservation.
Comment #: 120
The cost for certification could be lowered to a less outrageous cost for poor college students just out of school.
Comment #: 121
I think this is an excellent idea as long as theya re regulated, and regulated by someone other than the people that would directly profit from the harvesting. There are a few lumber producers that are doing this and are happy with it. It also shows the public that you are more into caring and being concerned about our forests.
Comment #: 122
It would be difficult for a state to support one certification program over another. Legislation could define sustainable and that would be another alternative.
Comment #: 123
Importat to be considering some standards that also support lager regional, national and international efforts
Comment #: 124
A win-win situation.
Comment #: 125
Yes, i agree. But i have little faith in what the monitering constituents will entail. I think an outside the DNR entity should also minitor with the DNR. A checks and balaces approach.
Comment #: 126
This is a concept that is very marketable. People will buy "green" toilet paper or paper towels if they understand why. Just see what they've done with recycling when asked to do it as individuals in each household. With the right marketing/educational plan these concepts can become reality.
Comment #: 127
I think all timber harvesters should be mandated by law to be "green certified." I think not being green is what contributes to many of the issues addressed in A.
Comment #: 128
This is not a management issue. Besides there are too many variations of "green certification"
Comment #: 129
Forests will need to be managed more intensively in order to meet societies demands for wood products. However, there is no excuse for not managing these renewable resources responsibly.
Comment #: 130
The lack of replanting in the late 1800's and early 1900's changed the landscape of N. Wisconsin forever. If there had been a reforestation plan then, Wisconsin would be the leader of the wood products industry now. Sustainable timber industry should be one of the most important priortities of any management plan.
Comment #: 131
See earlier comments.
Comment #: 132
This is indeed an important trend. Unfortunately, there is still no clear objective standard for confirming bona fide "sustainable" management. A good standard is needed soon.
Comment #: 133
This is indeed an important trend. Unfortunately, there is still no clear objective standard for confirming bona fide "sustainable" management. A good standard is needed soon.
Comment #: 134
Yes! The additional awareness that lumber producers
must manage forests as a renewable commodity is the
primary goal of a forest plan.
Comment #: 135
Eventually, I think the public will demand accountability.
Comment #: 136
This is a great idea! Consumers need this information to make environmentally friendly decisions when making purchases.
Comment #: 137
I think this is a good trend but probably not a pancea.
Comment #: 138
Address only in a limited way. The Market and economics will drive this issue to conclusion.
Comment #: 139
The momentum is clear. Home Depot, Lowe's, Andersen Windows, and other wood retailing giants are committing to sustainably produced forest products obtained only through green certification programs. But there are several such programs and much public confusion and industry uncertainty. A more uniform and consistent standard is needed. It must be independently achieved based on sound science and absent any real or perceived industry pressure.
Comment #: 140
I would like to see more of this in Wisconsin.
Comment #: 141
Certification will not work. It will penalize the small business, put $ in the pockets of some at the expense of others.
Comment #: 142
Limit the number of certifications used in Wisconsin to minimize confusion.
Comment #: 143
All lumber harvested in Wisconsin should be from sustainable managed forest and should be required to be certified.
Comment #: 144
All lumber harvested in Wisconsin should be from sustainable managed forest and should be required to be certified.
Comment #: 145
Sustainable management certification - if done properly - is a great way to bring consumer pressure to bear on suppliers of forest products. There are already some victories in this area with big retailers (at least they've made promises). ISO 1400 is not a good choice. Certification should be against standards advance by an independent agency. ISO 1400 would simply allow companies to "self police" - set up their own standards and then agree to follow them. Kind of like making up your own rules to a card game as the game progresses.
Comment #: 146
Certification is a tool we can use to help discourage unscrupulous buyers and thieves from damaging our most important public and private forest lands.
Comment #: 147
Suggest do not dictate
Comment #: 148
Suggest do not dictate
Comment #: 149
What role would DNR have in this??? and why?
Comment #: 150
This should be left to industry, not the DNR or Forest Service.
Comment #: 151
They should all stick together - strenght is in numbers. I don't know if I beleive that our timber needs to be shipped around the world though.
Comment #: 152
The state needs to invest in the logging industry
to help it develop more "green" methods
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS