Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C4. Trend: Demographics of forest land owners is changing.
Comment #: 1
What wrong with that?
Comment #: 2
I agree with the statement. These people need education now! The days of us all learning from our own mistakes should be over. Forests heal much too slowly for the newcomers to blunder in kie I did many years ago. Having progressed, during the last 35 years, from (son of an absentee greenhorn) to (experienced resident woodsman) I must say I can see this issue from the inside out, from front to back, from back to front, etc.
Comment #: 3
Excellent - we finally will have old growth forest and a live and let live policy - NOT everyhting needs to be logged or managed!
Comment #: 4
Please remember that at least some of these people will search for the best available advice - but may want to remain in control without putting the government in charge!
Comment #: 5
They are letting their woods become a refuge for deer.
Comment #: 6
These will be the people who will want the private assistance referred to in C3.
Comment #: 7
"wealthier than past owners" - the only part of the above I agree with
Comment #: 8
What could the DNR do about this? The DNR doesn't seem able to match the number of activities it can handle with the number of staff that it has.
Comment #: 9
Again thte state should not even by thinking of stopping people from buying forested land, but promote programs that have different management techniques.
Comment #: 10
Need to educate urban owners! Forest management and economics need to be emphasised!
Comment #: 11
Education programs needed
Comment #: 12
Is this good or bad?
Comment #: 13
We need to educate new landowners about the impact they have on their land! WWOA can help but WWOA needs help in being a useable, viable source of info!
Comment #: 14
We should educate (if not dictate) landowners that we should not urbanize our woodlands and lakeshores
Comment #: 15
I'm on of these and you that more information on forest development/impacts should be available
Comment #: 16
This is why we have to provide quidance education and help with management. If we are prominent with our efforts we will reach many of these people and create examples of what can happen.
Comment #: 17
Too many allow no access or purchase to exclude hunting of any kind
Comment #: 18
not true!
Comment #: 19
Not sure that new owners value timber less. Many farmers looked to trees/timber as a place to go when they need $$ or lumber - they actually "valued" timber or woodland less than many new owners.
Comment #: 20
I don't think an attempt should be made to limit who is a landowner
Comment #: 21
Once again - how would this issue be addressed in a statewide forest plan? You are inferring that farmers are poor - reckless, etc. - get real. (". . . These newer private owners tend to be more cautious about harvesting their timber, less knowledgeable about rural areas . . .") - you are assuming this.
Comment #: 22
See C3
Comment #: 23
See note at A11
Comment #: 24
Keep working on educating the idiots and uninformed.
Comment #: 25
Need more education.
Comment #: 26
and some of them make excellent decisions for their land and don't want or need DNR help for that.
Comment #: 27
Sustainable, subsistence homesteadors may now or in the future be forced off the land through zoning and building codes that kill innovation and hope for the poor.
Comment #: 28
info
Comment #: 29
What can the state do about it? State forest should bbe managed according to what is appropriate on those landtypes, not on what private landowners are doing elsewhere, how about setting a good example?
Comment #: 30
So what's wrong with being cautious? A long term, private owner assitance, guidance plan is needed. The trend is there. You will not change it, but we may be able to guide it a bit for positive goals.
Comment #: 31
The existing tree farmers need property tax breaks to prevent this
Comment #: 32
This trend will only increase (See comment for C2.)
Comment #: 33
See C2
Comment #: 34
I'm aware of this in our area
Comment #: 35
Yea - don't take it away from them. Keep the loggers out!
Comment #: 36
Comes down to a land ethic - how do you regulate that? You have it, or you don't!
Comment #: 37
See above last sentence/question.
Comment #: 38
See C3
Comment #: 39
Tax these type of forest owners to discourage this type of ownership.
Comment #: 40
Many of them do not do any harvesting.
Comment #: 41
Education!
Comment #: 42
This lack of forest knowledge is apparent more and more everyday throughout the state - especially by the absentee owner.
Comment #: 43
Education is the answer. Seminars and workshops must be provided; even one on one or door to door meetings with new (city) landowners so they will understand the need for forest care.
Comment #: 44
Education is key. But I do think you are underestimating how many landowners are doing some kind of management on their lands. (ex) Wis. Woodland Owners, Tree Farmers Increasing, Consultants busy.
Comment #: 45
Educational efforts will need to be increased.
Comment #: 46
And they're pretty opinionated too. Mostly, they want cheap taxes, lots of service, and no trespassing - a tough bunch -
Comment #: 47
Allowing the private forests to return to a natural state will be important.
Comment #: 48
This could be a losing battle, as long as land values continue to increase, and counties look to increase tax bases and encourage fragmentation and development.
Comment #: 49
My comment here is same as C3.
Comment #: 50
Again, I am not sure I understand the implications of these changes.
Comment #: 51
Landowners will always manage their property in their best interest and should be allowed to do so.
Comment #: 52
This will take care of itself - less reliance on timber value and more on scenic and recreational value is a plus.
Comment #: 53
See comment above.
Comment #: 54
But not all bad - they could be assists if made partners - local communities need tax base
Comment #: 55
These people will hurt our woodlots.
Comment #: 56
Education to private landowners is important.
Comment #: 57
Such ownership should be encouraged!
Comment #: 58
More non-production areas.
Comment #: 59
Many landowners today are outright opposed to cutting trees period. This to me is stupid.
Comment #: 60
Must be educated to the benefit of M.F.P.
Comment #: 61
What is sad is like the previous statement (C3). Many landonwers don't follow good management goals. They clear cut or log it off too heavy and then sell it to new private owners for just recreational purposes. Results . . . Aspen regrowth . . . no hardwoods.
Comment #: 62
Regional issues awareness for absentee landlords could help to balance the trend of exporting of urban values to the out state rather than having urban mania tempered by rural values.
Comment #: 63
Many of these new owners actually have great interest in land stewardship and may surprise you with their knowledge and willingness to improve both timber and habitat on their land.
Comment #: 64
And when they buy land they often post it so locals can't hunt, ATV or snowmobile on it, like they had for years.
Comment #: 65
I live in norther Wis. It is very sad to see all of our local forests being bought out by non-residents.
Comment #: 66
get them involved in planning and land management
Comment #: 67
Just double the tax on absentee owners
Comment #: 68
This seems positive - not sure why it needs to be addressed
Comment #: 69
I may disagree with the circled words (less knowledgeable about rural areas).
Comment #: 70
Fine - if that's true.
Comment #: 71
This is the reason the public forests should be managed for all timber types and species. These tracts of private lands will become the old forest mentioned earlier.
Comment #: 72
Make new owners take short course on management options available to them.
Comment #: 73
The first thing these suburbanites do after the "boone & crockett" house is up is bush hog and mow down habitat. Mostly, they have plenty money-but no clue.
Comment #: 74
I would not like to see infringement of property owners rights.
Comment #: 75
How would you address it?
Comment #: 76
Yes, and they often post no hunting and defeat attempts to reduce our deer herd.
Comment #: 77
So what's bad about this. Seems it should serve our forests well. Is the forest plan being created to preserve the resource for the lumbermen?
Comment #: 78
Education and woodland owners associations can help this area - very important. Pride in forest management.
Comment #: 79
We need to get more of our forest or open land into management plans and discourage bldgs in the countryside
Comment #: 80
Education!
Comment #: 81
It's called free market enterprise, let the mark place rule.
Comment #: 82
This to me is a huge, very important point!
Comment #: 83
Encourage them to join the American Tree Farm System and assess their land at less than pasture.
Comment #: 84
The comments above also apply to this problem. A hard-core "tree hugger" will never change his or her mind, so we need to stress the fact that our forest are a renewable resource to be harvested.
Comment #: 85
In many ways it's a good trend with less pressure to cut
Comment #: 86
These new "brand" of landowners needs to receive and understand information land choice decisions. You CAN harvest and improve the forest land at the same time.
Comment #: 87
See C2
Comment #: 88
True
Comment #: 89
Teach them it's o.k to cut away!
Comment #: 90
Teach them it's o.k to cut away!
Comment #: 91
This does not bode well when thinking about exotic species coming into these forests
Comment #: 92
Again, not alarming, just a fact that we'll work with.
Comment #: 93
see comment regarding those who can afford lake front property.
Comment #: 94
Efforts need to be made to educate these people to make them aware that harvesting promotes recreational and aesthetic values among other values.
Comment #: 95
As indicated, often landowners don't know their options or what should or should not be done - on the other hand the county and state foresters often advise folks only on how to get the best timber sale from their property, so that is no help either.
We need to have an option for those folks that want to maintain the diversity and complexity of their forested lands, even if they don't yet understand what that entails.
We also need a system that rewards folks for jsut leaving their forests intact.
Comment #: 96
This issue illustrates the need for education and incentive programs, and for the state to be an agressive competator for these lands.
Comment #: 97
I believe this is probably the biggest problem and danger for the future of our forests in Wisconsin. We need to begin an aggressive campaign to educate these new landowners. Obviously, this would only reach a small number of people, because many are unwilling to listen, but we need to try to do something, or I have great fears for our future in Wisconsin.
Comment #: 98
Related to ecological function
Comment #: 99
This will have a huge effect on the management of many acres across Wisconsin.
Comment #: 100
And these are same people that are making judgments on forest management for the future. Great combinations.
Comment #: 101
Guilty as charged.
Comment #: 102
I almost think this a good thing, if they don't develop the land. Education is important, ultimately, so that the land can be managed to be healthy.
Comment #: 103
Harvesting of timber is not the only issue here. Not all lands should experience harvest. These people representing the new demographic need education from ecologists in addition to harvest happy foresters
Comment #: 104
The conflict arising from edcucated urbanites being given outdated advice from DNR forestors is very interested. Private sustainble forestry contractors are benefitting greatly from this new class of landowners.
Comment #: 105
More and more landowners I work with are more interested in aesthetics and wildlife, BUT most of them are not against logging if it improves the health of the woodlands.
Comment #: 106
urban owners need to be educated on how to manage their fosest for timber
Comment #: 107
As stated before we need to educate these people on the importance of taking an interest in managing their lands.
Comment #: 108
As stated before we need to educate these people on the importance of taking an interest in managing their lands.
Comment #: 109
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ENACT NEW LAWS HERE PRIVATE LAND IS JUST THAT.
Comment #: 110
These people need to be educated to better uderstand what goes into owning land and how to properly manage it. That way they will work better with foresters and the DNR because they will understand where they are coming from.
Comment #: 111
Rather than bash the values of these absentee landowners we could utilize the human and fiscal resources they represent.
Comment #: 112
This needs to be addressed because these owners need to be informed so that they can make quality educated decisions.
Comment #: 113
Education of the new owners is the answer.
Comment #: 114
Education of the new owners is the answer.
Comment #: 115
This group is not addressable in the forest plan. Deal with them if necessary through legislation, regulation, or taxation.
Comment #: 116
Good.
Comment #: 117
Again this tren calls for strong well thought out educational programs.
Comment #: 118
This trend indicates that people value forests for for more than just timber production. If anything it's because they are more knowledgable about forests and environmental issues NOT less knowledgable. Absentee landowners still pay taxes.
Comment #: 119
As a whole most new NIPF owners are looking to own land for asthetic and low to non-impact uses. So getting to them as whole shouldn't be to impossible. Getting them active in caring is another feat.
Comment #: 120
They are ready to be educated. They need to be shown the value of TSI, "Weeding the Woods", and uneven aged management. They all have yards which they take care of. When educated they will take care of their woods as well.
Comment #: 121
I think the current owners are better than the past owners, but they certainly need an education that forests are renewable. They should be required to join The Nature Conservancy and work on some restoration projects, so they see that land can handle changes.
Comment #: 122
Yup, I am one.
Comment #: 123
And the rate of ownership turnover is high too
Comment #: 124
again- education is a key factor
Comment #: 125
How is this different from the previous
topic/issue?
Comment #: 126
I fit in this category. My family and I own 120 forested acres. But I resent the implication that we are not or less knowledgeable about rural areas. We live in one. We've been appalled by what passes for professional forestry. We don't want to log our land because we have no confidence in local loggers or foresters. There are too many "horror stories" of other people trusting the professionals and getting their property trashed.
Comment #: 127
I fit in this category. My family and I own 120 forested acres. But I resent the implication that we are not or less knowledgeable about rural areas. We live in one. We've been appalled by what passes for professional forestry. We don't want to log our land because we have no confidence in local loggers or foresters. There are too many "horror stories" of other people trusting the professionals and getting their property trashed.
Comment #: 128
This is not an inherently bad scenario, but it does have impacts on production and management.
Comment #: 129
I agree, and this trend poses both threats and opportunities. See preceding replies to C2 and C3.
Comment #: 130
In my book we call these landowners "uneducated" about the efeect of mistreatment of forests. These people really could care less about the environmental effects that their land ownership has.
Comment #: 131
Education needed here.
Comment #: 132
Education needed here.
Comment #: 133
Careful - these guys may know what they are doing,
and would resent being cast as ignorant. Their values
may just be different.
Comment #: 134
This is a continuation of the education process that we need to provide to these owners.
Comment #: 135
My first reaction to this trend is "so what?" I don't see how being more cautious about timber harvesting is detrimental, as this paragraph seems to suggest.
Comment #: 136
Easments and access rights should be ensured for recreation, forest management, fire protection.
Comment #: 137
Absent landowners are great - but it is a same that wealthy people buy up property and close off receretational trails.
Comment #: 138
With large tracts of land in private ownership this makes it very difficult to manage wildlife and access for other rec. oppertunities are limited
Comment #: 139
I think certain landowners in the Town of vermont might fit this description.
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS