Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C2. Trend: More people are purchasing forested lands.
Comment #: 1
Points out a need for people to help manage timber lands I.e. more DNR foresters to help private citizens
Comment #: 2
Oak wilt is, in my opinion, one of the biggest challenges we face in my part of the state. A contractor bulldozes out a homesite in June. Less than 5 years later a woodpecker is heard hammering away on the skeletal remains of the once prized yard trees. The proud new owner of "a few acres in the woods" armed with chain saw and summer vacation carves out a campsite. A few years later his campsite is a brush choked stump field. My point is this. Some people ruin their land thru ignorance before they ever get started. Education is the answer. Organizatins such as "Wisconsin Woodland Ownership Associaion" and the upstart "Wisconsin Family Forests" are helpful, but a far broader aproch is needed. If you want to address an issue in a state wide plan let it be (education of landowners)
Comment #: 3
(. . .public ownership of Wisconsin's forests is increasing") is a conflicting statement with ("the amount of forested land open for public use is decreasing") as in C5.
Comment #: 4
Another term for fragmentation. New strategys must be developed to deal with this.
Comment #: 5
Land us committees formed by townships are now determining the number of acres needed to build a home. This is a township matter.
Comment #: 6
The State of Wisconsin and the DNR are major players in the breakup of forested land. This year the taxe on our well managed forested land MORE THAN DOUBLED. As a number of the American Treee Farm System for over 30 years who has TRIED to follow the best management practices our family may have to follow the assessor's recommendaton "Put a lane in and sell it off" (Clayton Songbuck - assessor)
Comment #: 7
The State of Oregon has dealt with this issue quite successfully with a strong timber/grazing zoning and MINIMUM building parcels in these areas are greater than 240 acres!
Comment #: 8
We can't change this trend.
Comment #: 9
But no new state forest are being created - why not?
Comment #: 10
Smaller parcels I believe will eventaully erode the forest lands to the point where natural woodlands and lakes will all be populated far beyond there capaabilities thus damaging them forever I favor minimum acreage purchase requirements!
Comment #: 11
Better zoning needed at a state level to present "forest sprawl"!
Comment #: 12
When the yuppies come with their deep pockets, what else? Also more taxes to the town. They won't enter their forest lands into the Managed Forest Status, because of the horrendous amount of detail required in the application form it turns off most consultants (including myself)!
Comment #: 13
We must somehow curtail this rampant development of our pristine lands.
Comment #: 14
The most vulnerable areas, being those that have not or little community/governmental ordinances to regulate obstruction; starting with a detailed mapping and identification of forested land, inclusion of this information in land surveys and followup regulations, assumtining and penalties.
Comment #: 15
Too many people are out destroying the very thing they are looking for - peace and quiet. Where will our (?) go to enjoy nature if its all covered over with houses and roads? Fragmentation does not work.
Comment #: 16
same as C1
Comment #: 17
More polution!
Comment #: 18
This is future
Comment #: 19
(". . . more fragmentation") High Taxes
Comment #: 20
Governemnt should not try to be "Big Brother" to everyone on every topic.
Comment #: 21
All stock market booms end with busts - see Edward Chancellar's "Devil take the Hindmost". One thing to worry about is what to do with these properties if they are all suddenly dumped back into the market. Alternatively, educating the public on ecosystem services or encouraging their participation in ecosystem services or encouraging their participation is ecosystem unification programs might be an option. Community based stuff.
Comment #: 22
If, as I have read, one homesite developed on one 40 acre parcel severely impacts that 40 acres - ie wildlife, clean water, herbicides, pesticides, etc. - we are indeed in need of serious assessment and serious education to know what the longterm consequences will be
Comment #: 23
Not in favor of losing our woodlots to housing
Comment #: 24
you can't help it or stop it. That is considered development. What we have to do is convince people that they have an obligation to our present and future to manage these lands and provide help and guidance.
Comment #: 25
It is an issue, but could the state afford forest lands at developer prices
Comment #: 26
this trend may harm certain wildlife species who require vast unbroken areas, trails also are harful to the forest base- compaction
Comment #: 27
An attempt to consolidate the forest land should include purchasing these large parcels of land foremerly owned by timber co or other companies. All efforts should be made to prevent it from being purchased by development co's such as Four Seasons of MN/WI - where large beautiful parcels are subdivided into small lots most for recreation from forests who have little regard for its naturalness and just want to pollute it with a wide variety of recreational vehicles and noise and air pollution.
Comment #: 28
I'm concerned about all the land around city's and lakes and rivers that are being turned into homes and you can hardly go to a lake that isn't dotted with homes on all 4 sides
Comment #: 29
See comment at question A12
Comment #: 30
So be it - see above note.
Comment #: 31
The division/development of forested lands into 5 acre and less lots is totally changing the character of the north. What people used to think it as "up north" is now "north suberbia".
Comment #: 32
Need sound land use planning in place - more incentives to locate in clusters outside of forested lands. This doesn't mean on prime farmland either!
Comment #: 33
Both C1 and C2 are important, but I don't know what the state can do about it.
Comment #: 34
We need land use policies. While housing may move out into our woods, we need to require that the woods need management. Show them the long term economics.
Comment #: 35
major land use changes should be monitored
Comment #: 36
Should forest areas be set aside and limit building on such sites?
Comment #: 37
All the more reason for the state to manage for large blocks of continuous canopy forests wherever appropriate
Comment #: 38
Once apened to development it's no longer a forest.
Comment #: 39
Proper forest education of private owners is needed - to be encouraged
Comment #: 40
Even though the total forested acres are increasing, more land is being taken out of managed forests and convented to other uses. The result is probably less wood products available than your inventory indicates. The forest crop and MFL do little to prevent this. Something along the line of the farm preservation act for tree farms needs to be inacted. High taxes are the biggest reason for this.
Comment #: 41
At prop tax evaluations of $700 to $900 per acre - and annual taxes of $20 or more per acre for woodland. There will be many many more parcels. Forest ownership and mgt does not pay at that tax rate. MFL merely delays tax until harvest. Fragmentation is inevitable for all but the wealthy owner who only owns the forest for recreation.
Comment #: 42
Too many people buy land - put it into tree farm programs - let it lay and do not participate actively in proper management. I have planted trees and actively managed forest land for over 50 years. I do not like what I see just to escape taxes and not be constructive. Let us control this in a better manner. Walter Irubehof(??)
Comment #: 43
Hat to see it/can't stop it.
Comment #: 44
Perhaps fundemental issues are population and consumption, and these tough issues won't be addressed by any popular politician.
Comment #: 45
Stop ?
Comment #: 46
forest land should not be cut up into pieces smaller than 80 ac
Comment #: 47
needs to be discouraged
Comment #: 48
That's population growth! We are olso picking up more taxes to pay the wages of more pencil pushers.
Comment #: 49
This issue (and educating small blockowners) is very important.
Comment #: 50
Don't encourage it!
Comment #: 51
Biggest problem with our WI forests
Comment #: 52
Big issue in Western WI see C1 above!
Comment #: 53
I have built a house on my 40 acres and mow a large lawn, but I have also planted over 10,000 trees
Comment #: 54
Purchase by the state and federal governments of critically valuable land areas should proceed as fast as possible. Cooperation and participation in these land purchases by organizations such as Nature Conservancy should be encouraged.
Comment #: 55
Now nearly impossible to buy forest land for tree growing. Have many examples of this adjacent to my tree farm in Adams County.
Comment #: 56
This is probably the biggest problem when it comes to forested land. Too many small rural developed tracts which results in poor if any forest management, loss of plant and animal life, more pollution.
Comment #: 57
Again, incourage temporary and minumum fragmentation.
Comment #: 58
This is a problem, especially for people who wish they could purchase some land but can't afford it!! This will become or already has become a political issue locally, county, state, national.
Comment #: 59
Fragmentation diminishes forest value. Key areas should be identified on a county or township basis where zoning regulations are strengthened.
Comment #: 60
Most buyers have not a clue about how they will manage their land. Reasons for purchase are usually recreational and emotional. Only later do owners begin to think about management aspects. HOW SHALL WE COMMUNICATE AND INTERACT WITH THIS LARGE AND EVER CHANGING POPULATION???
Comment #: 61
Look at Vilas/Onieda county. 95% + of available private land is developed. This will only pressure the government to sell public land in the future. The fact that all but a very small percentage of lakeshore has been left natural is a tragedy.
Comment #: 62
This fragmentation is creating a need for more intensive management and regulation. In many areas the rural character and values (logging, farming, hunting) are being changed by housing developments and increasing land values. Tax breaks need to be increased for landowners who want to leave land in forest and not sell out to developers.
Comment #: 63
Can this be better managed through education to produce better habitat?
Comment #: 64
My comment for this one is same as C1 above.
Comment #: 65
Perhaps additional tax advantages could be associated with the preservation of true wilderness areas.
Comment #: 66
The forests on State or Federal land is already chopped up with private homes, especially on lakes and streams. More pressure should be brought to force buy-outs of critical private holdings in there areas - grandfather the current owners and it would revert to the State upon death - not transferable -
Comment #: 67
They had huge tax breaks - now reap large $ on sales - impose huge capital gaines taxes now, not just timber value
Comment #: 68
Restraints should be put on developers as to how small acreage's may be broken down for development.
Comment #: 69
Our woodlot management are in jeopardy with developers looking at $ instead of respect for woodlots. If we give farmers more breaks in $ they will leave these as is.
Comment #: 70
More taxpayers but - freedom is wonderful! Fortunately, most will keep it in forest.
Comment #: 71
We must discourage more roads and highways; large homes for only 2 or 3 people. These homes have large lawns requiring mowing, spraying, etc., yet producing nothing in comparison when it once was a producing forest. Trees planted on these lawns are worthless as they produce nothing more than brush and the expense of eventually destroying them and planting more of same.
Comment #: 72
Stop selling forest lands to the public.
Comment #: 73
Huze zoning issue - need to get involvement through smart growth.
Comment #: 74
For example: Tigerton Lumber Co.
Comment #: 75
Do not make it convenient for these people to fragment the forest and have taxpayers pay for improved roads and other services. They are creating many problems. Require them to pay for them.
Comment #: 76
Private ownership of small parcels has lead to our deer problem. The first thing they buy is (No Hunting signs)
Comment #: 77
Agree for public land - disagree/not for private land - respect citizen's rights!!
Comment #: 78
A very big problem facing the forest industry.
Comment #: 79
Partly and outcome of macro economic effects with Industrial Forestry and agriculture.
Comment #: 80
At what number of acres does a forest stop being a forest?
Comment #: 81
Part of the reason more land is in forest. Ag land is being replaced by trees.
Comment #: 82
There should continue to be financial incentives to keep land in MFP.
Comment #: 83
Understand what all agencies and private have to offer for non-industrial private (some agencies may contradict the goals set by this plan).
Comment #: 84
Like I put on question B3, prices are $1,000/per acre and up. Many big parcels are broken down into 40 acres or smaller to fit people's budgets.
Comment #: 85
People need to learn to live gently with the land, counter to the developer, realtor - curbs and gutters mentality. What ever happened to a sandy woods lane? People who can't live without sidewalks are addicted to concrete and asphalt.
Comment #: 86
Government needs to stay out of any controls of private ownership.
Comment #: 87
Need for well thought out land use plans with forest management integral(?)
Comment #: 88
We need to plan this development to not interfere with another.
Comment #: 89
The state should buy as much forest land as possible and preserve it for sportsmen.
Comment #: 90
Private owners need to be involved in forest management and the statewide forest plan.
Comment #: 91
More roads, more yards, more houses, etc. must be stopped. It is ruining our forests, our health and environment.
Comment #: 92
That's just the way they want it
Comment #: 93
Set annual limits of conversion of private land acquisition based on econmic impact to industry/forestry, i.e. since less trees are needed ? improve utilization, efficiency, set limits on that basis.
Comment #: 94
This is the #1 cause of lost forest acres. The general public must be informed that the timber harvests on public lands does not eliminate it from a forested condition.
Comment #: 95
Hands off - let the little guy enjoy his/her own forest
Comment #: 96
sprawl costs us all! What a phome.
Comment #: 97
Please, help put a stop to the increasing smaller parcels, and fragmentation, developers are greedy, money hungry opportunists who care little about the birds, animals and plants that make Wisconsin such a beautiful and special place. We must stop allowing people to rip up and fragment such a wonderful place. Please, lets save our state for future generations.
Comment #: 98
Aspin Land use plannings. Also clustering of homesite must be considered. We cannot continue to put homes and bummer dwelling on every 5 acre parcel and maintain healthy forests that provide clean water, air, ect.
Comment #: 99
Why not let the little land owners manage their forest! I would think the individuals would take pride and do a good job
Comment #: 100
Need for education is becoming a higher priority than ever before.
Comment #: 101
Too many (40 acres & up) parcels are being split up into small, 3 to 5 acre plots, strictly for part time residential use. These small tracts seem to be of little value as forest land.
Comment #: 102
This is America! Were you watching TV this month? That govt should do anything about it.
Comment #: 103
We don't need more roads, houses; leave our forests to grow and supply clean air. We don't need industrial ownership.
Comment #: 104
Focus on increasing public lands while at same time working with private owners to encourage sound forest management. Establish strong "zoning" to prohibit fragmentation.
Comment #: 105
I don't see a need to expand state or county ownership of forest land. The more that is privately owned the better.
Comment #: 106
Private ownership of forested land is a drea/desire of many people including myself. To maintain the very character of the forst that is most desireable to people (I.e. the unfragmented natural atmosphere) we need to also limit the urban sprawl and fragmentation of the forests which is presently occurring throughout WI. Perhaps 80-160 acre minimum size parcels is the best way of achieving this. (I.e. requiaring minimum acreage parcels would provide the opportunity for private ownership of forested land while also maintaining the natural forested atmosphere)
Comment #: 107
Urban development into forest tracs is, in my opinion, the largest threat to quality of blocks of forestland.
Comment #: 108
We must protect our forests at all costs.
Comment #: 109
Many people enjoy the forest and all its creatures and find consolation in manageing smaller forest areas.
Comment #: 110
I don't like to see this as all at once you have to provide more roads plus some hardships for school transportation.
Comment #: 111
We need to find and end those state and federal funded programs that facilitate this conversion. (Road aids, etc. require those who build in remote areas to build roads to specifications
Comment #: 112
Personally I believe people shouln't live in the country unless their livelihood come from the land.
Comment #: 113
Not much state can do about this.
Comment #: 114
Particularly hunters and some larger logging operations
Comment #: 115
Education upon purchase.
Comment #: 116
More tax base, more economic activity - GREAT!!
Comment #: 117
Private tree farming can and will occur if the state does not tax them out of existance.
Comment #: 118
Living in northern Oconto Co., I know first hand about this trend. Every effort should be directed at these people on forest fire prevention and quick accesibility and planning for fire-fighting equipment to get to their home. The home-owners in our Western statess now know that they were not prepared to fight fires.
Comment #: 119
The opposite is also true. At the upper end of pvt owners there also seems to be some consolidation primarily by timberland investment groups.
Comment #: 120
I think there should be a control on how much land the state and county would continue to acquire. More land in coutny and state hands leaves less for the public sector. I think more should be available for public acquisitions.
Comment #: 121
This is because recreational use is more valued that forest products. If it was economical to own forest land for forest products, it wouldn't be divided!
Comment #: 122
True
Comment #: 123
Another disturbing trend.
Comment #: 124
I do not like the current trend of 'build your house in a woodlot'. It's very hard for a woodlot tree to adapt to the life of a lawn tree in the amount of time (1-2 years) that it takes to build the house. And construction damage to those trees is unacceptable when there are many ways to prevent it.
Comment #: 125
Again, why the comments under the named trend, especially the last sentence.
Comment #: 126
The average acres each land owner has continues to decrease with reassessment. This change affects the number of homes and subdividing taking place. Reassessment of property taxes on water will continue to change demographics until only the richest individuals will be able to afford lake front property.
Comment #: 127
Regulations should be created to keep forest land as forest land and to discourage urban sprawl in forested area of the state.
Comment #: 128
Hugely important issue affecting my area of the world.
Comment #: 129
We need to be careful and not try to dictate to property owners what they may or may not be able to do with their property.
Comment #: 130
And too often with these smaller ownerships, owners are less likely to manage because of a desire to have the trees there for their own enjoyment.
Comment #: 131
Everyone wants to purchase a piece of wooded property.
Comment #: 132
I see this as one isse that can be acknowlegded in the plan, but that an outgrowth of the issue would be guidance for the private landowner on how best to conserve their forest resources while developing their land, or recommendations for forested lands being subdivided to maintain certain intact acreages.
Comment #: 133
need to be sure these forests are properly managed
Comment #: 134
This issue will greatly affect the future of foresty in Wisconsin and should be thoroughly addressed in the plan.
Comment #: 135
Let's work with landowners to preserve/maintain what is there
Comment #: 136
All opportunities for increasing state and county ownership of forested lands should be pursued. However, it is inevitable that private, non-industrial forest interests are going to increase their holdings. The state needs to build programs that will provide incentives for private landowners to provide recreational and forest products benefits from their forests. Because of the current political environment I'm skeptical that they will be accomplished through private ownership, ergo public ownership should be maximized.
Comment #: 137
Another trend regarding this factor which concerns me greatly, is the fact that not only is this happening, but a large percentage of these new owners are urban and individuals who have lost any understanding of natural systems and healthy ecosystems.
Comment #: 138
Linked to fragmentation and other ecological function issues.
Comment #: 139
This is more of a problem than harvesting trees and few people see it that way.
Comment #: 140
Tough issue, but it has to be addressed because of the impact on recreation and biodiversity.
Comment #: 141
There needs to be a sense of the big picture in terms of working with the environment to maintain a place for us to flourish. Not thinking short term with the idea of "At least I will have a great vacation home in my lifetime-my children or grandchildren may not, the woods may be destroyed by then through actions such as building vacation homes here and roads and such, but I do not care." We need to start caring and considering that. The idea of the effects on the seventh generation.
Comment #: 142
rural makeup and urban sprawl must be dealt with NOW!!
Comment #: 143
THIS is the #1 problem with our forestland in Northern Wisconsin!!!
Comment #: 144
Get out the word about permanent loss of valuable wildlife habitat from development - not from logging/forest management!!
Comment #: 145
I think that forested recreational lands and home sites could be integrated-perhaps by integrating trails into developments. These residential/recreational forests could be seperate from "wilderness" forests. (They could also be integerated with industrial or crop forests.) Could also encourage the use of "cluster" developments-SEWRPC has an excellent publication on this.
Comment #: 146
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING HERE ? WILL WE TRY TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM MOVING TO FOREST AREAS WITH MORE RULES AND REGULATIONS ?
Comment #: 147
Fragmetation should be minimized and you should strive to keep forests as forests. It is a positive thing that people show interest in nature, but should be educated to povide the land with the best use it can have.
Comment #: 148
Land is valued now for recreational uses, this makes it almost impossible to purchase land for timber production.
Comment #: 149
ditto
Comment #: 150
The comments made before support this agreement.
Comment #: 151
New and potential forest owners should be educated on the value of the resource and reminded of long term goals (not just chop it down and make lots of money and buy a new forested property)
Comment #: 152
Same problems, just more people to deal with. Probably not a forest plan issue.
Comment #: 153
Regulation is therefore needed.
Comment #: 154
See C2
Comment #: 155
Find a MFL tangent to curb fragmentation and harvesting of NIPF lands. A socieo-econimic task.
Comment #: 156
We can also place laws on the size of the lot upon which one can build, and how much they need to leave undisturbed, based on the forest type.
Comment #: 157
A place in the woods is now an acceptable alternatice to the"lake place".
Comment #: 158
Zoning laws should maintain the integrity of forested areas.
Comment #: 159
Something has to be done about urban sprawl.
Comment #: 160
See above comments
Comment #: 161
Shouldn't overlook the benefits of private small parcel ownership as long as impacts are controlled.
Comment #: 162
This issue is more reflective of the economic environment.
People that have discretionary income buy land. How they use
the land would be a "hard sell" in a forest plan.
Comment #: 163
See C1
Comment #: 164
I agree, and I think that the Forest Crop Law should be reformed to better serve the environmentally sensitive tendencies of many recent forest land purchasers. Most DNR foresters tend to turn these more wealthy, urban folks off with talk of intensive management, especially clearcutting. I've had friends who approached the DNR foresters for help, were appalled by their advice, and would rather forgo tax benefits or even subdivide to other like-minded people rather than accept an intensive management plan. This scenario is particularly true when DNR foresters advise shoreland property owners. It's often like mixing oil and water. DNR foresters generally need to be more flexible about letting people protect their beloved private lands for aesthetic and ecological benefits. These benefits - per "green accounting" - can be just as "valuable" to the public interest than getting out the cut. The FCL tax subsidies should reflect this fundamental balance and fairness. The current law is biased, hinders cooperation among this new generation of landowners, and contributes to fragmentation, exotics encroachment, and other problems. I urge the DNR to include needed FCL recommended reforms in its new statewide forest plan.
Comment #: 165
Forests are fun and I like the fact that more peaple are purchasing them. It helps to preserve an area.
Comment #: 166
I think it's true that people are purchasing more forested land and they need assistance in making good decisions on how to use that land.
Comment #: 167
many people are now buying there own land and there is not going to be anything left
Comment #: 168
This is already covered under the fragmentation issue.
Comment #: 169
Stick to other issues at this time.
Comment #: 170
Discourage development in forests in local land use planning efforts. Limit the impact of development on forested lands by encouraging cluster development with 50% or more of the parcel size dedicated to open space/forested land.
Comment #: 171
Dealing with this level of fragmentation may require too much human resource to make it worthwhile.
Comment #: 172
Some lands will be better off, due to lack of cows.
Comment #: 173
Easments and access rights should be ensured for recreation, forest management, fire protection.
Comment #: 174
They are private lands. It is up to the owner to decide. Not the gov.
Comment #: 175
People should only be allowed to destroy a small portion, if any of forest for building house and not for industrial use.
Comment #: 176
We must address urban sprall
Comment #: 177
again, more educational and incentive programs needed
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS