Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C1. Trend: Large blocks of industrial forests
are changing hands rapidly.
Comment #: 1
Let us not presuppose that the large block of industrial forest was instrinsicly better for our overall environment. Much private land is more intensivly managed than industrial land. On the other hand the sale of an entire paper company to another less environmentally friendly company has produced negative impact. Case in point: Nakoosa Edwards taken over by Georgia Pacific. Large tracts of oak, pine, popple mix were clear cut, disced up, and planted to red pine. Was herbicide used? Tordon kills everything but red pine. Having personally boserved this process over the last 5 years, I feel compelled to make the following comments: 1. Here, for the first time, I observed the use of a screen. A strip of forest about 100 yds deep is left standing along the roadway while the major portion of the land is processed. The screen is then logged off 2 or 3 years later. What's the screen for? If the destruction of a diverse woodland is such a good idea, why hide it from public view? 2. This "industrial forest", if indeed we can still refer to it as such, would have been much more valuable for resale to the private sector had it been allowd to regenerate naturally.
Comment #: 2
As in Maine and New England this is an issue here. Large blocks of forests must be maintaned.
Comment #: 3
Is this good for everyone?
Comment #: 4
Much of this land is being purchased by deer hunters and left alone for hunting purposes. This is one positive way to stop logging.
Comment #: 5
We need to protect our woodland not subdevide them for profit.
Comment #: 6
It's a free country - or is suppose to be.
Comment #: 7
This should not be used as an excuse for more public loggin
Comment #: 8
Should be required to have County Foresters help manage these.
Comment #: 9
You can't fight supply & demand!
Comment #: 10
(". . . private ownership. . . ") or out of country.
Comment #: 11
This would depend on what these large blocks of forestlands are used for
Comment #: 12
This needs to be stopped
Comment #: 13
The state hsould not tell anybody or industry that they can or not sell their land
Comment #: 14
We need to control development of forest lands if we can - if we don't we will not have many forests in some areas.
Comment #: 15
How can we affect this trend?
Comment #: 16
Government can provide planning and research but there is a danger that government can become too controlling in this area.
Comment #: 17
Economic forces of the market place tend to determine uses of resources. Too much governement intervention or control is not always good
Comment #: 18
But don't try to set policy to stop it.
Comment #: 19
What can you do about this?
Comment #: 20
A private property issue . . .
Comment #: 21
I have great concern abut industrial forests beeing sold to foreign owners - local dollars supporting these operations then utlimately those dollars leaving the US
Comment #: 22
count ant states should have the right of first refusal on these larger blocks of woodland. At a reasonable cost these could be preserved for forest land uses.
Comment #: 23
stay out of it, unless you decide to enforce sustainable foretry on MFL
Comment #: 24
duh!
Comment #: 25
Keep large blocks to avoid fragmentation
Comment #: 26
We need to have forestry zoning as to promote forestry and reduce the treat of forest land purchased by nonforest corporation with the intent to subdivide or use for non forest related practices.
Comment #: 27
Keep Gov. out of woods ownership.
Comment #: 28
This should be reversed
Comment #: 29
If the private owners decide to divide the forest land and/or connect to other land uses what can the statewide forest plan do about it? Seems to me the only option you have is to buy it.
Comment #: 30
It is this division which is permanently changing the forest character
Comment #: 31
Stewardship fund has helped out. Need more Gov't land acquisition and mgt.
Comment #: 32
This trend will have significant impacts.
Comment #: 33
(". . . May have . . . ") Agree with this proviso.
Comment #: 34
No more PCA land deals - only good for development not Wisconsin.
Comment #: 35
Why isn't the state taking a more active role in purchasing these lands. What happened to the PCA land, most of which fell into other hands
Comment #: 36
keep track
Comment #: 37
Should lands be regulated?
Comment #: 38
I don't see what the state con do about it, but I agree it should be addressed in the plan in the sense that the state should work with adjacent land owners whenever possible. Mgmt plans, ideally would follow natural boundaries (such as landtype) instead of property boundaries.
Comment #: 39
I'm in favor of government ownership or control of these lands in order to prevent the possibility of development and fragmentation.
Comment #: 40
Private ownership is not bad while government ownership can be costly and not always diligent.
Comment #: 41
State should purchase large forested land holdings for conservation.
Comment #: 42
The harvest from government owned and NIPF's is much less than from industrial forests
Comment #: 43
I strongly believe that industrial forest that change ownership should be left in forest and not cut up into rec's or other uses.
Comment #: 44
There are a lot of trends out there that are not good. Ie company land becoming 1. Private (closed) 2. Government
Comment #: 45
The fragmentation of forested land is at the expense of future generations - they are the one's who will "judge" what we do today! How many of our generation really care about tomorrow?
Comment #: 46
Can anything be done to stop this? Aren't industrial forests a minor percent of total forest land anyway?
Comment #: 47
I have seen this in Oneida County near my cottage - a very real concern.
Comment #: 48
This currently policy often creates a loss of forests and an increase in rural development. Everyone is a loser sooner or later; man, the forest, the wildlife and the world itself.
Comment #: 49
We need to be very careful about (hidden) develoment companies buying land thru the "back door".
Comment #: 50
Instead of the State purchasing millions of dollars worth of land each year, maybe it would be better to give more incentives to landowners to manage their land sustainably.
Comment #: 51
Much of this could be addressed through zoning regulations.
Comment #: 52
These major scales have been driven by short-term corporate budget decisions. Once there blocks are sold and divided, they will never be reassembled. This could be a real dilemma - and feeds fragmentation problem -
Comment #: 53
As much land as is available should be preserved in WI. Very little is being done for stewardship.
Comment #: 54
WI short-term ownership, industrial, forests may be subject to short-sighted management practices.
Comment #: 55
Goal of involvement in this issue should be to further general broad public and ecological values.
Comment #: 56
I am not sure I understand the implications of these changes.
Comment #: 57
These newly acquired areas that have been logged of most saleable trees should be either incorporated as new natural or wilderness areas - to let them regenerate - possibly create trails for hiking and dispersed camping - no vehicles.
Comment #: 58
Just real estate dealers - dollars talking - set sunset limits
Comment #: 59
Provide an incentive to keep it forested??
Comment #: 60
For example: Tigerton Lumber Co.
Comment #: 61
This may be caused by problems in taxation of forest land.
Comment #: 62
This is important and urgent.
Comment #: 63
Private rights?? Spend your time on things we can do something with.
Comment #: 64
More fragmentation.
Comment #: 65
County and State purchases - no good
Comment #: 66
As long as lands are managed under sustainable forest principles it doesn't matter who own them. May need more forestry staff however to deal with increased parcels or land transfers.
Comment #: 67
Watch all sales to foreign countries or to no harvest groups and large developers especially large tracts.
Comment #: 68
The Willow Region the State got hold of was great! What a unique area that will be kept "clean." The rest of four States timber venture lands that the "14 investors" got hold of might turn into something ugly. Such as clear cutting and selling off the clear cut parcels. Money on their minds???
Comment #: 69
Ties to our number 1 issue fragmentation and forest conversion.
Comment #: 70
Let's not allow developers to buy and change forest lands!
Comment #: 71
We must somehow "buck the trend" to sell our forests to build needlessly in our wilderness areas. The state should continue to buy large tracts of land to protect them.
Comment #: 72
I disagree that this is a "trend". You are making too much of a couple recent examples
Comment #: 73
The state needs to buy as much as possible.
Comment #: 74
Government owns most of the forest land more if they want to improve it put it into private lands
Comment #: 75
Get it legislated now - that no more forest land gets converted into other uses - it should stay as is - i.e. no more industrial ownership.
Comment #: 76
Some of this land must be purchased by the state or other governmental organization to keep it available for public use and timber production.
Comment #: 77
State should buy large blocks as available whenever possible
Comment #: 78
hunting, trapping and logging are being phased out!
Comment #: 79
Too much state owned land leave it to the private and not ruin the tax base
Comment #: 80
Aspin a place for good land use planning by counties and towns. Zoning helps but is not total ans.
Comment #: 81
Aren't C1 and C2 interrelated
Comment #: 82
I don't think the state should interfere with the free enterprise activity.
Comment #: 83
Fragmentation will likely decrease productive acres.
Comment #: 84
The forested lands need to be protected from being converted to other land uses.
Comment #: 85
We must not only keep our forests, but increase then.
Comment #: 86
we only have to go back to the 1930's to see what happens when forestlands are not around. The forest programs of the late 30's did a lot to our eco system but as of 2000 these programs have been ignored. Cut down the forest fro agriculture.
Comment #: 87
This goes into holding like parks and then go downhill
Comment #: 88
These owners were given signficant tax breaks (as they should have) however there should have been more lasting restriction on any conversion, we have a great investment in this forestland.
Comment #: 89
The government needs to buy more land to protect it from the harm that results when there are too many owners.
Comment #: 90
I don't believe that this is the general rule - only occasionally.
Comment #: 91
Which wasy is wind blowing?
Comment #: 92
Let economics of the private sector alone - the state has enough land - just manage it properly for what it was intended for in the first place.
Comment #: 93
State should obtain more of this land.
Comment #: 94
It is very alarming that these forst which have produced timber and timber products for years are being fragmented and converted. Our economy needs these blocks. A major reason for those conversions is the huge estate tax charged when original owner dies. Rapidly rising property values also cause the conversion. There is more money in selling than in timber production.
Comment #: 95
Private land will in forest cover will likely remain that way. Tax incentives will rpovide for public access.
Comment #: 96
Private land will in forest cover will likely remain that way. Tax incentives will rpovide for public access.
Comment #: 97
This trend is disturbing.
Comment #: 98
Subdivisions, need I say more?
Comment #: 99
It is critical the Dept. show strong leadership by ensuring industrial forest lands remain in forested cover (for timber production, habitat, and carbon sequestration) and accessible to the public, either thru acquisition of the land itself, or thru acquisition of conservation easements.
Comment #: 100
This isn't alarming, just something we need to continue to work with.
Comment #: 101
If removed from industrial forest ownership and sold to small private landowners, potential for large loss of recreational potential, loss of roundwood production, increased fire protection obligations, .....
Comment #: 102
THe state plan should really look at what all is out there and who owns what and then look to the future with lots of what if scenarios.
We need to get a handle on what we want and head in that direction. Public ownership of forested lands may be the bext way to preserve these lands for future generations as well as recreational use.
Comment #: 103
Careful planning here will significantly aid the smart growth process and future state land aquisition as well as land management priorities.
Comment #: 104
Conversion to government ownership, especially DNR, ownership I think is good. I think that better guarantees sustainable uses, especially recreational uses. However, non-industrial uses often include management strategies counter to sustainability of the forest and eliminates public use. That is bad! The plan should promote strategies for conversion, where-ever possible, of industrial forests from private ownership to public, either state or county (preferable state-as a former county official it's my experience that public interests are better served through the state then the county).
Comment #: 105
I see this as one of the biggest potential problems in our area of northern Wisconsin. Some of the large holdings of paper companies are being sold as small parcels to "urban-absentee" landowners who have no interest or understanding of forest management. I believe this will be an incredible problem which will not be adequately addressed (I'm not sure it can be).
Comment #: 106
This is linked to ecological issues since block size affects many ecological functions.
Comment #: 107
but them now for public use or lose them to developmentor posting to prevent public use.
Comment #: 108
but them now for public use or lose them to developmentor posting to prevent public use.
Comment #: 109
This may actually be a benefit as greater numbers of people involved in forest management may rate values other than just fiber production much higher. But they will need DNR assistance and education efforts to know what those benefits could be and how they can best achieve both their individual goals and healthy watershed goals along with other landowners.
Comment #: 110
The one with the most money wins the rights to the land and its future devopment rights.
Comment #: 111
In my opinion, the industrial forests will be nearly completely privatized within the next fifteen years. Many industrial holders will sell lands outright. Those keeping their lands will probably sell private hunting leases.
Comment #: 112
Address how to stablilize land use in an unstabile economic environment
Comment #: 113
This is already a issue,(Land Aquisition)
Comment #: 114
This is already a issue,(Land Aquisition)
Comment #: 115
the state should try to purchase as much of this land as possible.
Comment #: 116
Encourage long-term forest development through tax-incentives or other methods.
Comment #: 117
This is the background to ecosystem managment.
Comment #: 118
This is the background to ecosystem managment.
Comment #: 119
DEPENDS IF THE STATE WANTS TO BUY THEESE THEN GATE THEM UP FOR ONLY THE GREENIES TO USE. I.E WILDERNESS
Comment #: 120
Further fragmentation of these large tracks of forests will only lead to the loss of biodiversity.
Comment #: 121
You cannot prevent them from selling the land. But might be able to persuade them into keeping the land forested.
Comment #: 122
We can't do much with 1-20 acre lots but if we don't change the trends all private forestland will end up that way.
Comment #: 123
It is imperative to get the public's opinion as to what is to be done with land that comes under control of the DNR.
Comment #: 124
It is imperative to get the public's opinion as to what is to be done with land that comes under control of the DNR.
Comment #: 125
We know it is happening, but not sure what the implications will be. We do know if they are divided management will change and they will not be reassembled again.
Comment #: 126
See comments on fragmentation and biodiversity which relate to the changes in forest ownership
Comment #: 127
Is this a state forest issue or a private issue?
Comment #: 128
With proper incentives common goals can still be acheived.
Comment #: 129
The government should allocate more money for buying private lands, which I think would improve ecology and sociology.
Comment #: 130
Large blocks are probably best contolled by the state, but just how many and where the blocks are is the real question.
Comment #: 131
Large blocks of public land should stay in public ownership.
Comment #: 132
I have serious doubts about the ethics of foreign multinational companies management policies for forest lands. They have no ownership or stake in long term stewardship of the land.
Comment #: 133
I think the transfer of lands to private owners and government owned land is much more important than timber harvesting.
Comment #: 134
Depending on what the "other uses" are!
I own 180 acres of forest in northern
Bayfield county. My intent is to harvest
a (very) little, manage for wildlife and
protect several acres of 100+ year old
white pine for my children and their
children. Others in my area are seeing fit
to sell theirs off in 5 to 20 acre chunks
for development! Is one house on 20 acres
with the balance of the forest left untouched
and/or properly managed a problem any
worse than a paper company clear cutting
a forty? I doubt it. Something to think
about, eh?
Comment #: 135
It is the single most important economic and social trend in the township where I live.
Comment #: 136
This is where B6 could be included to address this trend.
Comment #: 137
Protection of these forests, especially along riparian areas needs to be a high priority.
Comment #: 138
We need to be aware of the possibility of forest fragmentation occurring at increasing rates due to these trends.
Comment #: 139
Protective and management laws-laws that can and will be enforced. The increase in the land conversion will be far ahead of the ability to educate private land owners.
Comment #: 140
These are excellent opportunities to use Stewardship Fund monies to protect these large tracts.
Comment #: 141
Wherever possible, the large forest ownerships should be kept intact. Otherwise, splitting them up almost inevitably leads to more harmful habitat fragmentation and intensive development.
Comment #: 142
WI should be prepared to capture these large parcels as they become available.
Comment #: 143
WI should be prepared to capture these large parcels as they become available.
Comment #: 144
We need to manage our own woods not have foreign companies buy them up.
Comment #: 145
We need to find a balance here. I don't want developers to purchase the land, then split it up for lots.
Comment #: 146
Projected land use considerations must be provided for appropriate plan formulation. If large tracts are split up action plans should be in place to deal with the resulting changes.
Comment #: 147
Many private landowners are working to improve the condition of our forests.
Comment #: 148
I hesitate to have governmental and private transactions co-mingling...
Comment #: 149
Public land should be for the public not ketp from the public. Places like YellowStone should be kept open to the public in Winter! It is not just for summer use.
Comment #: 150
Ties in with forest fragmentation if the land is sold to individuls and then developed.
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS