Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C11. Trend: More trails are being created and used.
Comment #: 1
Yes, silent sports.
Comment #: 2
Trails in forests are good as long as everyone remembers the forest is first.
Comment #: 3
Very good.
Comment #: 4
I disagree to the extent that if anything - we already have to many trail systems. County woods in particular are cris crossed with trails with no large uninterrupted areas left. It's kind of nice to wander what lies over there verses taking any one of 3 trails to find out.
Comment #: 5
Low impact uses only please.
Comment #: 6
The state could do more. The use of old logging roads would work in certain places.
Comment #: 7
Most trails near trails are used for snowmobiling and ATVing - as there maches are encouraged and allowed to encroach on our wild areas - those of us that live here are disturbed at all hours by whining machines going to the taverns. The solution is NOT to unleash tem on the animals in the middle of the forests - but to enact rules and regulations for thses motorists to abide by. They are being given free reign over the land without impunity and it needs to stop.
Comment #: 8
Old rail beds are a good alternative for motorized recreation
Comment #: 9
"Snowmobiling" - Must have separate trails. Their presence and noise send critters and birds that the quieter types of recreationists hope to see or hear, far waya and hidden from noise makers, and quiet trail users also.
Comment #: 10
No tax $, let private $ do it.
Comment #: 11
Local ordinance.
Comment #: 12
People who want hiking trails don't want to be subjected to the noise of motorized intrusion
Comment #: 13
("Snowmobiling") - No motorized vehicles! Costs too much to allow them to build and use trails for a small number of people.
Comment #: 14
States can and should regulate the trails in state forests.
Comment #: 15
This is confusing. Are you talking about trails on state lands or on private land as well?
Comment #: 16
These trails need to be controlled to preserve the natural areas.
Comment #: 17
great need
Comment #: 18
Only in its affect on the forest, its management and biology.
Comment #: 19
That is the only way they should ride if not they should get it taken away.
Comment #: 20
The more trails there are, the easier it is to separate the different types of uses.
Comment #: 21
Trails for QUIET enjoyment/use such as hiking, biking, walking, backpacking and horseback riding must remain for those uses only! Snowmobiles, ATV's and noisy use should be on traisl for that purpose only!
Comment #: 22
Cross country skiing? Also
Comment #: 23
four-wheelers! Less impact than snow-mobiles on winter stressed wildlife!
Comment #: 24
all the old rail beds should be converted to ATV/snowmobile trails.
Comment #: 25
The logging roads should suffice for the trails for the most part for non-motorized activities.
Comment #: 26
It's a good way for people to spend time together and out of trouble
Comment #: 27
see C10
Comment #: 28
and skiing!
Comment #: 29
Four-wheelers also.
Comment #: 30
We need ATV rideing in Vilas Co.
Comment #: 31
Stringent - no leeway - rules and enforcement is required.
Comment #: 32
Good project. Keep it non motorized.
Comment #: 33
These trails including ATV trails have their place and should be increased when necessary and possible to reduce crowding and congestion. It is not fair to use monies from recreational vehicles using gas to fund or partially fund non-motorized sports unless there are opportunities in that county or location for all sports!
Comment #: 34
Major use is ATV riding.
Comment #: 35
Quiet spots are important
Comment #: 36
The rails to trails should be reversed.
Comment #: 37
Impact of trails on forest management.
Comment #: 38
Parks and forest manag are not compatable
Comment #: 39
I agree if what this is saying is that we have to look at increasing trail construction/usage in future planning. Otherwise, it sounds like an interesting ,and important, fact.
Comment #: 40
Opportunity for informing users.
Comment #: 41
eliminate snowmobiles
Comment #: 42
But, is the tail starting to wag the dog? But no doubt most users need trails to get off the roads. Nature trails are cheap and great.
Comment #: 43
Trails can become insidious in that they seem easy and innocuous to construction, but introduce corridors for changing species and forest temps/humidity/erosion
Comment #: 44
Limit the number of trails. The state forests should not be riddled with new trails. Follow existing logging roads where possible. The private sector is discovering the popularity of trails and is beginning to exploit this niche.
Comment #: 45
I feel that 4-wheelers should be allowed to use more trails.
Comment #: 46
This all increases the problem of fragmentation.
Comment #: 47
Limit the amount of trails. Leave forests in their natural state.
Comment #: 48
I feel trails and roads are important so EVERYONE can enjoy the beauty of the outdoors.
Comment #: 49
But they are not paying adequate fees!
Comment #: 50
This is good.
Comment #: 51
Snowmobiling trails and state and national forest roads should be utilized.
Comment #: 52
Trails are fine, no A.T.V.s
Comment #: 53
Outlaw motorized transport on trails develop statewide plan for layout and maintenance
Comment #: 54
But, let the users pick up the tab
Comment #: 55
encourage the non-invasive "silent sports"!
Comment #: 56
Hiking/walking trails accommodate maximum user numbers with fewest associated problems.
Comment #: 57
Skiing - it is unfortunate that our "natural resources" are dominated by ATV's, snowmobiles, jet skiis, drunken speedboaters, and dirt bikes. Perhaps our state could encourage biking, hiking, and skiing a bit more!
Comment #: 58
Good idea - stick to the trails esspecially with motorized vehicles.
Comment #: 59
No trails that I know of let disabled and elderly real use of there is no reason that the elderly and disabled should not be able to use an ATV on their trails. But with a speed limit to 10 mph or less.
Comment #: 60
Again, the forest owner provides the scenery!
Comment #: 61
Allow only non-motorized use.
Comment #: 62
Stop making trails. Ever here of a compass and topo map?
Comment #: 63
Use these often - bike on Bearskin trail and also new trail at Boulder Junction.
Comment #: 64
These old R.R. trails are excellent for the outdoor use. As they are already in place and won't destroy additional wild land to create new trails. We need to develop more of these as they cover all areas of the state.
Comment #: 65
But these are generally old R.R. right of ways and some day we'll need the R.R. (drive the Inter State to Fl. Once and you'll see, I been coming here for 9 years and this year I never encounted so many trucks.
Comment #: 66
This is another way to edeucate the public on the fine job our State Foresters (public and private) have done to improve our forests.
Comment #: 67
This is a way to increase access to forested areas without adversely impacting these areas. Definitely continue these programs.
Comment #: 68
Can't avoid the issue -
Comment #: 69
Silent sports trails in areas that are preserved is the future. If we don't set aside these areas now, they will soon be gone.
Comment #: 70
More trails will help C10. Overall, there are enough motorized trails. We need to concentrate motorized ? in a few key corridors/? Leave the rest of the forests alone.
Comment #: 71
My comment here is the same as mine for B3.
Comment #: 72
The problem is that some users insist on creating their own trails (e.g. snowmobile paths).
Comment #: 73
We need more - but must keep the mechanized motor routes away from the more pristine areas and trails where people can hike and experience the natural sounds and protect wildlife from the noise, destruction and pollution inherent in the vehicles.
Comment #: 74
No internal combustion engine allowed - walk ski horses
Comment #: 75
As a private landowner, I have planted over 40,000 trees and do not want public trails thru it. One match and it's all gone.
Comment #: 76
No motorized use.
Comment #: 77
Create more trails for all users (mlti-use)
Comment #: 78
Landowners should be compensated for snowmobile trails on their land. A tax on snowmobiles need to be done to support the trail system. It's about time non-landowners start paying for the use of trails on private lands. If that does not happen, there will be fewer trails crossing private land.
Comment #: 79
Very good use of a permanent trail already constructed.
Comment #: 80
These people should be paying a user fee. They should not be given a free ride on the hunter's back. Many of these people a avid and active anti hunters.
Comment #: 81
This is ok if the motorized machines are kept out.
Comment #: 82
Certain state laws on some of these old R. R. right-of-way trails where they cross private lands as concerning crossing during hunting seasons serve no useful purpose whatever and should be changed.
Comment #: 83
Turn this issue over to the trail people. Partner with them. Focus on keeping the forests intact and healthy.
Comment #: 84
All uses mentioned except snowmobiling are excellent reasons for trails. Snowmobiling is not compatible with the others.
Comment #: 85
Include ATV's.
Comment #: 86
More trails are needed.
Comment #: 87
Some county land in LaX county you can't ride in.
Comment #: 88
A good program.
Comment #: 89
Keep people on trails and limit off road use of forests.
Comment #: 90
I agree with these old rail systems being used as trails as the stone cinder bed is usually there and would not convert back to woodland easy.
Comment #: 91
ATV's need equal access. They pay registration but are more restricted.
Comment #: 92
Misuse of trails, trash, smoking, snowmobiling, etc.
Comment #: 93
I'd like to see snow-mo trails incorporated into Wisconsin trail system to have more trail or ground for year-round use; perhaps sno-mo trails could be on edges of fields/fence lines instead of running across the farmers' fields and tree planted areas. Then, farmers or landowners may not kick off the trails from their lands. Also, cut down on speed-less open straight aways.
Comment #: 94
Limit motorized access and ?
Comment #: 95
These trails for the most part don't hurt the woodlands.
Comment #: 96
There are many hiking, biking and running trails but not nearly enough ATV and snowmobile trails. A person can hike or ride a bike almost anywhere, but ATVs and snowmobiles must have marked trails to ride on. Fortunately, the same trails can serve both user types.
Comment #: 97
Keep the hiking trails out of state forests. It is just another imposition by humans on the forest. A hiking trail was just added to an area that I've traversed for over 30 years. NEVER did I need a trail
Comment #: 98
and motorized use
Comment #: 99
Carefully weigh the trail vs. enviromental damage in sensitive/rare ecosystems
Comment #: 100
ATVS, Skiing, etc.
Comment #: 101
2
Comment #: 102
Foot trails - OK Snowmobiling trails - not OK
Comment #: 103
Limit trails.
Comment #: 104
Trails for non motorized use only
Comment #: 105
ATV's are taking over the trails and local business owners owners, when asked where they can go, they tell them anywhere they want. The result is damage to wetlands, seedlings, and natural regeneration
Comment #: 106
Not motorized trails have much less impact than motorized. I do not favor motorized trail use in Wisconsin's state owned forests.3
Comment #: 107
Enough trails already - set aisde no ?; control and police current trails - set and ? user fees, etc., etc., etc.
Comment #: 108
The decisions on where these trails will be created or improved should be left primarily to the professionals to decide what areas are best suited for what trails.
Comment #: 109
This is what its all about. How about more port-a-johns, drinkable water in route?
Comment #: 110
as above
Comment #: 111
trails were ok at first - but today there are too many - over kill
Comment #: 112
Don't let bureaucracy screw this popular trend out of proportion. Discipline is what is needed, not a plan!
Comment #: 113
Too many now
Comment #: 114
Strongly agree that MORE not less trails would be financially better for local communities that depend on toruist dollars for survival.
Comment #: 115
Mostly
Comment #: 116
If one group is allowed access other groups should not be denied as long as they do not constitute a danger.
Comment #: 117
Snowmobile and ATV use and trails have problem areas. I am on the snowmobile council in our Coutny. I have a snowmobile, a 3 wheeler and a 6 wheeler. I have 10 grandhcildren living in Wisc & MN who come up and use those machines. We are not on the trails very much since I have my own trails on my Forest Lands. Have used cost shaving DNR other programs to make these trails. The Co. trails have a lot of use here in this co. & the ATV trails are detiorating fast - this is a problem that needs addressing.
Comment #: 118
great idea
Comment #: 119
New trail footprints should be minimal for non-motorized traffic.
Comment #: 120
Cross-country skiing.
Comment #: 121
More paved bike trails close to road - Motorized trails deeper into the forests not along roads, don't enjoy hearing snowmobiles. Higher fees to use motorized trails - mare state upkeep. Love the bike trail from Boulder Junction to Clear Lake! Fees at beginning and end - I would be happey to pay. Signs regarding life along the trail - like Trout Lake trail. Fees to go to state or local forest restoration society, Lions Club, etc.
Comment #: 122
We have enough trails - we need law enforcement to keep users on them.
Comment #: 123
NOT ENOUGH!
Comment #: 124
Forests should be for trees - the walkers, bikers, etc. can find other places for their hobby!
Comment #: 125
no
Comment #: 126
Stop all trail development.
Comment #: 127
Trails are good but needn't be addressed in the forest plan.
Comment #: 128
See C9 comments.
Comment #: 129
I do not believe all federal, state, and county forests need to be accessible by motorized vehicles. Where I live in Wood County, who will enforce violations. The sheriff department says the DNR and the DNR says the sheriff department. Major problem!!!
Comment #: 130
There are for too trails for lazy people to abuse the forests and wildlife.
Comment #: 131
Trails are an opportunity for people of the inner city to become familiar with mother natue and to understand that there is more to our ecology than what they come in contact with in their daily lives.
Comment #: 132
Where do the animals go?
Comment #: 133
The rail line of the old C&HW from Monico to the Michigan line - "wasn't needed" according to the DNR when Vials and Oneida Counties asked the state to purchase it when it was abandoned.
Comment #: 134
What about quite ATV's with speed limits imposed on them. No racing.
Comment #: 135
horseback riding - compatible use
Comment #: 136
If conflicts develops, a daily or weekly rotation of different recreationist could be installed.
Comment #: 137
combine with C10
Comment #: 138
The rails to trails program should be factored in when considering increasing trail construction on the state forest. Old rail grades can be utilized without affecting current uses of the forest.
Comment #: 139
The trails are owned by the Gov't and they can control.
Comment #: 140
+ ATV'ing, etc.
Comment #: 141
need to have some areas in the state w/o trails, or roads. Too many times, we compromise natural areas for human's demands to have easy access.
Comment #: 142
Should be in SCORP
Comment #: 143
ATV's should be limited to trails designated solely for their use. Create more ATV trails and keep them there rather than all over the forest.
Comment #: 144
I DO agree that more trails are being created. I disagree with the last sentence of the description. I think the motorized vehicles (in addition to the snowmobiles) are using them whether they're allowed to or not
Comment #: 145
You need to include motorcycles and ATV's.
Comment #: 146
The problem here is that each group wants their own piece of the pie and want no other use of that piece. This is wrong.
Comment #: 147
Trails in forst stands restrict forest management management on public lands due to temporary conflicts.
Comment #: 148
Rails to trail is an excellent program.
Comment #: 149
But remember to put a limit on these trails. There need to be areas that aren't criss-crossed by trails.
Comment #: 150
For the most part, trails are very conducive to multi-use (except for some vehicular traffic) and these can easily be promoted. However, we need to reconize that not all places are suitable for all types of trails, and that the trail should not impact or minimally impact the forest through which it is going.
Comment #: 151
Continue to develope new trails when available.
Comment #: 152
I feel in many cases the different trail uses should be allowed nearby each other (parallel to each other for ease of maintenance and better safety.
Comment #: 153
And in Wisconsin ATV use is increasing most on public lands than all the other trail uses. On County forests unauthorized trails are being created. It's getting beyond control of some Counties, requiring them to hire special sherrif staff and pass special rules in order to control. DNR should take a lead in providing funding and model rules for control of ATV use on County Forests, and should have strict controls and penalties on state lands. Furthermore, DNR should give input on Federal lands management planning along similar lines. Some of these recreational demands need to be met, but not at the exclusion of other users and at the expense of severe degredation of the forest's biological health.
Comment #: 154
Again, a state forest cannot be all things. This needs to be addressed.
Comment #: 155
Low impact sports and small environmental problems.
Comment #: 156
I think trails are nice. We do not have to increase any, there are a good amount out there, but they should be in accordance with their natural surroundings.
Comment #: 157
Again, trails for low impact (non motorized vehicles) are ok, but still have consequences for others.
Comment #: 158
Limits of new recreation trails should be limited. however foot and horseback acces should be maintained for recreationals use.
Comment #: 159
Low impact should be a priority. And not all areas are appropraite for trails.
Comment #: 160
only in a positive manner
Comment #: 161
Part of the price that society goes through when it transforms from frontier to genteel.
Comment #: 162
this is better than creating new trail, use the old rails. part of the reuse, reduce ... kinda theory
Comment #: 163
Don't we have enough trails?
Comment #: 164
Don't we have enough trails?
Comment #: 165
the "Rails to Trails" program I believe should be sufficient.
Comment #: 166
FORGETTING ABOUT ATVS ARE WE OR DOES IT TAKE A LAWSUIT TO STOP DISCRIMINATION OF THIS NATURE .
Comment #: 167
These activities are an important source of income for local residents
Comment #: 168
Encourage low-impact usage.
Comment #: 169
More trails are good but to claim peoples lands to create these trails is an idea I disagree with. Having a trail giving people free access to your property is not a popular idea to most landowners.
Comment #: 170
Using the previous railroad beds is a good idea, reusing previous instead of making new.
Comment #: 171
See C-10
Comment #: 172
Yes, related to previous commets about recreation and its important economic value etc.
Comment #: 173
We need to do the best we can to match supply with demand.
Comment #: 174
Trails are a great way to let the public use the forest. Trail fees should be set based on costs associated with maintenance of each type of use.
Comment #: 175
limit trails to those already established
Comment #: 176
Trails should mostly be maintained for pedestrians. More trails don't need to be created everywhere. I like the idea of large scale hiking trails that interconnect (i. e. Ice Age, North Country, Pacific Crest), but little patchwork trails on a local level are not necessary.
Comment #: 177
Lets get these trails connected.
Comment #: 178
Popular, but not really forestry
Comment #: 179
As long as trails are located in areas to prevent environmental damage they should be encouraged. However, users must be aware of the fact that they may encounter some timber harvesting operations along the way.
Comment #: 180
I think the trend towards trail creation (especially rails-to-trails and the north country trail) are wonderful programs which not only draw important tourist dollars to Wisconsin, but also add to our awareness and understanding of forests and nature.
Comment #: 181
I think that is a good thing.
Comment #: 182
There again, however, you are going to run
into multiple use problems. We have a controversy
up here in Bayfield county concerning the exclusive
use of trails by snowmobilers because they pay to have
the trails maintained and groomed. This is on county land
and I'm not aware of this being a problem on state or federal
land yet. But it is certainly something to be looked at as a
potential problem.
Comment #: 183
Trail systems must be balanced between motorized and non-motorized (silent sports) users. Trails must also be designed and built to minimize forest fragmentation, avoid water quality impacts, and prevent colonization by invasive exotic species.
Comment #: 184
Trail systems must be balanced between motorized and non-motorized (silent sports) users. Trails must also be designed and built to minimize forest fragmentation, avoid water quality impacts, and prevent colonization by invasive exotic species.
Comment #: 185
Trails only add to the problems associated with forest fragmentation. The less intrusive the trail (or its use), the better.
Comment #: 186
But limited by resources available.
Comment #: 187
This can be a concern when looking at the issue of fragmentation.
Comment #: 188
I agree that the trend is for more trails. This is a mixed bag. On the one hand, encouraging compatible public uses of forests is good. They get connected to nature and care more about what happens to forests. On the other hand, new trails can be bad when they mean more harmful habitat fragmentation, spread of exotics, soil erosion, and other problems. Careful planning, locating, design, and construction of new trails can help maximize the good and minimize the bad.
Comment #: 189
keep making more it helps making trails less used spreading people out
Comment #: 190
Trails keep peaple active in Nature and are a great way to have fun.
Comment #: 191
I dont think we need anymore trails. As of right now i think the trail system is great, I think they should spend more money on grooming them instead of building new trails, that way people can have a fun, safe ride instead of a bumpy, uncomfortable ride.
Comment #: 192
I feel the same way on this issue as i need on c10
Comment #: 193
I have to admit that I am a snowmobiler but I only go out once a week and I use as few trails as possible. The more trails we have the more polution reaches the internal parts of the forests which is killing. Trails should be as few as possible and kept closer to the towns instead of winding through miles and miles of virgin forests.
Comment #: 194
I agree with the trail being made but maybe we could cut down on the number being created.
Comment #: 195
I belive that the trails disrupt and damage the forests, and that less would be better.
Comment #: 196
walking trails, especially, should be promoted. 0-We need to limit human impact, especially the devistation caused by ATVs. We need a plan to give ATVs and future rec vehicles a space without disturbing the forests.
Comment #: 197
walking trails, especially, should be promoted. 0-We need to limit human impact, especially the devistation caused by ATVs. We need a plan to give ATVs and future rec vehicles a space without disturbing the forests.
Comment #: 198
Motorized issues could be included under this topic - rather than a separate topic.
Comment #: 199
No more trails should be created. In the summer many of the trails I was on only had a very few people using them.
Comment #: 200
I think we should develop a plan that
allows only a certain amount of trails
to be constructed every 10 years.
Comment #: 201
#4
Comment #: 202
i think that the trails in the forests are ok as long as they are taken care of properly and keep clean.
Comment #: 203
The abandoned rail line between Bayfield and Washburn ( I think this line also extends to Ashland) should be developed as a bike/ snowmobile/ horse trail. It follows Chequamegon Bay shoreline and includes forest and wetlands and passes the DNR fish hatchery on Hwy 13.
Comment #: 204
The abandoned rail line between Bayfield and Washburn ( I think this line also extends to Ashland) should be developed as a bike/ snowmobile/ horse trail. It follows Chequamegon Bay shoreline and includes forest and wetlands and passes the DNR fish hatchery on Hwy 13.
Comment #: 205
Trails are important and valuable - hiking, biking, and skiing trails. They should not be constructed in wilderness or otherwise pristine areas though but rather should be converted from prior uses such as roads, two-tracks, fire lanes, railways, etc.
Comment #: 206
All sports should be allowed to continue using the forests. We all pay taxes and we all should have equal access.
Comment #: 207
Continued review and inclusion of trails as the primary outdoor recreational opportunity for a majority of our population is necessary.
Comment #: 208
The more use these areas receive the better.I think that the time has come to reflect on just why we have state land. Is it to just serve a few or for the majority?
Comment #: 209
As our population grows so does the demand for more trils. We need to keep develope more trails (motorized & non-motorized) to give people a controlled place to enjoy the outdoor sport of their choseing.
Comment #: 210
all trails should be multiuse as long as all users pay equal amounts toward maintenance
Comment #: 211
all trails should be multiuse as long as all users pay equal amounts toward maintenance
Comment #: 212
Here is where the multiple-use issue comes to play - creating trails for many activities at once, which might not be satisfactory to the recreational user. For example, mountain biking on xc ski trails is dull -not as much single track or curves in the trail because then it wouldn't suit xc skiing. The solution is to create 2 sets of trails each with specific requirements that meet individual recreational needs.
Comment #: 213
Keep it up! Wisconsin is one of the best in the nation.
Comment #: 214
The rails to trails is a wonderful idea. Wish more cities would get on the program. Alot or the rails just abandoned and could be put to good use. If trails could go through the city and country side for yeas - let the snowmoibles. They bring alot of money to the ecomony.
Comment #: 215
that is why GOD made these forest for all types of people to enjoy.
Comment #: 216
more trails needed
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS